Anustart89
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2013
- Messages
- 15,955
We're just going to move the problem 10cm forward then. Was that really 10.1cm offside or was it 9.9?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
We're just going to move the problem 10cm forward then. Was that really 10.1cm offside or was it 9.9?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Surely this is the onion?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Plus now you'll have situations where a player is shown to be offside but not quite offside enough for the goal to be overturned, which people will inevitably complain about instead.We're just going to move the problem 10cm forward then. Was that really 10.1cm offside or was it 9.9?
Seems to me you'd be adding a new complication for the sake of very small (and arguably no) improvement.I think that's fine tbh and I think while there would still be moaning it wouldn't be as loud. It leaves the decisions primarily with the people on the pitch and overturns egregious mistakes - as it should do.
Can you show us your toes please ?Seems to me you'd be adding a new complication for the sake of very small (and arguably no) improvement.
You'd swap allowing tight offsides to be called as offside by VAR with allowing tight offsides to not be called as offside by VAR. Both bringing their own problems and complaints.
But the process would still take just as long and you'd still get millimetre tight marginal calls, just pushed out by 10cm. 10cm actually not being all that much. It's, what, the size of a player's big toe? Still a very tight looking call for those of us watching it.
The difference would be in the situations that get called. Current rules mean you can be offside by the tip of your nose, whereas a 10cm gap would mean they only call "clear" offsides. It would bring the rule more in line with its original purpose.Seems to me you'd be adding a new complication for the sake of very small (and arguably no) improvement.
You'd swap allowing tight offsides to be called as offside by VAR with allowing tight offsides to not be called as offside by VAR. Both bringing their own problems and complaints.
But the process would still take just as long and you'd still get millimetre tight marginal calls, just pushed out by 10cm. 10cm actually not being all that much. It's, what, the size of a player's big toe? Still a very tight looking call for those of us watching it.
But 10.01 would be called and those clear offsides become marginal and we are back to square 1The difference would be in the situations that get called. Current rules mean you can be offside by the tip of your nose, whereas a 10cm gap would mean they only call "clear" offsides. It would bring the rule more in line with its original purpose.
They just won't forensically check the decisions, if it looks onside at first glance they'll leave it at that.But 10.01 would be called and those clear offsides become marginal and we are back to square 1
The difference is that the situations that get called are clear offsides, as in there being a clear gap between defender and attacker.But 10.01 would be called and those clear offsides become marginal and we are back to square 1
10cm is about 4" - slightly smaller than the length of a coke can.Seems to me you'd be adding a new complication for the sake of very small (and arguably no) improvement.
You'd swap allowing tight offsides to be called as offside by VAR with allowing tight offsides to not be called as offside by VAR. Both bringing their own problems and complaints.
But the process would still take just as long and you'd still get millimetre tight marginal calls, just pushed out by 10cm. 10cm actually not being all that much. It's, what, the size of a player's big toe? Still a very tight looking call for those of us watching it.
You'll look like a pillock if you're arguing with those margins. Yes there'll be the occasional 10.01 but it probably would have been called as offside in the old system.We're just going to move the problem 10cm forward then. Was that really 10.1cm offside or was it 9.9?
Is that not right then? I looked up a size 9 shoe and it said it was 25cm so I figured 10cm would be about where the whole toe starts. Spatial awareness not one of my strong points I must admit.Can you show us your toes please ?
Not sure what you mean here.They just won't forensically check the decisions, if it looks onside at first glance they'll leave it at that.
It's happening already I think currently in EPL games, and other leagues already do it.
Which is why I can't recall any forensic disallowed goals from other leagues I've watched this season.
The 10cm distance is just the way of presenting this slight change in how VAR offside is implemented.
So pretty certain we won't see 10.01cm calls.
But then the gap between the rest becomes 10cm closer? There will always be razor tight calls. When does something become clear?The difference is that the situations that get called are clear offsides, as in there being a clear gap between defender and attacker.
The problem is that you will then get situations where a player is deemed to be onside by the linesman, VAR then shows everyone that he was actually offside but because he wasn't more than 10cm offside it is allowed to stand regardless.Not seeing the problem with a margin of error.
If the system isn't 100% accurate and someone was adjudged to be 10.1cm offside when they may have been 8cm offside then they're still beyond the last man and offside by 8cm. Not sure what's bad about that being called offside. With the lines drawn on the pitch, being offside by such a margin would look quite obvious and nobody would have grounds for legitimate complaint.
What are clubs going to do, produce evidence that a player wasn't quite 10 cm offside, forgetting that he was still offside?
Margin of error eradicates situations where a player was 1cm onside and the system says he's 1cm off etc.
