VAR and Offside

[Burtonwoodclaret]

So many of the controversial VAR decisions seem to be about “0ffside” . Perhaps the offside rule should be changed to the whole person being goal side of the last outfield player when the ball is kicked in order to be offside . A change in this rule would mean that there has to be clear daylight between the players in question for it to be offside. This would remove a lot of ambiguity and probably change the game quite a bit. A fraction of the body offside is quite similar to the idea of a fraction of the ball having crossed the goal line and being considered a goal.

[tarkys_ears]

They should stick to clear and obvious errors. I don't think any VAR check has been for anything that falls into that category

[Burtonwoodclaret]

They should stick to clear and obvious errors. I don't think any VAR check has been for anything that falls into that category

The Chris Wood goal ruled out for offside was clearly in that category. According to the VAR ref (Lee Mason) the assistant ref had made a clear and obvious error by not flagging offside .

[arise_sir_charge]

Clear and obvious doesn’t apply to offsides.

VAR is utter dross though.

[Leisure]

They should stick to clear and obvious errors. I don't think any VAR check has been for anything that falls into that category

Offside is an objective decision

This is a crucial point, and why those shouting that the incident was not "a clear and obvious error" are arguing over an irrelevance.

The "clear and obvious error" consideration within VAR will only be used for subjective decisions -- penalties, fouls, possible red cards. They are decisions which are open to interpretation, and they are also the calls that the VAR can ask the match referee to look at again on his pitchside monitor.

But offside is different. You are offside or you are not. It's a factual decision based on the position of, usually, two players on the pitch. The same goes for the ball going out of play, it is objective and will never be judged on being "a clear and obvious error."

The only thing that can be subjective about an offside decision is whether a goalkeeper's line of sight has been impeded.

[aggi]

Offside is an objective decision

This is a crucial point, and why those shouting that the incident was not "a clear and obvious error" are arguing over an irrelevance.

The "clear and obvious error" consideration within VAR will only be used for subjective decisions -- penalties, fouls, possible red cards. They are decisions which are open to interpretation, and they are also the calls that the VAR can ask the match referee to look at again on his pitchside monitor.

But offside is different. You are offside or you are not. It's a factual decision based on the position of, usually, two players on the pitch. The same goes for the ball going out of play, it is objective and will never be judged on being "a clear and obvious error."

The only thing that can be subjective about an offside decision is whether a goalkeeper's line of sight has been impeded.

With the system that we have though there's also a judgement call to be made on when a player kicked the ball. The difference between one frame and the next frame could give a 6" difference in terms of where the players are.

[martin_p]

I think the problem is that the spirit of the offside law and the reason for it’s introduction in the first place was the stop the attacking player gaining an advantage by getting closer to the goal than the defending player. That’s why these decisions that involve cms seem wrong. No one is seeking to gain an advantage in those situations and intact it’d be pretty much impossible to do so deliberately. To all intents and purposes the striker probably considers he is level with the defender and therefore ok. That’s why I feel the ‘daylight’ interpretation of the rule would be fairer. Yes you’d still get cm decisions, but it would be a whole body plus cms in front of the defender which no one can argue is not seeking to gain an advantage.

[Bosscat]

https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/f ... r-17227432" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tarkys_ears]

They need to go NFL style or whatever and give each manager one VAR call per half with a refund if a decision is overturned.

[houseboy]

This is what you get when the game is so dominated by money. In the final analysis it's a GAME and it's only because of the financial rewards that we are now trying to rule out any semblance of human error. Football fans have argued for a hundred years or more about refereeing decisions and it was all part of the fun of the game. That is now gone, along with goal celebrations due to the 'VAR wait'. I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to say it will drive people away from the game. Who wants to politely wait after every goal until some faceless individual says it's okay to celebrate?

I think the spectacle of the game is slowly being eroded.

[Stproc]

I would like to know what the margin of error is for offsides. Every measuring system has this uncertainty of measurement, in cricket reviews half a ball hitting the stumps is an umpires decision due to this.

[houseboy]

They need to go NFL style or whatever and give each manager one VAR call per half with a refund if a decision is overturned.

As in tennis as well with Hawkeye. They get 3 challenges. Job done.

[dsr]

I would like to know what the margin of error is for offsides. Every measuring system has this uncertainty of measurement, in cricket reviews half a ball hitting the stumps is an umpires decision due to this.

Nil. They take the best picture they have, even if it isn't taken at the right moment and is a bit blurry because it's taken from a video, and treat it as accurate to the fraction of an inch.

[martin_p]

They need to go NFL style or whatever and give each manager one VAR call per half with a refund if a decision is overturned.

