Spurs and VAR

[Finchyid]

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.


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.

He’s behind the ball. The fact his right big toe nail is marginally in front is just why var is wrong..exactly as you say it’s timing as to frame and how lines are drawn. You cannot convince me even with technology that is offside

 

[neogenisis]

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

Everyone claims for offside after every goal these days, nothing new here.

 

[lincspurs]

Everyone claims for offside after every goal these days, nothing new here.

Not only offside, handball, foul play & anything else they can think of.

 

[parj]

We will win some, we will lose some. There is no conspiracy. It's just inconsistent for everyone

 

[ralvy]

I've been arguing with the knobhead Dale Johnson on twitter about this. He seems to think that any technology is infallible.

However, the behaviour of Kane, Emerson and the ball are all complex functions of space and time, and Kane is a highly complex geometrical object. So in order to make an accurate 3D simulation, some very difficult differential equations must be solved.

Now most offsides are clearer than this, allowing for a certain margin of error. But the closer it gets, the closer the distance the player iss off (or on) will get closer to the margin of error, because reducing the margin of error will require a drastic increase in processing time.

My guess here is that the system knows its own limitation and returned to the refs that it was too close to call. Which is where the 'semi' comes into play. The refs took the matter in their own hands, drew a couple lines the old way and decided it was time to ruin football again.

The decision may well be theoretically correct. IMO, we have no way of knowing that based on the scarce footage that has been presented to us. But the meaning of VAR surely can't be to disallow goals that would've stood before VAR was a thing. It quite simply goes against the idea of football to actively look for reasons to disallow a goal, and with VAR that happens every time a goal is scored these days.

There will always be room for error in situations that close, which will produce inconsistent outcomes. Even with technology, because an offside is so much more complex than whether or not a ball has crossed a line. The way forward, as I see it, is to stick with the automated stuff, but leave a fairly generous safety margin where the attacking player is deemed level, or at the very least that the on field decision stands.

As for sending offs, I think the best way is to give the refs a time window and no slow motion replays. Make the call or let the on field decision stand. It's either clear and obvious or it isn't. With handballs, every handball should be an offense, but handling the ball by accident should be an indirect free kick.

Indeed, anyone who thinks these type of offside calls are clear because of some lines drawn by either a referee or a software is probably not giving a proper consideration to the physics and the mathematical aspects involved. Sure, the player either has to be onside or offside, but there are lots of situations in which it will be impossible to make such calls without a wide margin for error.

Also, isn't the automatic system the one who should be making such offside calls at the CL? If so, why did the VAR resorted to make the call by drawing those lines in the first place? Did the system crashed or something? Shouldn't the fact that the automatic system was unable to call it an offside be reason enough to stand by the original call??

 

[Monkey boy]

Indeed, anyone who thinks these type of offside calls are clear because of some lines drawn by either a referee or a software is probably not giving a proper consideration to the physics and the mathematical aspects involved. Sure, the player either has to be onside or offside, but there are lots of situations in which it will be impossible to make such calls without a wide margin for error.

Also, isn't the automatic system the one who should be making such offside calls at the CL? If so, why did the VAR resorted to make the call by drawing those lines in the first place? Did the system crashed or something? Shouldn't the fact that the automatic system was unable to call it an offside be reason enough to stand by the original call??

He was on talkSPORT earlier and it’s his belief that because the lines needed to be drawn from the ball rather than a player then it basically crashed the system. Another first for us and as per usual it screws us over.

 

[Yantino]

I’m trying to look for positives in this (which isn’t easy) but maybe it’ll help unite the group a bit after the loss of Ventrone. Kind of a f*ck you we will qualify and win anyway attitude of defiance. Perhaps.

I do think the players are still grieving the loss of him, they clearly all loved him.

Maybe this terrible VAR call could in fact turn out to be a good thing for us.

I guess I’m just trying to be optimistic about it because it was such a bad call.

 

[Metalhead]

I do feel like most football fans don't watch football to analyse computer lines drawn across screens. Sure, without VAR, people would constantly be complaining about refereeing decisions but at least they're relatively quick and people are still complaining even with VAR. Maybe it is the rules themselves that are at fault but there is far too much delay and it's taking that spontaneous excitement out of the game. Goal line technology, fair enough but the rest of it is shite.

