Newcastle v Manchester City

[Paul_10]

I've said nowt about "an attacker getting his shot away". Merely stated what actually happened and why I think VAR let it slide is all.

VAR let it slide as in their opinion the challenge was not reckless and was following guidance that if an attacker got a shot away and is fouled but not a yellow card offense they won't get involved.

If a referee is penalising a reckless challenge and doesn't also give a yellow card I would be seriously questioning their competence.

Well that the subjective part of it, alot of people including myself does think it's reckless, it's a straight leg challenge on top of the boot with some force. The officials obviously did not think it was hence no action on field or on VAR.

GLT does have a margin for error...

Does it? Not aware of that although I don't know how you can have a margin for error when the graphic shows right on top of the ball on the goal line, it seems black and white too me whether it's over the line or not.

 

[JamesL]

Does it? Not aware of that although I don't know how you can have a margin for error when the graphic shows right on top of the ball on the goal line, it seems black and white too me whether it's over the line or not.

It is mm. But it is there. Think it's up to 5mm but the worst in testing was up to 3.6mm

 

[JamesL]

There has always been a margin for error with offside due to the frame rates. They don't always capture the precise moment the ball is played (which is why the chip in the ball in the other version) so they've always chosen the best or closest frame to the contact with the ball which is why we have the thicker lines to account for that.

 

[Paul_10]

It is mm. But it is there. Think it's up to 5mm but the worst in testing was up to 3.6mm

So in practice nobody will ever know the margin for error in the GLT. The margin for error is definitely more notable for offside as can be seen on the graphic in the Leeds Villa game where the players boot is literally on the green line. I just prefer if the image comes in line and we get rid of this margin for error(you either trust the tech or you don't) then we don't have these contentious images being produced. Of course people will moan if a nose is ahead of the line but that is where football wanted to head towards in terms of accuracy.

 

[JamesL]

So in practice nobody will ever know the margin for error in the GLT. The margin for error is definitely more notable for offside as can be seen on the graphic in the Leeds Villa game where the players boot is literally on the green line. I just prefer if the image comes in line and we get rid of this margin for error(you either trust the tech or you don't) then we don't have these contentious images being produced. Of course people will moan if a nose is ahead of the line but that is where football wanted to head towards in terms of accuracy.

You can't as you need the frame the ball is played which we don't have due to frame rates.

All of the Hawkeye systems have a margin for error, such as tennis and cricket, which is similar to GLT.

PL version of SAOT does all the body part tracking but still needs the human to pick the frame and that is why you have this thicker line because that frame can make the difference when you take it down to the mm like we do in offside.

 

[one]

While the discussion on the technology is useful, IMO it is irrelevant here. The tech does what the tech does exactly the same way in every case no matter which teams are playing. If it is wrong, it is wrong the same way for every team. It brings consistency that was not acheivable when human chose the frame and drew the lines. It should at least take the "we was robbed" because of bias argument out of it which used to be the case before the tech.

 

[bloovee]

It is explained in the article, but you obviously don't want to read and / or accept it as the decision didn't go in City's favour.

No need for that. I have read it.

"In every other competition, offside is given to the millimetre; in the Premier League there is 5cm grace which is effectively the width of the green line. Gudmundsson is given onside because his foot is within it. Guimaraes, too, was just ahead of Dias but within the tolerance level."

Am I misunderstanding? Does that not mean that a player can be offside by 2 inches but the PL has decided that can be given as onside?

And then:

PL version of SAOT does all the body part tracking but still needs the human to pick the frame and that is why you have this thicker line because that frame can make the difference when you take it down to the mm like we do in offside.

While the discussion on the technology is useful, IMO it is irrelevant here. The tech does what the tech does exactly the same way in every case no matter which teams are playing. If it is wrong, it is wrong the same way for every team. It brings consistency that was not acheivable when human chose the frame and drew the lines. It should at least take the "we was robbed" because of bias argument out of it which used to be the case before the tech.

Are humans (even VARs!) still picking a frame that could deliver a different decision?

