City v Sheff United

[socal lurker]

View attachment 3963

I find this more than a bit maddening. It falls under "we know we can't draft worth crap, so do what we meant."

On both the attacker handling and the ball touching the ref, they drafted out overly precise definitions of what constituted an offense or reason to stop play. And those of us who took time to think about it saw and discussed these gaps in what was covered--I believe we had threads on both the teammate gaining possession and the referee colliding with a player instead of the ball, long before the new Laws went into effect.

IMHO, IFAB can't have it both ways. They can't both get granular about what constitutes an offense and also say "just use the spirit of the Laws." If they want referees to focus on the spirit of the Laws, they need to go back to the conceptual way the Laws were written for decades. There is no way, in my mind, to remotely fault the referee for not deciding in the heat of the moment to ignore what the Laws say and do something else because its more in the spirit of the game. (Though I fully agree that if we are going to stop for balls that hit the referee, we should also stop for referee's colliding with players. But instead of a laundry list, IFAB needs to embrace the spirit concept and say that when, ITOOTR, a ball touches the referee or a player contacts the referee and either unfairly impacts play, the result is a DB.)

 

[Sheffields Finest]

https://talksport.com/football/649049/premier-league-var-marginal-offsides-ifab/

Heads must roll at the PGMOL.

 

[Justylove]

There is a thing called 'The Law of Big Numbers'
Each team will face over a hundred KMIs over the course of a season. No one KMI is solely responsible for anything. The problem is psychology. Fans, pundits, players, managers... they all want to pin everything on one incident; usually the most recent scandal. We all do it
The reality however, is that the longer the season goes on for, the less the table is influenced by KMI's. Every season, there'll be winners and losers, but the the variation flattens out as each team faces more and more KMIs. The end result is that the corrections made by VAR, won't count for much because maths largely takes care of it (because the end-result is ironed out without VAR); only without all this hysteria

I'm not on board with, 'fans wanted this' etc. etc.
I don't think I was knocking on the door at my local PGMOL branch. If I was, I've changed my mind. Why can't the masses change their minds too?

That's true, much like the team coming off claiming you have cost them points because of a decision you made, not withstanding them missing an open goal and gifting the opposition 2 goals with shocking mistakes.

 

[zarathustra]

That's pretty damning, and I thought that was what it was supposed to be, before PGMOL did it there way.

Someone's toe being offside isn't a clear and obvious error.

 

[Big Cat]

https://talksport.com/football/649049/premier-league-var-marginal-offsides-ifab/

Heads must roll at the PGMOL.

Even IFAB's inference that 'only C&O offsides should be reviewed', is flawed
An inch, a foot, a meter, daylight etc etc
All of these are measurements subject to the same precision quandary. They all equate to a toenail

Btw was it this thread that i self-excluded from, or a different one?

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Even IFAB's inference that 'only C&O offsides should be reviewed', is flawed
An inch, a foot, a meter, daylight etc etc
All of these are measurements subject to the same precision quandary. They all equate to a toenail

Btw was it this thread that i self-excluded from, or a different one?

You've Cat Napped since I think BC!!

 

[zarathustra]

Even IFAB's inference that 'only C&O offsides should be reviewed', is flawed
An inch, a foot, a meter, daylight etc etc
All of these are measurements subject to the same precision quandary. They all equate to a toenail

Btw was it this thread that i self-excluded from, or a different one?

But a clear and obvious offside wouldn't require the same precision, because by definition it would be clear and obvious that a player is offside, no need for magic lines etc.

 

[Big Cat]

But a clear and obvious offside wouldn't require the same precision, because by definition it would be clear and obvious that a player is offside, no need for magic lines etc.

