arnie_ni
Full Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2014
- Messages
- 15,208
Very possibly. Ignoring the offside, its a definite pen. I'm just not sure how it works with the offsideBut the foul started while he was onside.
Very possibly. Ignoring the offside, its a definite pen. I'm just not sure how it works with the offsideBut the foul started while he was onside.
Don't think anybody knows how anything works with offsideVery possibly. Ignoring the offside, its a definite pen. I'm just not sure how it works with the offside
They're both arguing the same thing though. They are both saying taking it from the shirt sleeve is stupidCarragher too busy shouting and Flemming to understand Neville's point.
Exactly, but carragher trying to argue with Neville because Neville is for technology, but he isn't for the rules. Carragher was saying Neville was saying he is and isn't for VAR.They're both arguing the same thing though. They are both saying taking it from the shirt sleeve is stupid
Carragher was spot on.Carragher too busy shouting and Flemming to understand Neville's point.
It almost looked like they put the line on his elbow.Whenever anyone ever says "Your offside or your not" then you can show them this or the Bamford offsides...
Your offside because some idiot at a screen decided that's where your t-shirt line is...
What a load of bollocks.
Not what he was arguing with Neville about. He was saying Neville was contradicting himself saying he was both for and against VAR. He was just repeatedly shouting over for Neville like the massive twat he is.Carragher was spot on.
It doesn't solve anything because you still have to draw a line. What if there's 1 cm of daylight? 2cm? 5cm? Can the technology accurately decide if there was 1cm of daylight? We'll just have the same complaints saying "that's surely not offside, I can't see any daylight there he looks level".What was it anyone had against the 'daylight' rule again? How about all of your body is offside, otherwise you're level and so, onside? Just like all of the ball needs to cross the line. Simple solution or am I the simple one?
Sigh...so, fecked it is!It doesn't solve anything because you still have to draw a line. What if there's 1 cm of daylight? 2cm? 5cm? Can the technology accurately decide if there was 1cm of daylight? We'll just have the same complaints saying "that's surely not offside, I can't see any daylight there he looks level".
I have no issue with something being offside by a mm if they can guarantee they are picking the exact moment the ball leaves the boot and the can find the perfect point to draw the lines from.It doesn't solve anything because you still have to draw a line. What if there's 1 cm of daylight? 2cm? 5cm? Can the technology accurately decide if there was 1cm of daylight? We'll just have the same complaints saying "that's surely not offside, I can't see any daylight there he looks level".
The biggest problem with the "daylight" rule is that it never, ever existed. It's a weird myth that has somehow got lodged in people's minds.What was it anyone had against the 'daylight' rule again? How about all of your body is offside, otherwise you're level and so, onside? Just like all of the ball needs to cross the line. Simple solution or am I the simple one?
If the camera can show that a single piece of the attackers body is in line or behind the last piece of the defenders body while the ball is in contact with the passers foot, then he is onside.It doesn't solve anything because you still have to draw a line. What if there's 1 cm of daylight? 2cm? 5cm? Can the technology accurately decide if there was 1cm of daylight? We'll just have the same complaints saying "that's surely not offside, I can't see any daylight there he looks level".
Feet might make sense. At least then you'd have a consistent point to measure from.The quick fix is to go just on the feet (because it's much easier to pinpoint)... Not the arms or head or other shit, just the feet.
The second thing to do is give them one line and 20 seconds.
If they can't work it out, it's onside
It was a normal coming together according to VARThe pen wasn't a clear and obvious error?
Yep. They should bring back "the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker". Given the error associated with the frame rate of the camera if it's a few mm here or there they should just give it to the forward. Failing that you could go with whatever the "soft signal" is from the linesman. If he initially thought it was off and it's not obviously on then it stays as off and vice versa.It doesn't solve anything because you still have to draw a line. What if there's 1 cm of daylight? 2cm? 5cm? Can the technology accurately decide if there was 1cm of daylight? We'll just have the same complaints saying "that's surely not offside, I can't see any daylight there he looks level".
Has it ever been there?Yep. They should bring back "the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker". Given the error associated with the frame rate of the camera if it's a few mm here or there they should just give it to the forward. Failing that you could go with whatever the "soft signal" is from the linesman. If he initially thought it was off and it's not obviously on then it stays as off and vice versa.
Neville even called it before they came out and said itIt was a normal coming together according to VAR
And people wonder why the system is fecked. They have literal idiots running the bloody thing.
It was never daylight intepretation apparently although was talked about at different stages.What was it anyone had against the 'daylight' rule again? How about all of your body is offside, otherwise you're level and so, onside? Just like all of the ball needs to cross the line. Simple solution or am I the simple one?
Yeah I think it should be the feet. You're not really gaining an "advantage' from anything else IMOThe quick fix is to go just on the feet (because it's much easier to pinpoint)... Not the arms or head or other shit, just the feet.
The second thing to do is give them one line and 20 seconds.
If they can't work it out, it's onside
Yep. Using this example, yes his arm is offside but if he doesn't move his feet to get to the ball he won't score. Its all about the feet, should be the deciding factor. Youll still have mm calls but at least everyone could accept the starting position.Yeah I think it should be the feet. You're not really gaining an "advantage' from anything else IMO
They're still going to have to draw lines for the daylight rule, deciding whether there's any part of the attacker that's level with defender is just the same predicament they find themselves in now where they need to draw accurate lines for both the defender's and attacker's "active" body part that will determine the offside, and ensure they've chosen the right frame where the ball is kicked.If the camera can show that a single piece of the attackers body is in line or behind the last piece of the defenders body while the ball is in contact with the passers foot, then he is onside.
