Spurs and VAR

[nidge]

?‍

View attachment 118393

That angle with that level of zoom (which causes foreshortening) means you can tell nothing about the positioning of the players in 3 dimensions for that still photo unfortunately.

 

[HildoSpur]

I'm still raging

 

[easley91]

Walton is correct. A deflection is not sufficient to rule out an offside. The defender has to intentionally play the ball - which might cause a deflection into the path of an attacker. But, a ball that simply hits a defender is not enough.

Again - the intentional play could be a mis-hit, so, a player swings a leg at the ball, but it is merely deflected instead of cleared - would be sufficient to nullify an offside. The determination yesterday, was that Royal headed the ball off the defender, who, while running back into position, made no intentional move to play the ball.

But what if the defender made a motion to block the header? Would that then count as a deliberate action?

 

[Trix]

Hang on a minute, now I'm completely confused.


Hang on a minute, now I'm completely confused. I've always been under the impression that if a ball comes off a defender and falls into the path of an opposition striker, then a goal should be deemed to have been 'played on' by that defender and the goal would be perfectly legal.

So now Peter Walton (who was a terrible ref himself by the way...) is telling us all that is NOT the case and a goal scored by a striker from a defenders deflection would be ruled off-side.

WTF??

Peter Walton is right.

 

[glacierSpurs]

?‍

View attachment 118393

Ok, I have done a check myself, at 700% zoom in PS, VAR is right, Kane is 2 pixels offside.

And it took me just 30 seconds to draw the lines.

Fuck VAR.

 

[Thenewcat]

Walton is correct. A deflection is not sufficient to rule out an offside. The defender has to intentionally play the ball - which might cause a deflection into the path of an attacker. But, a ball that simply hits a defender is not enough.

Again - the intentional play could be a mis-hit, so, a player swings a leg at the ball, but it is merely deflected instead of cleared - would be sufficient to nullify an offside. The determination yesterday, was that Royal headed the ball off the defender, who, while running back into position, made no intentional move to play the ball.

No problem with that bit - the rule is subjective but I think last nights was clearly not an active attempt to play the ball. The fact that the call was possibly wrong on one count (the timing of when he froze the shot), probably wrong on another (the accuracy of the line he drew onto an off centre 2D image that looked onside to the naked eye) and definitely wrong on a 3rd (the defender behind was playing Kane on but this isn’t visible in the shit angle the official was using) is more of an issue. Solution is easy - if semi automated var can’t give you a clear answer in 30 seconds either stick with the on field decision (of course there isn’t one at the moment) or reward attacking football and award the goal

 

[Thenewcat]

Ok, I have done a check myself, at 700% zoom in PS, VAR is right, Kane is 2 pixels offside. View attachment 118400

And it took me just 30 seconds to draw the lines.

Fuck VAR.

Unless your line isn’t perfectly parallel to the line on the pitch in which case he was onside. This is fun isn’t it

 

[mr ashley]

This doesn't work as the linesman is told to not flag on close calls even when they think it's offside. In fact we don't know for sure he wouldn't have last night (I highly doubt it because of Emerson's position but still).

The offside calls on VAR do need looking at IMO. This need for it to be forensically on/off doesn't need to be the case. There's a reason people like Wenger have tried to suggest alternatives as the rule was never intended to disallow goals for a slightly advanced knee cap.

It’s not that it doesn’t work.
It works perfectly fine.
they just need to change the instructions for linesman to go back to making calls (and not fear criticism for getting it wrong)

 

[glacierSpurs]

Unless your line isn’t perfectly parallel to the line on the pitch in which case he was onside. This is fun isn’t it

Yeah, I tried, but after measuring 11,236 grass blades on which the line was drawn, it is gonna take me an additional 2 minutes and VAR shouldn't wait so I eyeballed it.

 

[Japhet]

Ludicrous now. They're measuring millimetres when they're not at all certain when the ball was actually played with any proportionate accuracy.

 

[nailsy]

How was he offside he was behind the ball

The line in the photo they showed after the game had been drawn from the goalside edge of the ball and Kane was ahead of it. My issue with these tight calls is whether they used the right frame for when the pass/header was played.

Don't draw the lines at all.

If the on-pitch officials aren't able to see if it is offside in real time, and the VAR officials aren't able to tell if it is offside with the benefit of several slow-mo replays from different angles, then an unfair advantage hasn't been gained by the scorer and the goal should stand.

It is literally that simple.

It's not that simple at all. All you're doing there is making the officials guess. Different camera angles give a different impression of an offside. They'd get one angle showing it onside, one angle showing it offside and one where it's not clear. Just use the lines, but either update the rules or put a time limit on making a decision.

 

[Guernman]

just posted this in the match thread, but probably better off here

I still think that VAR should only be used by request by the on-field ref and linesmen. If they feel that they haven't seen an incident properly or it's so close that they want a second look, then they can ask for it.

This would ensure that the on-field officials are still completely in control, but it also means the fans know exactly what is happening. Yesterday the linesman would have immediately raised his flag if he wanted a review, and then at least we all know what is happening and that the goal is in question before the celebrations

 

[jackson]

just posted this in the match thread, but probably better off here

I still think that VAR should only be used by request by the on-field ref and linesmen. If they feel that they haven't seen an incident properly or it's so close that they want a second look, then they can ask for it.

This would ensure that the on-field officials are still completely in control, but it also means the fans know exactly what is happening. Yesterday the linesman would have immediately raised his flag if he wanted a review, and then at least we all know what is happening and that the goal is in question before the celebrations

Never going to work mate as linesmen would get hammered for not asking for review and then being proved wrong, then we'll end up with them constantly asking for review for fear of getting it wrong.

