The Ref Stop

10cm "wang buffer"

santa sangria

santa sangria

RefChat Addict
Nooooo!


EDIT: By popular demand:
Premier League clubs have asked for a 10cm margin of error for VAR offside decisions:
www.telegraph.co.uk

Premier League clubs want to introduce margin of error for VAR offside decisions

After mass outcry over goals ruled out by minuscule margins this season, Premier League clubs want to reform the way VAR is used
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
It is understood PGMOL will have to ask IFAB to allow this.
As discussed previously on this forum, the widely held view is that this is utterly daft as the same micro decision-making will now happen at 9.9cm and 10.1cm rather than at +/- 1mm armpit/toenail.
My thought is that the EPL really should have better advisors because surely there is no way this is going to have legs it just makes them look a bit silly - though they did get a few more column inches.
The right honourable member for @Grayson has christened this the 10cm "wang buffer".
 
Last edited:
The Ref Stop
Can some bored nerd / City fan with a chip on their shoulder go through all the VAR offside decisions and work out what the "real" league table would be with a 10cm wang buffer.
 
This is the sort of solution that was required. 10cm gives a good 'Margin of error' bearing in mind the accuracy of the technology being used.

My initial idea was to make this distance the thickness of the lines so this isn't much different.

Wonder if a 'linesmans call' will exist, similar to umpires call in cricket where the player is flagged offside.
 
In reading about this in another online article, I came across the following statement:

... it was revealed earlier this season that the Premier League’s system could be inaccurate by as much as 38.8cm when calibrating whether a player was onside.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the source of that statistic is but if true, that would certainly make a mockery of those "armpit hair" or "toe nail" decisions that we've seen given.
 
Doesn't solve the problem. There is still a point when people argue he was only 1mm off side. Doesn't matter if it is 20 cm or 20m the issue of closeness will still be talked about, because offside is fact by a millimetre or a mile. Both are still offside.
 
Peter Grove said:
In reading about this in another online article, I came across the following statement:



I'm not sure what the source of that statistic is but if true, that would certainly make a mockery of those "armpit hair" or "toe nail" decisions that we've seen given.
Click to expand...
I think that's Tr*** administration-level layered misreporting
 
Tino Best said:
Doesn't solve the problem. There is still a point when people argue he was only 1mm off side. Doesn't matter if it is 20 cm or 20m the issue of closeness will still be talked about, because offside is fact by a millimetre or a mile. Both are still offside.
Click to expand...
Exactly. This will just push the decisions backwards by 30cm.
 
Yep, this is a complete waste of time and shows that the clubs have somehow managed to completely misunderstand what people don't like about this.

VAR keeps getting blamed, but if the laws are poorly written and don't match up with "what football expects", what are the guys at Stockley Park expected to do? They can either apply the law and have the media go into meltdown because the law doesn't match what "feels" offside, or they can ignore the law and find themselves sliding back down the pyramid pretty quickly!
 
While I suspect the MLS decision not to use the line drawing tech was more about money than philosophy, it does being clear error back into the equation. If the VAR can’t conclusively find the on field decision wrong without the lines, the call on the field stands. They still can have some close reversals, particularly if players are, say, standing on the PA line, but I think the lack of precision actually makes for a better process.
 
Imo they have made a rod for their own backs with the way they have been disallowing goals for mm after taking all day making lines on screens to reach a decision

They have tampered with the offside law so much it is having a negative impact on the game. I used to find it more fair around 2006 when I used to run a few lines on some county level leagues. It was easy to understand
 
What they need to to do is fork out some money for a once of experiment and put a few 8k HD high frame rate cameras in place and run it side by side to their standard cameras but independently. This would show them that they do get their 'facts' wrong more often than they think and on very close calls, the AR's call is just as good as the VAR's.

When the GLT came into place, it's margin of error was declared at 3 to 5 mm. Has anyone found out what the worse case scenario margin of error for current technology is? There has been some calculations by fans alike bit nothing official.
 
Darren83 said:
They have tampered with the offside law so much it is having a negative impact on the game. I used to find it more fair around 2006 when I used to run a few lines on some county level leagues. It was easy to understand
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean. Apart from a few, relatively technical changes to the definition of interfering with an opponent (and for scenarios that represent a very small proportion of offside offences) the offside law at its core, remains essentially unchanged since 2006.

What do you think are the changes since then that make it so much harder to understand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top