Daylight is far, far easier to implement because it gives all of the benefit of the doubt to the attacker - the way it should be.
Offside was brought in to prevent goal hanging. Not for nerds in a porter cabin to draw diagrams from armpits.
The issue with this is it opens up for further levels of inconsistency and accusations of bias. Who decides what sufficient levels of doubt is? If one week VAR reckons a player is maybe 10cm off but it's too close so call it onside, what happens the next week when they rule out a goal that's similarly close? The team who have their goal ruled out won't be happy and neither will the fans, and you can bet there will be cries of corruption from the fans. If 10cm is an acceptable leeway what about 11cm? 12cm?Yep. They should bring back "the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker". Given the error associated with the frame rate of the camera if it's a few mm here or there they should just give it to the forward. Failing that you could go with whatever the "soft signal" is from the linesman. If he initially thought it was off and it's not obviously on then it stays as off and vice versa.
Hence I put daylight in quotation marks. I know it wasn't an official rule but we also know the linos were using that to adjudicate offsides not that long ago. Yeah the risk of arguing over mm might still exist, but daylight or feet only would be a better frame of reference in my opinion.The biggest problem with the "daylight" rule is that it never, ever existed. It's a weird myth that has somehow got lodged in people's minds.
That's why the "soft signal" works well in cricket. Linesman give his initial opinion, they check (could even have a Lino's call line overlaid on the screen) if it's not super clear that he was wrong they go with his original decision. End of the day the rules have always been about someone's judgement, that's why trying to make things black and white doesn't really work.They're still going to have to draw lines for the daylight rule, deciding whether there's any part of the attacker that's level with defender is just the same predicament they find themselves in now where they need to draw accurate lines for both the defender's and attacker's "active" body part that will determine the offside, and ensure they've chosen the right frame where the ball is kicked.
If you're suggesting "if it's too close to call, it's onside" then that's something completely different, that could be implemented under the current rules.
I'm also not sure what the effects of the daylight rule would be on the game, defenders can never truely be goal side when they're defending unless they drop ridiculously deep.
The issue with this is it opens up for further levels of inconsistency and accusations of bias. Who decides what sufficient levels of doubt is? If one week VAR reckons a player is maybe 10cm off but it's too close so call it onside, what happens the next week when they rule out a goal that's similarly close? The team who have their goal ruled out won't be happy and neither will the fans, and you can bet there will be cries of corruption from the fans. If 10cm is an acceptable leeway what about 11cm? 12cm?
Thats the exact same issue I have with offside calls. They need to specify the moment the frame needs to be taken, and they need to make use of more than 1 frame. Either way, the argumant will just move, and people will never be happy. I just want it to go back to Attackers having the benefit of the doubt.I have no issue with something being offside by a mm if they can guarantee they are picking the exact moment the ball leaves the boot and the can find the perfect point to draw the lines from.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Margin of error is just ridiculous. Next , a decision will be on “margin of error” and a new margin of error required.There's a good thread here on what the Dutch are doing with regard to margin of error. It's apparently what the PL wanted to do and it's not perfect either.
This offside thing will be an absolute ball ache to get right but I think it will improve.
As others have said, ad nauseum, the spirit of the offside is to prevent goal-hanging.Margin of error is just ridiculous. Next , a decision will be on “margin of error” and a new margin of error required.
Accempt the technology is getting offsides correct down to tiny margins which is a massive improvement on before.
I’ve read most of this thread and I’m only trying to present my dismay at the VAR / offside comments. VAR is now getting decisions correct down to tiny margins. I don’t know why this cannot be accepted now as before there were glaring linesman errors which we no longer have. I understand your point about “armpit /eyelash” but there has to be a binary decision based on the technology. Margin of error (and MOTD common sense) does not stop the binary decision of on or offside but just moves it. If daylight is the rule then it would be a shirt sleeve was overlapping.As others have said, ad nauseum, the spirit of the offside is to prevent goal-hanging.
The rule wasn't brought in to decide if one player's armpit was half a millimetre ahead of another player's eyelash.
Did you actually bother to read the thread by the way?
I meant the twitter thread.I’ve read most of this thread and I’m only trying to present my dismay at the VAR / offside comments. VAR is now getting decisions correct down to tiny margins. I don’t know why this cannot be accepted now as before there were glaring linesman errors which we no longer have. I understand your point about “armpit /eyelash” but there has to be a binary decision based on the technology. Margin of error (and MOTD common sense) does not stop the binary decision of on or offside but just moves it. If daylight is the rule then it would be a shirt sleeve was overlapping.
I just think it should be accepted as is and not the main talking point of every match.
Goal line tech seems to be accepted but has the same accuracy spec. and fallibility.
Breakdown of offside calls and how they would be impacted by the Dutch margin of error.There's a good thread here on what the Dutch are doing with regard to margin of error. It's apparently what the PL wanted to do and it's not perfect either.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This offside thing will be an absolute ball ache to get right but I think it will improve.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date