How to fix VAR “offsides”?

[giorno]

I watched the VAR vids, and they simply cannot, all focus is on the offside player and last defender as it is simply impossible without a camera following overhead to determine with 100% precision the moment the passing player struck the ball.

That is the flawed part, the offside player and defender is perfect tech but when we're talking in millimetres, which we often are, it's not ok for the initial part of the rule to not be 100% precise.

Which VAR vids, if you don't mind?

Because if you're right then the whole ssytem is kind of pointless but i struggle to believe they would have gone through with it

 

[duffer]

Hand should not count as long as bodies are on the same line.
Only parts of the body that can hit the ball/influence play should.be considered.

That is the current rule.

 

[Kag]

That is the current rule.

And the post you’re replying to summarises the real problem: football fans and their understanding.

The offsides are fine. As per technology available, correct calls are being made. Where VAR is failing is the time it takes to reach decisions. It also fails in the assessment of clear and obvious.

 

[Kag]

Since it is used in a very objective manner with millimeters being factored, the solution has to be objective.

An error %, (say 5% or whatever number) to be factored through a trial and error method and picking used cases such as the Pukki one and the Dan Burn one where the objective decision seemed unjust and those margins need to be defined in the favor of the attacker. It shouldn't be difficult to implement in the technology plus if beyond that error a body part of the attacker is offside, it would be visible in a normal replay as well.

It would ensure that people are not paying the price for being millimeters offside yet the rule would remain objective enough.

What happens when the margin of error is 6% and not 5%?

You’re just shifting the goalposts; not solving the apparent problem.

 

[Mrs Smoker]

Leave it as it is, but make the process faster and available to be seen by the public. Also, reassure the same public about the accuracy of the system.

In short, hire me. I'll fix everything.

 

[giorno]

Leave it as it is, but make the process faster and available to be seen by the public. Also, reassure the same public about the accuracy of the system.

In short, hire me. I'll fix everything.

You need to get me elected Supreme Overlord of Earth first. Then i hire you. In fact, i promise jobs to all the caf!

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Which VAR vids, if you don't mind?

Because if you're right then the whole ssytem is kind of pointless but i struggle to believe they would have gone through with it

The VAR vids where they are at Wembley and using poles to determine exact location on a pitch, it's superb tech.

Here's a good read though...

The technology used in trying to determine when a ball was passed and when a run was made is actually not advanced enough - with a margin for error that could be as big as 38.8cm (14inches)

And it’s not anybody’s fault. The technology is simply not advanced enough to get every decision to be correct.

And I hadn't even realised the frame rates aren't good enough either (and never will be), because when I mentioned this in a debate earlier I was shot down, appears I was correct though. And even then, a point they don't make is, how they decide on the frame because as I stated earlier mate, unless the camera angle is directly overhead, even with the perfect frame rate they cannot know.

And that's the problem here, football fans (and Michael Owen) are being duped into believing this is perfect tech based on perfect science when it absolutely is not. Bring back the daylight rule though and the tech is bang on for this use.

The laws state that a player is deemed on or offside at ‘the first point of contact’ when the ball is played. But the technology doesn’t always know when that is.

VAR uses cameras than run at 50 frames per second, with one picture taken every 0.02 seconds.

When an offside decision is being deliberated, VAR must choose the frame which proves with certainty that the ball has been touched. If Frame A shows the boot not touching the ball, then VAR must select the next one in which the ball has definitely been touched.

But the actual first point of contact will be somewhere between the frames. And in that time, a player can move from onside to offside.This means there is a margin for error, and it varies depending on the speed of the attackers and defenders.

Based on the fastest speed recorded in the Premier League last season - 21.75mph (35kmh) - that margin could be as big as 38.8cm.

So, if a player is found to be offside by less than the margin, the VAR can’t be sure whether they were offside or not at the moment the ball was played.

 

[Mrs Smoker]

You need to get me elected Supreme Overlord of Earth first. Then i hire you. In fact, i promise jobs to all the caf!

We have here a guy that'll fix Champions League as well.

Maybe even Star Wars.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Leave it as it is, but make the process faster and available to be seen by the public. Also, reassure the same public about the accuracy of the system.

In short, hire me. I'll fix everything.

See my post above though, reassure all you like but you're pulling the wool over everyone's eyes.

 

[Mrs Smoker]

I read somewhere that they are using cameras with much more than 50 frames per second. 200+ I think it was said.

You see, those are the things that could reassure the public, or terrify, if the 50fps thing is true.