It’s not about the number of times it’s used, if it’s only used once in a match it may be to rule out a goal by millimetres, it’s about creating controversy where in previous seasons it wouldn’t have existed. All those marginal offside decisions would previously have passed pretty much without comment. Players weren’t appealing and MOTD would have looked at the pictures and said ‘he looks level’. The way it’s being used at the moment is robbing the game of what previously would have been non contentious goals.

[dsr]

The FA have the choice.

1. They could leave the rule as it has been for years, where "level" means level according to normal eyesight. VAR checks will take no time because they could look at Wood in the photo and say "yes, that's level"; the check would be complete before the players have finished hugging each other.

2. They could choose the alternative approach. "Level" is taken to mean "cannot be separated by a micrometer", and 1 mm in front is not level. This means that what used to be perfectly good goals will now be disallowed; that goal checks will take three or four minutes; that linesman cannot possibly judge by eye so VAR becomes the primary decision maker, not the corrector of errors; that VAR games have different rules to ordinary games.

Thirty years ago, the law was changed so that "level" was onside, because they wanted to give the forward the advantage and to encourage more goals. The lawmakers now, by inaction and stupidity rather than deliberate policy, have reversed that decision and are using VAR as a means of disallowing goals.

[martin_p]

The problem is the use of VAR isn’t universal so the offside law isn’t likely to change. It’s easier for the naked eye to judge that a bit of the attackers body is in front of the defender than it is to spot ‘daylight’, therefore that rule works better for 99.9% of football matches. If VAR were everywhere it would make more sense to have a daylight rule for the reasons I outlined in a previous post.

[CrosspoolClarets]

With the system that we have though there's also a judgement call to be made on when a player kicked the ball. The difference between one frame and the next frame could give a 6" difference in terms of where the players are.

Let’s assume the following:

1. A PL player sprinting will be about 20mph.
2. Every 1/100th of a second there is a blank frame not captured by the video, as you rightly suggest.

My maths says that a player can move 9cm in that time. Factor in the defender possibly running the other way, that is 18cm which is close to your 6 inches. Then factor in the lack of precision in when the ball is exactly kicked, and we get even more uncertain.

So we are absolutely right - these images will be wrong on many occasions. But I sense the authorities have decided that if that tolerance is shown on the screen it would cause fury with goals being allowed when they appear offside. But this is killing the game, something has to be done.

[Colburn_Claret]

If they did stick to clear and obvious, then they should just let the referee review it at the side of the pitch, WITHOUT any silly bloody lines. If you need technology to pick out a big toe, it can hardly be classified as clear and obvious.
Having these decisions reviewed second hand in some studio miles away isn't helping the situation, it's just making it slower and more confusing. The referee on the pitch is paid to make the decisions, he should be the only one making them. Use the screens provided, do away with silly lines and use common sense, and a lot of the problems would go away.

I heard Mike Riley yesterday saying this is what people had been clamouring for, as if it was our fault. Well we didn't ask him to make a pigs ear out of something that would have been implemented easily, without the stubbornness and attitude of referees.VAR isn't the problem, he is.

[tarkys_ears]

Actually all said and done, it needs scrapping. Today.

[Rick_Muller]

It's actually quite simple really for offside, but they really do need someone who understands errors and margins of error to make some subtle changes. Offside is a black and white issue, either you're offside or you're not. The trouble arises when it is that close that margins of error come in to play.

As others have said, it is possible for the players to have move a few inches between frames, so picking the right frame to identify precisely when the ball was kicked is almost impossible, and as such this margin of error should be included for example +/- 3". Added to that, there will be other margins of error such as the accuracy of the line across the pitch, I have wondered how they now that there is no tilt on it, I would suggest that there could be another +/- 3" on that too.

When you consider the above margins of error, the line being drawn to identify both player's position should represent a total of 12" width (the +/-3" for the possible skew; and +/-3" for the frame when the ball is kicked - I have estimated this, but it could be calculated easily). In my mind, if they position the 12" lines as accurately as possible for the attacking player and the defending player and the 12" lines overlap in anyway at all, then they cannot state for certain that the player is offside due to the margins of error with the technology.

All that said, perhaps they have already implemented this, and the gnats cock lines that they use are the actual margins of error, but I cant see it myself...

[Dark Cloud]

This is what you get when the game is so dominated by money. In the final analysis it's a GAME and it's only because of the financial rewards that we are now trying to rule out any semblance of human error. Football fans have argued for a hundred years or more about refereeing decisions and it was all part of the fun of the game. That is now gone, along with goal celebrations due to the 'VAR wait'. I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to say it will drive people away from the game. Who wants to politely wait after every goal until some faceless individual says it's okay to celebrate?

I think the spectacle of the game is slowly being eroded.

