CRO vs BEL Matchday 11 - Taylor (ENG)
- Thread starter george.g
- Start date
Fully believe that the best option would have been to review for the foul instead of the offside. Must have literally been a mm, while the foul was at least more of an obvious mistake (I know, offside is factual, but I've never even seen a frame where I thought the striker was off)
Clear and obvious does not apply to determining whether is in an offside position or not.
Principle 3 of the VAR protocol states the following:
"3. The original decision given by the referee will not be changed unless the video review clearly shows that the decision was a 'clear and obvious error'."
I have been unable to find the exception to this principle relating to offside position. Please can you quote the exception?
Offside is factual though not subjective.
So if the player is a mm offside he is a mm offside.
There's no tolerance for black and white decisions.
one
RefChat Addict
I think the point is that non-subjective decisions can't be measured on clear and obvious. He is off or on. Ball is either in or out. There is no other option. So any decision made on them is either right or wrong. There is no "clear and obvious" about it. That's why the laws don't recommend a review for them
Saying the onfield decision was not clearly and obviously wrong is not the best way to put it. A better way to put it is that the infield decision was not definitively wrong (too close to definitively prove otherwise).
___________________
On a seperate note, the term ‘clear and obvious error’ is used in the book 9 times with the single quotes around it. Surely it can do with a definition in the main body or the glossary. Does anyone want to have a go?
Last edited:
The problem is that we don't know if the player is 1mm offside or 1mm onside; the technology is not good enough to determine this accurately.
So, is there an exemption to principle 3 for factual decisions? If so, it would be useful to see the exemption.
But we are working on a principle that we accept the limitations of the tech. I'd say with semi automated at least we are as close to accurate as we are going to get.
You can't take an objective decision and make a subjective call on it.
I believe offside in build up is classed as serious missed incident as opposed to clear and obvious error:
The categories of decision/incident which may be reviewed in the event of a
potential ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’ are:
a. Goal/no goal
• attacking team offence in the build-up to or scoring of the goal
(handball, foul, offside etc.)
• ball out of play prior to the goal
• goal/no goal decisions
• offence by goalkeeper and/or kicker at the taking of a penalty kick or
encroachment by an attacker or defender who becomes directly
involved in play if the penalty kick rebounds from the goalpost,
crossbar or goalkeeper
And given almost every other mention of 'clear and obvious error' is followed by "or serious missed incident" I'd hazard a guess it was missed out of principle 3 in error.
one
RefChat Addict
No there is not. But in the context of the original VAR protocol and the current laws, decisions were categorised to factual and subjective. 'clear and obvious error' (or just 'clear error' in original protocol) were only to apply to subjective decisions even though not explicitly stated. That's why I said it will be good to get a definition so we get an explicit statement.
My explanation above about definitive or conclusive evidence about a factual decision being wrong or right explains why it's implicit.
I think this is shoe horning it
because we can't find explicit wording in law to negate what @Mr Dean is saying Are we? You can say IFAB/FIFA are but we includes me and I am not untill I know what those limitations are.
If they told you the margin of error for this system is 10cm would you still be happy to accept the overturning of the AR decision in this case?
Cricket Hawkeye LBW is a good comparison, the umpire not out stands even if Hawkeye shows out by half the ball.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I don't think so. A missed incident is intended as something unseen as opposed to something looked at and not called by the R (in the case of OS, with the help of the AR). Things like off the ball misconduct. I think you had it right the first time--OSP is an objective state and therefore the evidence is clear if it can be determined. And missed incident couldn't possibly apply to the reversal of an OS call to let a goal stand.
Ok, not we as in you and I (I think you knew thatNo there is not. But in the context of the original VAR protocol and the current laws, decisions were categorised to factual and subjective. 'clear and obvious error' (or just 'clear error' in original protocol) were only to apply to subjective decisions even though not explicitly stated. That's why I said it will be good to get a definition so we get an explicit statement.
My explanation above about definitive or conclusive evidence about a factual decision being wrong or right explains why it's implicit.
I think this is shoe horning it
Are we? You can say IFAB/FIFA are but we includes me and I am not untill I know what those limitations are.
If they told you the margin of error for this system is 10cm would you still be happy to accept the overturning of the AR decision in this case?
Cricket Hawkeye LBW is a good comparison, the umpire not out stands even if Hawkeye shows out by half the ball.
) but as far as I can tell minimal complaints from association's /managers who've been briefed on the tech so they all seem to be accepting and FIFA use very absolute terms such as "exact position" so they seem to be pretty trusting.Quick googling returns no definitive accuracy appears to be published. Which means they either don't know OR it is incredibly accurate.
Although Collina quoted as saying it's as pretty much as accurate as GLT.
29 data points 50 times a second from 12 cameras all synchronised and then manually checked seems like a lot of data to then have a serious level of inaccuracy.
Not sure cricket Hawkeye is a good comparison as that's judging what might have happened/was expected to happen rather than this is the picture at this very point in time. I'd say tennis is a better comparison and that is universally accepted within the sport.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
But tennis is always a static line, which is much, much easier than measuring moving body parts on different people.
Nonetheless, for all practical purposes, OSP at the top level now means if the technology says you are in OSP. While we can quibble about the scope of accuracy it has, at the end of the day it is more accurate than human perception is capable of being. (And I think it is fair to say that the SAOS is more accurate than anything used before it.) With it, we aren't going to see a clearly OS goal scored, or a goal called back for someone who was clearly onside. Those mm decisions are still going to be unpleasant for the team on the wrong end, but there have always been and always will be close calls that make one team suffer. (And I say that as someone who still thinks VAR in general has created more controversy than it has taken away.)
Yes but if we are going to draw comparisons with other sports.. I'd say tennis offers a better one to cricket. Tennis is probably closer to GLT than anything though.
Still maintain up to 29 data points synchronised 12 times, moving or not is a significant amount of data to result in wild inaccuracies.
And, apart from the croation one here, the optical produced have by and large been comparable with the broadcast image .
one
RefChat Addict
Ok, not we as in you and I (I think you knew that
Quick googling returns no definitive accuracy appears to be published. Which means they either don't know OR it is incredibly accurate.
Although Collina quoted as saying it's as pretty much as accurate as GLT.
29 data points 50 times a second from 12 cameras all synchronised and then manually checked seems like a lot of data to then have a serious level of inaccuracy.
Not sure cricket Hawkeye is a good comparison as that's judging what might have happened/was expected to happen rather than this is the picture at this very point in time. I'd say tennis is a better comparison and that is universally accepted within the sport.
I agree tennis probably a better comparison but still not close enough. Static lines, constant ball shape and size.
Clubs not complaining comes down to accepting the margin of error (whatever that is) but more importantly it is a consistent and same error evey time for both teams (same algorithms used). While the previous process with humans drawing lines and choosing the frame, with a very close call, two different VAR's could have come up with opposite outcomes for a 'factual' decision.
Given the three choices of (for offside) no VAR, manual hand drawing and semi automated, I take the latter every time. All I am saying is that we can't take it's outcome as gospel.