The tech may not be biased but it's not the tech taking several minutes for the tech to give its decision.

 

[Big Cat]

Good grief

 

[bester]

The margin of error is given in favour of the attacker.
That's not say to say offside decisions are being give as onside, it's saying the technology isn't accurate enough to determine if someone is onside or offside within that margin of error.

The margin of error of the tech will be far greater than 5 cm anyway.
Look at the images of the players they aren't true to life, nevermind the lack of hair.

Humans are choosing the kick point and this will introduce he greatest margin of error.

 

[Paul_10]

The margin of error is given in favour of the attacker.
That's not say to say offside decisions are being give as onside, it's saying the technology isn't accurate enough to determine if someone is onside or offside within that margin of error.

The margin of error of the tech will be far greater than 5 cm anyway.
Look at the images of the players they aren't true to life, nevermind the lack of hair.

Humans are choosing the kick point and this will introduce he greatest margin of error.

But the PL have been boasting this is the best technology out there so surely you have to trust your own equipment which they have tested for quite a long time.

For me, the lack of clarity in some of these images is what confusing people. I personally would prefer the UEFA/FIFA way of coming in line and if a nose/kneecap is offside then so be it, it's factual afterall. It might look ridiculous but at least it's clear too see(most of the time).

 

[bester]

@Paul_10 Previously they just made the line thicker.
They need to find of making the visualization better and get the ball chip so the kick point can be determined more accurate.

 

[socal lurker]

@Paul_10 Previously they just made the line thicker.
They need to find of making the visualization better and get the ball chip so the kick point can be determined more accurate.

I believe the ball chip issue has to do with patents and ball contracts.

As far as margin of error, all technology has a margin of error. The smaller it is, the less it matters. The 5 mm on the goal line is going to be smaller than what is seen by an AR. (And as I understand it can go either way—a goal might be given when it was 3 mm short of fully across the line, or might be denied when it was actually 3 mm over the line.) But a difference with PL is how they address rhe MOE. Instead of saying, hey, it can be slightly off, that’s life, they have chosen to make sure which way the error goes. So anything that might be an error counts as not OS. I think that really means doubling the MOE possible for not giving an actual OS. (The system may have the player OS by 5 cm when he was really off by 10, and the lines then forgives the 5 cm the system says he is off, rendering him officially not off.)

 

[bloovee]

I believe the ball chip issue has to do with patents and ball contracts.

As far as margin of error, all technology has a margin of error. The smaller it is, the less it matters. The 5 mm on the goal line is going to be smaller than what is seen by an AR. (And as I understand it can go either way—a goal might be given when it was 3 mm short of fully across the line, or might be denied when it was actually 3 mm over the line.) But a difference with PL is how they address rhe MOE. Instead of saying, hey, it can be slightly off, that’s life, they have chosen to make sure which way the error goes. So anything that might be an error counts as not OS. I think that really means doubling the MOE possible for not giving an actual OS. (The system may have the player OS by 5 cm when he was really off by 10, and the lines then forgives the 5 cm the system says he is off, rendering him officially not off.)

Are you sure? Why double the 5cm? As an AR, without technology, I'd follow the guidance and only flag if I was sure the player was offside (benefit to the attacker) but even with the "any part of the body you can score with" definition I'd be upset if I missed someone offside by four inches (especially - like these incidents - if it didn't depend on fast movement, where players can be level then a metre apart in a tenth of a second). Hence my earlier questions. Isn't this rather like the high bar for C&O on fouls? The tech isn't good enough to be C&O in some offside calls (including what level with the armpit means when the arm isn't straight by the side) so either just say it's benefit of the doubt to the attacker or we go with the onfield decision.