I totally agree, but what I will also say is that people sitting at home with a brew and their feet up watching tele and largely not being fussed who wins or loses probably find a long drawn out VAR decision all part of the entertainment and aren't that bothered. It's us mugs who actually pay good money to travel all over and sit in the stands who are being driven away. (And 8.15 evening kick offs are simply yet another example!! )

[CrosspoolClarets]

I would add to my above post above refresh rates that if they are using an Ultra-Motion camera like Hawkeye in Tennis there are probably about 300 frames per second so the margin of error would go down.

Doesn’t eliminate the issue though.

[Rick_Muller]

I would add to my above post above refresh rates that if they are using an Ultra-Motion camera like Hawkeye in Tennis there are probably about 300 frames per second so the margin of error would go down.

Doesn’t eliminate the issue though.

Swarbrick states 50 frames/second https://www.premierleague.com/news/1319816" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ClaretTony]

The Chris Wood goal ruled out for offside was clearly in that category. According to the VAR ref (Lee Mason) the assistant ref had made a clear and obvious error by not flagging offside .

Not so - no need to be clear and obvious for an offside.

[NL Claret]

Some of the offside calls have been too tight and you have question is the attacking player gaining a clear and obvious advantage.

On bein on Saturday they showed an angle which showed Wood was onside. There's a freeze frame with him offside however the ball had left Dwight's boot.

Surely it should go in the attacking players benefit as football is about seeing goals. The current system is goal prevention or possibly corruption.

The current system allows clowns like Jon Moss and Lee Mason to still have their influence on games when it is not needed. Too many referees think it is all about them.

[Burtonwoodclaret]

Not so - no need to be clear and obvious for an offside.

You are probably correct Tony, but perhaps Offside decisions should come under scrutiny if the VAR ref thought it was clearly and obviously offside and that the linesman had missed it.
We have seen players scoring goals who were clearly and obviously offside in previous seasons, so clearly and obviously that lines on a freeze frame video would have been totally unnecessary . Equally we have seen goals disallowed for offside when the defender was clearly and obviously between the goal and the goal shooter.

It’s the offside rule that needs clarity not VAR. Let there be daylight !!

[ClaretTony]

You are probably correct Tony, but perhaps Offside decisions should come under scrutiny if the VAR ref thought it was clearly and obviously offside and that the linesman had missed it.
We have seen players scoring goals who were clearly and obviously offside in previous seasons, so clearly and obviously that lines on a freeze frame video would have been totally unnecessary . Equally we have seen goals disallowed for offside when the defender was clearly and obviously between the goal and the goal shooter.

It’s the offside rule that needs clarity not VAR. Let there be daylight !!

I’d rather have incorrect decisions than the way they are deciding offside with VAR

[TVC15]

I’d rather have incorrect decisions than the way they are deciding offside with VAR

This.

And I am also failing to see the point of linesmen this season - they hardly ever make a decision / raise their flag and seem reluctant to give any advice or help to the referee even if the incident is right in front of them.
Few times this season there have been blatant decisions 2 yards from the Bob Lord linesman and they have done nothing. And surely it was the linesman best placed to see the ball had come off Barnes for the corner for the opener on Saturday.
Can’t imagine this is pure incompetence from the linesmen but more likely another daft directive invented by referees who have never played the game but have Mark Clattenburg size egos !

[ClaretTony]

This.

And I am also failing to see the point of linesmen this season - they hardly ever make a decision / raise their flag and seem reluctant to give any advice or help to the referee even if the incident is right in front of them.
Few times this season there have been blatant decisions 2 yards from the Bob Lord linesman and they have done nothing. And surely it was the linesman best placed to see the ball had come off Barnes for the corner for the opener on Saturday.
Can’t imagine this is pure incompetence from the linesmen but more likely another daft directive invented by referees who have never played the game but have Mark Clattenburg size egos !

They don’t communicate by raising the flag any longer. They talk to the referee instead which brings more confusion to those watching.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

Football used to be such a simple game both to play and to watch. Players got things wrong, managers got things wrong and officials got the odd thing wrong and yet, we just accepted it all and played the game and watched it and enjoyed it at whatever level.

Why is there this obsession that everything must be 100% correct? Football is just a game, and like life, nothing will ever be 100% correct, except if you are a musician or surgeon (hopefully), no matter how much technology is introduced. All that has happened with VAR is that it has brought into play even more opinions and, as can be seen from the opinions on this board, there will never be 100% agreement.

I used to love it when the referee's decision was final even if you didn't agree with it---we even became Champions of England by accepting things as they were in the game.

[Ric_C]

I think what could help is isolating offside to any part of the leg. It is all about gaining an advantage as you run with your legs, this makes sense.

Watched the fa cup highlights and there was a goal scored where the player looked level and a goal was given, no complaints. Would probably have been ruled out by var.

Add in a 30 seconds time out on judging offside and I think we’ll be getting somewhere.

In the meantime scrap it for the rest of the season.