 

[WeGotLedley]

If the frame rate technology is too I’ll- defined to be accurate then they really should use something similar to crickets “umpires call” decision.
In this case, it would be onside and a goal because that’s what the linesman signalled.
And likewise, if he’d been flagged off and there was enough potential evidence to suggest he was partly offside, it should be disallowed.
That way, the technology supports the onfield officials.
There no reason why a “Too close to call” option can’t be added to help arrive at the right decision.

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.

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.

The thread of arguments here for me seems pretty clear..
1. They know that due to angles and due to frame rates, there is an inherent inaccuracy
2. That is made worse by drawing lines, but hey, let's ignore that
3. Means the lines they draw now are implying a false level of accuracy. So. Make them wider.
4. Sticking to on field decision won't work, as linesman told not to flag (which I think is generally positive, as long as they still do when it's blatant).
5. So. Remember the days when benefit of the doubt went to the attacking team? Wow, wouldn't that be a novel idea.
Bingo. Var by nature of toenails - not a thing.
4 min var checks for offsides that no one can really see. Not a thing.
And if we add a time machine, me going mental at a goal in the 95th min, followed by bafflement and anger once I saw the pictures on my phone. Also not a thing.
(and while we're at it with the time achine, I have a few more mistakes to fix, starting with our first half, sat vs Newcastle, sissoko in Madrid, hazard remembering how to play for a match, a lasagne in canary wharf, and Woolwich moving..)
Sorted.
(and seriously, what wouldn't be better with 5cm lines for var, like the damn goal line is!)

 

[WhiteStripe]

Anyone else remember the good old days where you were basically offside if there was daylight between you and the defender and that was it! None of the associated bullshit that goes with it you were either offside or you weren't.

I think the main part of the “good old days” was that there weren’t 3 men in a room looking at monitors and drawing lines. Whatever offside rule that was in place, the good old days were because football was this beautiful, imperfect, passionate, exciting, flawed sport we all loved. VAR, amongst other things is changing that.

I’m one of the most heart on the sleeve, passionate caught in the moment fans going, but the goal yesterday, I found myself muted in celebration….I expected VAR. Thats not something I enjoy. It’s killing the emotion, which for me was the main attraction for the last 30 years!

 

[Spurslove]

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.

Again, it's the ref and the VAR people who are trying to determine whether the deflection off that last defender was un-intentional or otherwise, so it's entirely a subjective decision to rule Harry off-side. It could just as easily have gone the other way.

Whatever happened to the phrase 'In The Spirit Of The Game'. What VAR should have done in this particular circumstance is agreed with the refs on-field decision and allowed the goal to stand, as it's impossible to determine whether the defender played the ball intentionally or accidentally.

VAR can fuck right off.
.

 

[Spurslove]

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.

That may be so, but what technology cannot confirm is whether the last defender intentionally played the ball or not. As we've since discovered from the great Peter Walton, if the last defender plays the ball into the path of the striker unintentionally or accidently the goal should have stood because an unintentional last contact would rule out an off-side and it's impossible to determine what the last defender was trying to do.

That goal should have stayed with the refs immediate decision and allowed.

 

[Spurslove]

I think the main part of the “good old days” was that there weren’t 3 men in a room looking at monitors and drawing lines. Whatever offside rule that was in place, the good old days were because football was this beautiful, imperfect, passionate, exciting, flawed sport we all loved. VAR, amongst other things is changing that.

I’m one of the most heart on the sleeve, passionate caught in the moment fans going, but the goal yesterday, I found myself muted in celebration….I expected VAR. Thats not something I enjoy. It’s killing the emotion, which for me was the main attraction for the last 30 years!

Seems you're not the only one. Seems there are many fans who feel as you do. Much of the pure, raw explosion of emotion behind celebrating a goal has been greatly diminished by this VAR crap. Glenn was dead right in the studio after the game.

 

[g_harry]

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

Absolutely this.

 

[JCRD]

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.

Im not going to dispute our goal or no goal because its offside by the letter of the law etc and it is it what is. What I dont get is this 'intention' business.

If one player shoots from 20 yards, scores a goal, then they establish that another player who isnt intentionally going for the ball is in the sight of the keeper - then that individual is deemed offside - goal is ruled out due to the player (regardless of intention) blocking a keepers view.