If VAR is more than 10cm inaccurate then might as well bin it completely.
As long as there is an offside rule there will always be close calls, but by introducing a gap (or thickening the defender's control line) you remove all those calls where players are basically level and the situations that are offside purely on a technical level.But then the gap between the rest becomes 10cm closer? There will always be razor tight calls. When does something become clear?
True enough. Suppose it could be argued that such a thing would be incorporating benefit of the doubt to attacking players which has always been a thing to a degree.The problem is that you will then get situations where a player is deemed to be onside by the linesman, VAR then shows everyone that he was actually offside but because he wasn't more than 10cm offside it is allowed to stand regardless.
Fans then complain that not only was the wrong decision initially made by the linesman, the wrong decision was then allowed to stand by VAR. So one set of complaints has been swapped for another.
Margin of error means system can't differentiate between such small margins anyway.Not sure what you mean here.
An offside situation would come up, the lines we see would be drawn. If it's quickly evident from the initial lines that it's onside then the rest of the process can be skipped. If it's a narrow decision though then the process follows through and it would continue to come down to millemetre differences. Adding a 10cm buffer doesn't mean they ignore the system they're using if it says the player is 10.1cm offside. It still isn't a subjective call, after all.
The only difference is that the VAR offside line would be more generous than the on-field offside line. It still remains a strict, black & white call though.
I'm still not quite getting what you're saying.Margin of error means system can't differentiate between such small margins anyway.
There is also a margin of error with goal line technology of 0.5cm, that is only with an unobstructed view of the ball. If the system can't see the ball because something in the way, can be bigger.
With VAR they'll just pass decisions with require forensic analysis to be proven offside.
It's happening already, anyone got an example of a forensic offside not from the EPL?
https://www.givemesport.com/1498162...an-not-every-offside-decision-will-be-correct
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
They do have marginal calls but they don't spend 5 minutes forensically checking.I'm still not quite getting what you're saying.
The proposed 10cm system would see offsides that fall inside 10cm allowed. They would still take a detailed look at whether the offside does fall inside that 10cm buffer though. So a 10.1cm offside would get a different outcome to a 10.0cm one, in the same way a 0.1cm offside currently gets a different result to a 0.0cm one. All that's happened is the line has been pushed out.
Regarding the bold, other leagues use the exact same offside system as the PL and also have marginal offside calls. See below call that went against Madrid earlier in the season, for example.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I don't know why it can't be the other way around - literally how as long as any part of the striker is in line with the defender then they stay onside.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The Wolves offside goal that has prompted annoyance from the Wolves camp.
Key point here isn't just that he was offside but he was also offside by more than the 10cm buffer some have apparently argued for. In other words if you have a problem with offsides like this then it's the offside law itself that has to change, moving the line a bit won't help.
I don't think so, in that scenario the mindset should be that if you are ruled onside you've had the benefit of the doubt. As the distance approaches 10cm you are less likely to receive this benefit and were almost certainly offside. It is up to the club's not to complain about 10.1cm as being a ridiculous level of accuracy.But 10.01 would be called and those clear offsides become marginal and we are back to square 1
I suppose the worry would be how the game then evolves tactically. It would initially be a huge advantage for strikers, particularly in certain set piece situations, but teams would adapt and not necessarily in a way that is positive in terms of entertainment value.I don't know why it can't be the other way around - literally how as long as any part of the striker is in line with the defender then they stay onside.
You will have strikers stretching their arms out as out wide as they can to be onside - sure it may seem unfair but it would still lead to more goals and consistency.
I can actually imagine it bringing back an element of physicality back in to the game of defenders somewhat tactically ocassionaly as well, with them having to sit a bit deeper, robust and pushing off their strikers rather than playing offside against pacey strikers all the time.
Different is Azpilicueta used two hands. Fred barely touched him and it didn’t impact his movement. VAR decision was correct.Yet another really poor decision in our game. It's a clear push on Williams, but just as clear that Azpilicueta is pushed into him by Fred. Shows the weaknesses on the system, it zooms in on isolated incidents without considering the bigger picture. Once again, a wrong decision that wouldn't have been made without VAR.
He used two hands to dampen a collision made inevitable by the Fred shove. It's a blatant mistake, the fact that it benefited us doesn't change that.Different is Azpilicueta used two hands. Fred barely touched him and it didn’t impact his movement. VAR decision was correct.
Look from the reverse angle, Fred’s movement made no difference. Looks worse from the overhead view.He used two hands to dampen a collision made inevitable by the Fred shove. It's a blatant mistake, the fact that it benefited us doesn't change that.