 

[socal lurker]

The technology error can go in either direction--the attacker could be 5 CM forward or 5 cm back from where the technology puts him. The powers that be in the PL, as I understand it, decided they don't want any goals wiped that might have been onside. (An arguably more fair model would be the call on the field stands if it is in the margin of error.) So they add the 5 CM cushion to the lines they draw. Sometimes that means the 5 CM line directly cancels an error. And sometimes it means it adds to the error instead of cancelling. There may be someone here who knows the details on how it actually works better than I do. (And as I've said many times, I'd much rather the world go to the MLS version--no lines at all; call on the field stands unless it is obvious to the VAR that the AR erred.)

 

[JamesL]

The technology error can go in either direction--the attacker could be 5 CM forward or 5 cm back from where the technology puts him. The powers that be in the PL, as I understand it, decided they don't want any goals wiped that might have been onside. (An arguably more fair model would be the call on the field stands if it is in the margin of error.) So they add the 5 CM cushion to the lines they draw. Sometimes that means the 5 CM line directly cancels an error. And sometimes it means it adds to the error instead of cancelling. There may be someone here who knows the details on how it actually works better than I do. (And as I've said many times, I'd much rather the world go to the MLS version--no lines at all; call on the field stands unless it is obvious to the VAR that the AR erred.)

I agree. But no chance. The lines will get drawn by the website posted in an earlier post and the contorversey will continue to gain clicks

 

[RustyRef]

I agree. But no chance. The lines will get drawn by the website posted in an earlier post and the contorversey will continue to gain clicks

Absolutely, let's not forget that broadcasters were drawing their own lines, well before VAR was even a consideration, to try to prove the officials had got it wrong. Can assume assume the US broadcasters are more responsible.

 

[socal lurker]

Absolutely, let's not forget that broadcasters were drawing their own lines, well before VAR was even a consideration, to try to prove the officials had got it wrong. Can assume assume the US broadcasters are more responsible.

That would be a bad assumption! And there are definitely many in the US who want the lines or SOAT—generally when a close call goes against their team . . . But I agree that no one is going to go back to using C&O on OS calls. And MLS is going to follow at some point. Video review in sports is a slippery slope—I can think of very few cases where a sport went backward in how much or how detailed review is. And with one exception, I can’t think of a backwards step that wasn’t undone relatively soon after. (The one exception i can think of is pass interference in the NFL, which was one of few places the NFL allowed review of subjective calls.)

 

[bloovee]

The technology error can go in either direction--the attacker could be 5 CM forward or 5 cm back from where the technology puts him. The powers that be in the PL, as I understand it, decided they don't want any goals wiped that might have been onside. (An arguably more fair model would be the call on the field stands if it is in the margin of error.) So they add the 5 CM cushion to the lines they draw. Sometimes that means the 5 CM line directly cancels an error. And sometimes it means it adds to the error instead of cancelling. There may be someone here who knows the details on how it actually works better than I do. (And as I've said many times, I'd much rather the world go to the MLS version--no lines at all; call on the field stands unless it is obvious to the VAR that the AR erred.)

My brain hurts. Just checking that that means that they know a player could be offside by up to 5cm (the tech's margin of error) but they then add another arbitrary (non-tech) 5cm which could compound the error.

And that is compounded by choosing a frame that may or may not be closest to the moment the ball is played.

I agree. But no chance. The lines will get drawn by the website posted in an earlier post and the contorversey will continue to gain clicks

If the decision can be wrong by 10cm, why wouldn't it be controversial? An accurate decision isn't clear and obvious.

At least be honest and say it's too close to call accurately, so we go with the benefit to the attack and / or onfield flag (or lack of).

 

[JamesL]

My brain hurts. Just checking that that means that they know a player could be offside by up to 5cm (the tech's margin of error) but they then add another arbitrary (non-tech) 5cm which could compound the error.

And that is compounded by choosing a frame that may or may not be closest to the moment the ball is played.


If the decision can be wrong by 10cm, why wouldn't it be controversial? An accurate decision isn't clear and obvious.

At least be honest and say it's too close to call accurately, so we go with the benefit to the attack and / or onfield flag (or lack of).

You've taken my post out of context there. I was talking about it can't be seen with the naked eye in the MLS.

 

[Big Cat]

My brain hurts

Self harm!