What if the match is played at night?You will be looking for daylight, effectively. No daylight, onside, easy.
What if the match is played at night?You will be looking for daylight, effectively. No daylight, onside, easy.
You guessWhat if the match is played at night?
no different to normal in my case!You guess
Personally never been a fan of this idea, although I do understand it. It doesn’t sit right that a decision could be wrong because they didn’t have a second extra to spot the mistake. I like the Dutch method, where if the two lines overlap, they stick with the decision (or give the goal, can’t remember if it’s giving the goal, or sticking with the AR)Exactly. All well and good saying ‘daylight’, well what happens when there’s potentially only 1mm of daylight, or 1mm level. The problem doesn’t go away.
I’ve said it on here before, but the MLS model is the best way of doing it. VAR reviews, Referee looks at the monitor, if it’s not obvious it’s offside within 5-10 seconds, then the AR hasn’t made a clear and obvious error and it’s onside.
You’d see far less debate around it IMO.
They stick with the on-field decision by the AR.Personally never been a fan of this idea, although I do understand it. It doesn’t sit right that a decision could be wrong because they didn’t have a second extra to spot the mistake. I like the Dutch method, where if the two lines overlap, they stick with the decision (or give the goal, can’t remember if it’s giving the goal, or sticking with the AR)
We chose this solution to avoid hassle and discussions to the centimetre. We agreed that if the lines touch each other, the difference is minimal and there is no reason for VAR to interfere. The decision made on the pitch remains intact. This works well.
Agree with what you were saying but a minor detail: the system being used is very precise; the problem is that it's not accurate.By deliberately making the decision process more "fuzzy," it compensates for the impreciseness of the system being used.
just changes the debate to the width of the lines and how many mm apart the lines are etc. etc.They stick with the on-field decision by the AR.
I also like this system and I don't believe it does fall into the trap of just moving the decision point (whereas Wenger's proposal does). It doesn't change where the lines are drawn, it just introduces a greater margin of error and means those ultra-precise, infinitesimal decisions that everyone objects to, are avoided.
As a spokesperson for the KNVB has been quoted as saying:
What this system avoids, is the credibility problem inherent in the fact that we know the frame rate of broadcast cameras used for VAR is not accurate enough to know for certain if a player is centimetres offside.
VAR uses the television broadcast cameras that usually run at 50 frames per second, meaning that players running at full speed can move nearly 20cm between frames.
By deliberately making the decision process more "fuzzy," it compensates for the impreciseness of the system being used.
I'm not totally convinced by this - given the small number of decisions that would be changed (as proven by Dale Johnson), I think it's a psychological adjustment to an actual real problem. Decisions that currently "feel" wrong will continue to feel wrong in this new system as well and again, there are still potential issues regarding the amount of fuzziness and if lines are actually touching or not.They stick with the on-field decision by the AR.
I also like this system and I don't believe it does fall into the trap of just moving the decision point (whereas Wenger's proposal does). It doesn't change where the lines are drawn, it just introduces a greater margin of error and means those ultra-precise, infinitesimal decisions that everyone objects to, are avoided.
As a spokesperson for the KNVB has been quoted as saying:
What this system avoids, is the credibility problem inherent in the fact that we know the frame rate of broadcast cameras used for VAR is not accurate enough to know for certain if a player is centimetres offside.
VAR uses the television broadcast cameras that usually run at 50 frames per second, meaning that players running at full speed can move nearly 20cm between frames.
By deliberately making the decision process more "fuzzy," it compensates for the impreciseness of the system being used.
I think it will definitely affect grassroots. As an attacker makes a run past the defensive line, it's the difference between the AR looking at the front foot and the back foot, which can be over a yard of distance. I'd like to think that as an AR I don't miss OS calls by that margin on a routine basis.Any alteration to the offside law won't effect grassroots. The idea that if we change the law to the 'daylight' interpretation would make any difference to a call at grassroots level ignores the fact that in full speed it's practically impossible to see.
Take away the lines, cue match of the day and sky and bt drawing lines to create controversy.Would adding a margin of error make it work better for VAR, professional football and for grass roots? And on marginal calls giving the benefit of doubt to the attacking player.
I think adding the word "clearly" to the law could dramatically improve things.
A player is in an offside position if any part of the head, body or feet is clearly nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent.
A VAR check would just be a quick replay, as someone above suggested, if you need lines then the benefit of doubt goes to the attacker. No more arm pits or single studs ruling out goals that no one had gained an unfair advantage.
No more pundits discussing millimetres and whether lines are correct.
Let's face it, as an AR, a tight call can never be clinically accurate, it's always a judgment so it would be better to let the law reflect that.
If an attacker were a few inches offside you'd be right in either flagging or letting play go on, obviously gross mistakes would still be just that but the football would be better and we'd hopefully face less criticism.
Would adding a margin of error make it work better for VAR, professional football and for grass roots? And on marginal calls giving the benefit of doubt to the attacking player.
I think adding the word "clearly" to the law could dramatically improve things.
A player is in an offside position if any part of the head, body or feet is clearly nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent.
A VAR check would just be a quick replay, as someone above suggested, if you need lines then the benefit of doubt goes to the attacker. No more arm pits or single studs ruling out goals that no one had gained an unfair advantage.
No more pundits discussing millimetres and whether lines are correct.
Let's face it, as an AR, a tight call can never be clinically accurate, it's always a judgment so it would be better to let the law reflect that.
If an attacker were a few inches offside you'd be right in either flagging or letting play go on, obviously gross mistakes would still be just that but the football would be better and we'd hopefully face less criticism.
Draw no lines. Make offside a subjective decision with its clear and obvious error criteria. At least we have only one problem to deal with. Knowing and applying C&O error.
As for media. Stop worrying about them as they would attempt to create controversy no matter what you do. If we get the C&O right, the worst they would come up with drawing their own line is proving the AR wrong by a few inches. That would not be a huge controversy.