Then you have yesterdays case, If a player is not intentionally playing a ball as in yesterdays situation but still involved in play - then why is he deemed to be making an unintentional action in this case?

I guess the point im trying to make (albeit way too waffly) is unintentional play/blockiing in one case is not deemed uninentional play/blocking in another situation.

 

[fishhhandaricecake]

We will win some, we will lose some. There is no conspiracy. It's just inconsistent for everyone

Agree it’s just annoying on those really tight ones that it even goes to be checked, if it’s that tight that they have to check and check again 10x for 5-6 minutes to decide then the benefit of the doubt should be given to favour the attacking team, it’s just ruining the fun of scoring goals

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

Im not going to dispute our goal or no goal because its offside by the letter of the law etc and it is it what is. What I dont get is this 'intention' business.

If one player shoots from 20 yards, scores a goal, then they establish that another player who isnt intentionally going for the ball is in the sight of the keeper - then that individual is deemed offside - goal is ruled out due to the player (regardless of intention) blocking a keepers view.

Then you have yesterdays case, If a player is not intentionally playing a ball as in yesterdays situation but still involved in play - then why is he deemed to be making an unintentional action in this case?

I guess the point im trying to make (albeit way too waffly) is unintentional play/blockiing in one case is not deemed uninentional play/blocking in another situation.

The difference is simple - you can't be offside when a defender last plays the ball. To determine if a defender has "played" the ball, the officials look to see if the defender intended to play the ball, or if it just ricocheted off him.

Yesterday - one official might have ruled that the defender, in running back into position, intentionally played the ball off Royal's header, and thus Kane would not be off-side. Unfortunately, they ruled that the defender did not intentionally play the ball - its a subjective call. I think the goal might have stood had it hit the defenders leg, but as it hit the defender in the hip while he was running, its hard to argue he was trying to play the ball.

 

[mr ashley]

The difference is simple - you can't be offside when a defender last plays the ball. To determine if a defender has "played" the ball, the officials look to see if the defender intended to play the ball, or if it just ricocheted off him.

Yesterday - one official might have ruled that the defender, in running back into position, intentionally played the ball off Royal's header, and thus Kane would not be off-side. Unfortunately, they ruled that the defender did not intentionally play the ball - its a subjective call. I think the goal might have stood had it hit the defenders leg, but as it hit the defender in the hip while he was running, its hard to argue he was trying to play the ball.

What’s messed up about this explanation is that the reverse is true about the handball rule.
if the header had hit the defenders arm we’ve have had a Penalty.
Hits his hip and it’s offside.
hits his leg and it a a goal

madness

 

[whitesocks]

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.

Why do you draw the line there?
For whatever reason the players' boots have an uneven black border - like a cartoon outline perhaps.
We dont know the rules of why some of the border is thicker in places - but the defender's boot border extends further right than kane's boot's border. Does that indicate his actual boot is further forward? Maybe.

Alternatively, assuming the borders are only roughly drawn to help you see where the whiter pixels of the boot/body parts end, then I'd say there are just as many lighter pixels immediately to the left of the green line with the defender's boot, as there are with kane's. They are level.
If that is the image var worked from, then there is no concrete evidence it was offside.

Now it might be var reprocessed the image again and again with various rules they have learnt, allowing the tech to make better guesses in practice. Maybe there isn't a presentable final image, but a table of probabilities.
But this has never been disclosed.

This image we were shown after var's deliberations was from an angle a decision could not have been made. This absolutely dishonest, and satisfies no-one.

It is reasonable to demand of them to reveal how this decision was made. 'Just trust us' does not cut it, especially in the wider context of corruption in the game and also with a smug authoritarian official who gave conte a straight red for daring to encroach on the pitch to ask how this could be. Conspiracy theories feed from this behaviour.
They need to sort this out quickly.

 

[fecka]

My suggestion would be to draw only one line at about the same thickness as now from the ball without being allowed to zoom in on any opposing players or draw lines from their shoulder/knee/toe/head or whatever.
If the line drawn on the ground from the last defender or ball doesn't clearly show that an opposing player is offside by being visibly past it, no advantage has been given to the player and the goal should be allowed to stand.

This would give a palatable margin of error using eyes only that would make decisions go much quicker than having to draw lines and look at several zoomed-in angles for minutes to reach a conclusion.