Be transparent, FA!

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I read somewhere that they are using cameras with much more than 50 frames per second. 200+ I think it was said.

Even so, as I say, you'd need the camera to be directly over the foot of the passing player to be certain... it aint.

And everywhere I look, 50fps is what is shown.

My quotes are from an in depth report into VAR so I'm pretty sure they are correct.

 

[DBT85]

This gives me another idea actually. Replays should be perfectly synced to the millisecond so the VAR team can determine the exact moment the pass happens and then check the same frame from all other available angles regardless of whether the ball is in shot or not.

That it literally what happens now. All camera feeds are sync' perfectly. The limitation is the framerate.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

That it literally what happens now. All camera feeds are sync' perfectly. The limitation is the framerate*

*And camera angle.

 

[DBT85]

*And camera angle.

The game moves too fast for that to ever change.

 

[DBT85]

Everybody wearing some sort of signal transmitter strapped to their chest could be feasible though. Then only take the relative positions of these transmitters and forget about toes and hairtips to determine an offside situation.

The tech is not nearly accurate enough for the purposese of this. A GPS device at that size can be out by a fair margin.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

The game moves too fast for that to ever change.

Agreed, hence this can never work to the millimetre.

 

[DBT85]

Agreed, hence this can never work to the millimetre.

Indeed. Thats why I say do it by eye from a freeze frame with no lines, because its never going to be 100% anyway. Might as well get it 99% right without stupid lines and offside nipples.

 

[P-Nut]

The 38.8cm is surely a bit misleading though, it would require someone sprinting at top speed with a defender standing dead still or running the opposite way, to be able to be that far out.

I do actually agree that the problem lies with the making contact part of the decisions, we've seen it several times already when watching decisions being made that its impossible to get the exact moment the ball is kicked.

 

[giorno]

We have here a guy that'll fix Champions League as well.

Maybe even Star Wars.

Easy. CL= real madrid must win every year
Star Wars= George Lucas and JJ Abrams in the thunderdome with real lightsabers

 

[giorno]

@Regulus Arcturus Black that is interesting. If you're right then i really struggle to understand what they're doing

But informing people is still something they should do

As to the offside rule itself, if it must be changed i agree with the feet fetishists

 

[Nas-JR]

I think the answer to this issue is pretty straightforward. The technology clearly has a margin of error when taking these measurements. If the two lines between the attacker and defender lies within this margin, THEN YOU STICK TO THE REFEREE'S ONFIELD DECISION.

this takes inspiration from cricket, where hawkeye can show that an lbw call is clipping one of the outside stumps but is only given if the umpire has given out. It takes into consideration the limitation of the tech while still giving the ref some credibility.

The same applies to all other subjective decisions. Unless its a CLEAR foul in the box then you stick to the ref's decision. Only issue with that is what you define as clear foul..

 

[Bestofthebest]

As someone who always believed that with the offside rule " in any marginal decision the advantage should go with the attacking player " I am amazed that VAR appears to do the opposite. Being off side by having your forehead in a more advanced position than the defenders feet is ridiculous. If two players are starting off in opposite directions from the same line their heads are going to be the furthest apart. VAR as it stands is taking football into mathematical dimensions, surely this is not the point. Most would be happy if it just removed the huge human errors previously made by officials and added a few more goals to the game.

On the same topic it appears that encroachment of players at penalties is being picked up but the moving from the line by 'keepers isn't. Why?

 

[Nickelodeon]

What happens when the margin of error is 6% and not 5%?

You’re just shifting the goalposts; not solving the apparent problem.

I'm not deciding on that 5% or 6%. The number needs to be decided based on some use cases. For which. we need to pick up subjective use cases. There would be extremely narrow examples like the one of Dan Burn or Zaha from yesterday where an offside was too harsh. And there would be some cases, where the decision albeit being tight was a visibly fair one. Obviously, this would involve some panel from PGMOL to do this segregation using their brain. A big enough sample set could be taken and when the corrected system is providing correct decisions for the above mentioned samples, then it could be implemented.

 

[Bale Bale Bale]

I don't like it but it's consistent for everyone within a few millimetres. I don't see what making the defender's "line" thicker will achieve really as you're just going to get the same pissy people moaning when the attacker's line is millimetres beyond the defender's. My choice would be what @DBT85 suggested, just give the freeze frame to VAR and if it's too close to tell then you go with the on-pitch decision, whilst technically it won't be as accurate or as consistent as what we have now, it will do away with these ridiculous marginal decisions - which is what most fans take issue with.