So Liverpool get a goal awarded when Mane is offside by six inches. The following week, Stirling has a goal chalked off for being seven inches offside
Massive controversy
The new C&O precedent is that six inches is OK, but seven is not. Computerised lines are back, but now they just measuring much the same thing to the same precision
Like @socal lurker was pointing out earlier, IFAB don't know what they want at the moment. Accuracy and vagueness just don't sit together

 

[zarathustra]

So Liverpool get away when Mane is offside by six inches. The following week, Stirling has a goal chalked off for being seven inches offside
Massive controversy
The new precedent is that six inches is OK, but seven is not. Computerised lines are back, but now they just measuring much the same thing to the same precision
Like @socal lurker was pointing out earlier, IFAB don't know what they want at the moment. Accuracy and vagueness just don't sit together

Is 6 inches an "obvious error"? Possibly, last season the assistants were quite capable of getting decisions correct where only an attackers head or foot were offside.

Obvious to me is where I can look at footage and say "he's offside" without having to get a ruler and microscope out.

 

[Big Cat]

Is 6 inches an "obvious error"? Possibly, last season the assistants were quite capable of getting decisions correct where only an attackers head or foot were offside.

Obvious to me is where I can look at footage and say "he's offside" without having to get a ruler and microscope out.

6 inches was a 'ball park figure'. It doesn't matter what the figure is. Once technology is involved, the figure must be precisely the same for everyone

 

[RustyRef]

https://talksport.com/football/649049/premier-league-var-marginal-offsides-ifab/

Heads must roll at the PGMOL.

Not really news as PGMOL / PL are already blatantly ignoring other aspects of VAR protocol. Think back to last season and the debates we had on here when several of us said that they wouldn't use pitch side reviews in the PL. Some of our overseas colleagues said that wouldn't happen as it would break protocol, but sure enough that is exactly what happened and there hasn't been a single pitch side review.

 

[zarathustra]

6 inches was a 'ball park figure'. It doesn't matter what the figure is. Once technology is involved, the figure must be precisely the same for everyone

What constitutes a clear and obvious error is subjective, there are occasions where you absolutely would expect the assistant to flag if someone's foot is offside, but there are others where you wouldn't, a goalmouth scramble might be a good example, or a situation where you have several players overlapping, and it is hard to tell whether the player was offside or not.

 

[Big Cat]

What constitutes a clear and obvious error is subjective

So what is the point of using VAR for offside if it's all just subjective?
There are so many issues... I'll just have to accept that your opinion. It's been the same since the WC and nothing will change it
Speaking of the WC, I was aware of the inevitable disaster of VAR and offside. I prophesied that it would kill the spontaneity of goals with lengthy delays, but for some reason, it didn't come to fruition in that competition (although the tournament was still spoiled). Then came the EPL and now its affecting every game
Question being, if this inevitability was so obvious to me, why has it come to this?
Honestly, there's no need to answer. We are just very different to one another (on matters relating to football/refereeing). Neither of us will have difficulty accepting that

 

[zarathustra]

So what is the point of using VAR for offside if it's all just subjective?
There are so many issues... I'll just have to accept that your opinion. It's been the same since the WC and nothing will change it
Speaking of the WC, I was aware of the inevitable disaster of VAR and offside. I prophesied that it would kill the spontaneity of goals with lengthy delays, but for some reason, it didn't come to fruition in that competition (although the tournament was still spoiled). Then came the EPL and now its affecting every game
Question being, if this inevitability was so obvious to me, why has it come to this?
Honestly, there's no need to answer. We are just very different to one another (on matters relating to football/refereeing). Neither of us will have difficulty accepting that

Offside isn't subjective, whether a missed offside is a clear and obvious error is.

Missing a players foot being 1cm offside is not clear and obvious, because there is no way you could expect the assistant to see that.

I suspect the difference between the EPL and WC is that in the WC they were following the VAR protocol correctly, so they weren't digging into the build up to every goal so there were less lengthy delays while things got checked.

 

[socal lurker]

I suspect the difference between the EPL and WC is that in the WC they were following the VAR protocol correctly, so they weren't digging into the build up to every goal so there were less lengthy delays while things got checked.

Maybe. But I think it had more to do with the level of training given to the VARs for the WC.