Simple solution is make the fucking lines bigger to allow for a margin of crossover where a players armpit/big toe/knee whatever can be technically closer to the goal than the defender but still be ruled onside and use VAR to facilitate.

I don't beleive they'd have any complaints in allowing 5-10cm leeway favouring the attacking team. No one ever used to think about a single part of a persons body being as offside before VAR, general acceptance was if it seemed like the majority of a persons body was ahead they were offside otherwise the were on.

 

[Legacy]

It's not that simple at all. All you're doing there is making the officials guess. Different camera angles give a different impression of an offside. They'd get one angle showing it onside, one angle showing it offside and one where it's not clear. Just use the lines, but either update the rules or put a time limit on making a decision.

Then in this case, the goal should stand.

VAR should be trying to disallow as few goals as utterly possible. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It should only be involved in times where a clear advantage has been gained by an attacker in an offside position. If you're having to freeze the video, skip to the exact frame you believe the pass was made and then draw lines on the screen to try to determine whether the attacking player was millimetres offside, how has the player gained an advantage?

If there was no VAR last night and that goal stood, Sporting fans would have been raging about losing the game in the last second. Very few would be arguing that the goal was offside and they were robbed by the officials.

 

[Spurslove]

Then in this case, the goal should stand.

VAR should be trying to disallow as few goals as utterly possible. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It should only be involved in times where a clear advantage has been gained by an attacker in an offside position. If you're having to freeze the video, skip to the exact frame you believe the pass was made and then draw lines on the screen to try to determine whether the attacking player was millimetres offside, how has the player gained an advantage?

If there was no VAR last night and that goal stood, Sporting fans would have been raging about losing the game in the last second. Very few would be arguing that the goal was offside and they were robbed by the officials.

Spot on mate. ?‍

 

[chrissivad]

Then in this case, the goal should stand.

VAR should be trying to disallow as few goals as utterly possible. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It should only be involved in times where a clear advantage has been gained by an attacker in an offside position. If you're having to freeze the video, skip to the exact frame you believe the pass was made and then draw lines on the screen to try to determine whether the attacking player was millimetres offside, how has the player gained an advantage?

If there was no VAR last night and that goal stood, Sporting fans would have been raging about losing the game in the last second. Very few would be arguing that the goal was offside and they were robbed by the officials.

I don't know about that. The players were claiming for offside.

 

[Jlimbac0]

I know, different people making the calls, but, wasn't var unable to tell if Saka was offside a couple of weeks ago. When he was closer to the camera. With no one around him.

 

[PaulThurston]

Ludicrous now. They're measuring millimetres when they're not at all certain when the ball was actually played with any proportionate accuracy.

People keep saying this but the new system has a motion sensor inside the ball running at 500Hz to determine the point of contact with high accuracy:

Al Rihla, adidas’ official match ball for Qatar 2022™, will provide a further vital element for the detection of tight offside incidents as an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor will be placed inside the ball. This sensor, positioned in the centre of the ball, sends ball data to the video operation room 500 times per second, allowing a very precise detection of the kick point.

Everything I have seen including the new picture suggests Harry was in an offside position at the time Emerson headed the ball. At the time I - like most people I think - believed playing the ball backwards made a difference but that that's been clarified.

The only issue is around whether the Sporting player made an attempt to play the ball and that's very much a subjective decison by the VAR official. Personally I'm a totally objective and unbiased observer and would have have given the goal.

Let's hope they can use the anger and injustice to fire themselves up for the Marseilles game.

 

[nailsy]

Then in this case, the goal should stand.

VAR should be trying to disallow as few goals as utterly possible. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It should only be involved in times where a clear advantage has been gained by an attacker in an offside position. If you're having to freeze the video, skip to the exact frame you believe the pass was made and then draw lines on the screen to try to determine whether the attacking player was millimetres offside, how has the player gained an advantage?

If there was no VAR last night and that goal stood, Sporting fans would have been raging about losing the game in the last second. Very few would be arguing that the goal was offside and they were robbed by the officials.

So you want to guess. Fair enough, especially with those close decisions like that night. For what it's worth I doubt there would be much difference in time between the way they do it now and having to look at multiple camera angles for the way you're describing. It's pretty much the same thing without the lines which don't take long to draw anyway. Obviously there are extreme circumstances like last night which take forever, but from what I've read most of the time wasn't taken up with the offside, it was mainly a discussion about whether the defenders touch was intentional.

 

[Japhet]

Never going to work mate as linesmen would get hammered for not asking for review and then being proved wrong, then we'll end up with them constantly asking for review for fear of getting it wrong.

Simple solution is make the fucking lines bigger to allow for a margin of crossover where a players armpit/big toe/knee whatever can be technically closer to the goal than the defender but still be ruled onside and use VAR to facilitate.

I don't beleive they'd have any complaints in allowing 5-10cm leeway favouring the attacking team. No one ever used to think about a single part of a persons body being as offside before VAR, general acceptance was if it seemed like the majority of a persons body was ahead they were offside otherwise the were on.

A big part of the problem is the sheer amount of TV coverage from all different angles. Whatever the officials agreed to, Sky, BT and everybody else would continue to micro anaylse every incident which would leave decisions open to debate and officials open to criticism. They will continue to do so because they have the technology to do it and the genie is out of the bottle. the ridiculous lengths VAR goes to now is to try to protect officials from the fallout of a wrong decision, and yet they still get called out repeatedly when they're making decisions based on millimetres and milliseconds.