 

[jojojo]

The current system throws up two problems:
- people don't like the offside rule (generally speaking, they care about feet positions, not which player happens to have his armpit further forward due to stride pattern at the chosen freeze frame moment)
- the VAR implementation pretends to be mm accurate but isn't (due to timing of the pass, frame rate and camera angles)
Benefit of the doubt to the attacker used to address this with human officials.

So what's a "clear and obvious error" then? Well certainly not anything that pretends that VAR can claim to be showing objective reality in the mm territory. I'm not in favour of throwing the VAR baby out with the "I don't like it" bath water, I'd sooner see a more honest approach to the implementation accuracy.

So yes, I'd agree with the OP and the "thicker lines" idea. In fact you could say both lines need to be thicker and the on-field call should stand if it's within the border lines.

But I'd also change the offside law to something that doesn't rely so much on 3D imaging, camera angles and the exact interpretation of shirt sleeve/arm/shoulder. Feet are generally easier to spot. Sure they might have to insist on "no grass green boots" kit rule or whatever but I think we will be better off than with a system that can take minutes to deliver a decision that still relies on subjective interpretation masquerading as facts. I also think feet are an easier sell than "armpit v knee" etc.

 

[Speedy30]

I like the idea of the daylight rule being brought back in and you're correct that VAR would he able to judge this much better. The problem is that a change to the laws would affect every level of the game which means that the daylight rule would be in place at every ground regardless of whether VAR was in use or not.

Something needs to change. That Pukki goal for instance; whilst he was fractionally offside according to the laws, it goes against the spirit of the game and there's no way IMO that he has gained an advantage by his shoulder being offside like that.

 

[Lentwood]

What happens when the margin of error is 6% and not 5%?

You’re just shifting the goalposts; not solving the apparent problem.

The “thicker line” for the defender just ensures attackers get the verdict when it’s incredibly marginal - you’re not just shifting the problem on to another different argument about margins. See cricket and DRS for LBW, albeit used slightly differently

90% of decisions would be unaffected but Pukki and Burn would both have “scored” yesterday

 

[Phil]

Just measure the feet.

It's called football ffs.

Yes, you can score with your head,chest,etc...but you can only run with your legs.

If the attackers feet are behind but his body is in advanced position regarding the defenders, it only means he timed the run perfectly - kudos to you!

It makes iz more simple - faster - and it benefits the attackers - aka, more goals, and that's what we want.

Yeah this is it for me.

It feels like the VAR refs are drawing arbitrary lines from body parts at the moment that aren't in any way accurate. Go with the feet, who cares if a player's top half is leaning offside when feet are in line. Easier to draw the lines too.

 

[cyberman]

The “thicker line” for the defender just ensures attackers get the verdict when it’s incredibly marginal - you’re not just shifting the problem on to another different argument about margins. See cricket and DRS for LBW, albeit used slightly differently

90% of decisions would be unaffected but Pukki and Burn would both have “scored” yesterday

But then theres instances where players will be millieters offside in the thicker line as well. Obvious offsides now will become less obvious and we will have the exact problem we have now.
Theres no fixing this since all the complainers have not come up with any solution that would even pretend to fix the problem.
The line has to be somewhere.

 

[cyberman]

The VAR vids where they are at Wembley and using poles to determine exact location on a pitch, it's superb tech.

Here's a good read though...



And I hadn't even realised the frame rates aren't good enough either (and never will be), because when I mentioned this in a debate earlier I was shot down, appears I was correct though. And even then, a point they don't make is, how they decide on the frame because as I stated earlier mate, unless the camera angle is directly overhead, even with the perfect frame rate they cannot know.

And that's the problem here, football fans (and Michael Owen) are being duped into believing this is perfect tech based on perfect science when it absolutely is not. Bring back the daylight rule though and the tech is bang on for this use.

This thread always sticks in my mind when numbers like these are falsely spread.

 

[Rafaeldagold]

Agree 100% - I try and explain this to my rugby/cricket playing friends. Footballs rules where never really intended to be measured in millimetres, offsides (as you say) were to prevent goal-hanging and encroachment (for example) is to stop players being three feet inside the box, not half a step

Exactly! People are using the rules way too literally to suck the life out of the game. It’s not in the spirit of the game & is taking something away from the enjoyment & experience

 

[Bale Bale Bale]

Even if you have cameras recording at 1000000 frames per second and technology that was accurate to within a fraction of a millimetre it still doesn't fix the problem that fans have with it being against the "spirit of the game". Whether the tech is 100% accurate or 99% accurate, no one wants to see goals being ruled out and time being wasted over such fine margins. They just want the howlers like Aubameyang's at Old Trafford being corrected.