 

[zarathustra]

Maybe. But I think it had more to do with the level of training given to the VARs for the WC.

You'd think one of, if not the, biggest leagues in the world could afford to pay for referees to have decent training for their job.

 

[Mr Dean]

There is a thing called 'The Law of Big Numbers'
Each team will face over a hundred KMIs over the course of a season. No one KMI is solely responsible for anything. The problem is psychology. Fans, pundits, players, managers... they all want to pin everything on one incident; usually the most recent scandal. We all do it
The reality however, is that the longer the season goes on for, the less the table is influenced by KMI's. Every season, there'll be winners and losers, but the the variation flattens out as each team faces more and more KMIs. The end result is that the corrections made by VAR, won't count for much because maths largely takes care of it (because the end-result is ironed out without VAR); only without all this hysteria

I'm not on board with, 'fans wanted this' etc. etc.
I don't think I was knocking on the door at my local PGMOL branch. If I was, I've changed my mind. Why can't the masses change their minds too?

Doesn't quite work out in cup tournaments, though..

 

[GraemeS]

Offside isn't subjective, whether a missed offside is a clear and obvious error is.

Missing a players foot being 1cm offside is not clear and obvious, because there is no way you could expect the assistant to see that.

I suspect the difference between the EPL and WC is that in the WC they were following the VAR protocol correctly, so they weren't digging into the build up to every goal so there were less lengthy delays while things got checked.

Depends on at what point in the process you apply the C&O criteria really.

Look at a still picture and I agree, you can apply the C&O criteria and you'll probably end up going with the on-pitch decision in most cases. But you're then introducing loads of subjective factors, including the confidence of the VAR and the relationship between the VAR and the referee. That means inconsistent decisions, and the risk of getting one wrong when the TV companies later draw lines on the picture and prove that even the VAR got the decision wrong (as I believe happened in Australia?)

Alternately, take that still picture, draw "factual" lines on it using the best framerate, best picture quality and the best AI avaliable and then apply C&O at that point. One line will be in front of the other - it doesn't matter by how much, it will still be clear and obvious what the decision should be.

You can tell me the tech isn't good enough, it's still the same tech for everyone and will therefore add consistency. And it will get better and quicker over the years. It takes any question of who the VAR is out of the mix and although it might not feel it, it's fair. If the result is that things are being judged offside that don't "feel" offside, then that's a problem with the offside law, not the concept of VAR!

 

[zarathustra]

Depends on at what point in the process you apply the C&O criteria really.

Look at a still picture and I agree, you can apply the C&O criteria and you'll probably end up going with the on-pitch decision in most cases. But you're then introducing loads of subjective factors, including the confidence of the VAR and the relationship between the VAR and the referee. That means inconsistent decisions, and the risk of getting one wrong when the TV companies later draw lines on the picture and prove that even the VAR got the decision wrong (as I believe happened in Australia?)

Alternately, take that still picture, draw "factual" lines on it using the best framerate, best picture quality and the best AI avaliable and then apply C&O at that point. One line will be in front of the other - it doesn't matter by how much, it will still be clear and obvious what the decision should be.

You can tell me the tech isn't good enough, it's still the same tech for everyone and will therefore add consistency. And it will get better and quicker over the years. It takes any question of who the VAR is out of the mix and although it might not feel it, it's fair. If the result is that things are being judged offside that don't "feel" offside, then that's a problem with the offside law, not the concept of VAR!

The protocol was always that VAR should be used to correct clear and obvious errors.

In the case of offside I take that to mean that it should only be overturning decisions where the assistant made a clear and obvious error when ruling whether someone is on or offside.

While there will always be a level of subjectivity to any decision, the fact it is clear and obvious should mean we are looking at inches and feet offside, rather than mm.

IFAB released a statement saying that if you need to review 12 cameras to check whether someone is a few mm offside then the infield decision should stand.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Where can we apply for our 6 points back? Riley needs putting out to grass and sent to ref in the Kent FA