 

[EwanI Ted]

The real issue is that VAR was introduced before this was all bottomed our. Rules designed with human level margins for error are now being assessed with computers or ‘super human’ skill (ie with the aid of replays and multiple sets of eyes). Surprise surprise, it turns out the rules don’t stand up to that level of scrutiny.

Now we’re in a position where situations like the one yesterday are being called offside. Those goals wouldn’t just have been called as onside before VAR, they’d have been considered perfectly timed runs and lauded.

We can of course change the rules of the game to fit VAR, by changing how offside works. But that feels backwards. Surely the aim of VAR is to work with the current game, not change it at a rule book level? And if we do change the rules of the game that will have an impact on what happens on the pitch. We should be cautious about how those changes could play out.

 

[kettledrumhamster]

First change the law so it's where your feet are, not head or chest or knee.

Then put chips in everyone's boots. This could identify where every player on the pitch is, and when the ball is struck. The ball already has sensors in for goal-line technology.

Then change the rule again, so that the attacker's chip has to be at least a certain distance - let's say 20cm - beyond the last defender's chip, to stop any chance of it being only tiny millimeters offside.

This wouldn't be that hard to do. But anything that relies on video and then a human's interaction with pixels and a human's judgement isn't going to work. The chip technology I've described above is available now, but cameras with the resolutions and FPS' that would be required to make this work are years away. You're not talking 6k or 8k - at the distances these cameras are you'd need 60k cameras to correctly pick up these distances in pixels.

 

[arthurka]

Pretty easy actually, if it can't be decided in less than 10 sec on the monitors the goal stands. It will get us more goals, doesn't stop the cheering unless it's offside but that will still be in the time when people are still cheering and will get rid of this MS Paint job on a shitty resolution video which makes no sense at all.

 

[Lentwood]

But then theres instances where players will be millieters offside in the thicker line as well. Obvious offsides now will become less obvious and we will have the exact problem we have now.
Theres no fixing this since all the complainers have not come up with any solution that would even pretend to fix the problem.
The line has to be somewhere.

Yes but in the case where the attacker is millimetres offside even allowing for a thicker defensive line, you can be sure they are definitely offside and not “probably” offside.

It also puts a stop to the daft offsides where a players feet are onside but an armpit or shoulder is offside

Finally, it gives a slight but defined “benefit of the doubt” advantage to the attacker. The current system feels like it is to the defenders advantage.

 

[Lentwood]

Pretty easy actually, if it can't be decided in less than 10 sec on the monitors the goal stands. It will get us more goals, doesn't stop the cheering unless it's offside but that will still be in the time when people are still cheering and will get rid of this MS Paint job on a shitty resolution video which makes no sense at all.

That’s fine for subjective decisions but “offside“ is not supposed to be subjective

 

[Foxbatt]

That Pukki decision was downright stupid. It's not sure even if his head was on the line. What's probably was his arm and it's not a part which he can legally score a goal anyway.

 

[peridigm]

The offside rule should be decided on what is touching the pitch, not what and imaginary line may, or may not be touching.

 

[sullydnl]

I can understand people complaining about tight offside calls.

However, whether you like it or not VAR is providing offside calls that are many, many, many times more consistent and accurate than the linesman can provide. Simply removing VAR won't fix the problem as the marginal calls will still be made, just less well. Even as is we see the linesmen make calls they can't be sure are correct.

Having a time limit on offside calls would be even worse. For a start there is a basic amount of time it takes to make the determination, so putting an arbitrary "x seconds" time limit on it without knowing how long it has to take is nonsense. On top of that you would still get disruption, just with greater inconsistency and claims of bias. Even as is we get people wrongly claiming that lines were drawn wrong, or that X goal wasn't checked because it was X team. Once you bring in a time limit that becomes much, much worse. Plus you will naturally get the VAR making more mistakes as the emphasis moves to speed rather than accuracy. It would be the worst kind of fudge.

In reality you have one of two options:

1) Accept that marginal calls are going to happen and that VAR is best placed to make them. You might not like it but it's the same for everybody and as accurate as it is possible for them to be. Obviously with better technology will come greater accuracy.

2) Fundamentally change the offside rule, understanding that doing so will inevitably have its own unintended consequences and effect on the game.