I assume this event has the same technology as the men's World Cup where the VAR can select the various body parts and the software can translate the line down to the ground. You select the closest point of the defender and the attacker and the two lines give you an on or off decision. That's what I meant by a clear cut call. But if it was simply the computer drawn lines like we saw in England then that's something else.
Or we can just allow the AR to make their best guess in that situation and go with it. That saves a bunch of time where you’re still having to deal with guesswork in terms of picking the right frame and camera angles.
Not sure when your "originally" is based on. Until the 80s (or thereabouts) even was off, so this was a clear and obvious OS infraction. And somewhere in the same time range is when OS started being locked down to a more active role. It used to be that "attempting to gain an advantage" was all it took to be active, and that (for a time) really meant that unless you were actively showing that you were not going to get involved in play, OS would be called on players far from the ball. For a very long time OS has had two distinct aspects, one of which is objective and the other (sometimes) subjective. OSP at the time the ball is played has always been objective--we just haven't had the ability to measure it as precisely. Involvement has always been partially objective (touching the ball) and partially subjective (other ways of active involvement). But this is one of the fundamental problems of VR. Human perception live would not permit an AR to make this call on that margin with more than a guess. But once you open the can of worms with video it is very difficult to say, on objective measures, that we don't correct things that are objectively wrong because they were "too close." This was objectively an OS violation, albeit it by inches. I hate that VR is part of the game, but if it is, this is a call that is going to be made by the VAR every time.
So, after reading through the last few pages - it seems that VAR hasn't really changed anything about the application of OS - it's still comes down to a referee making the best judgement they can based on what they see. VAR isn't perfect and won't ever be perfect - different referees / leagues / nations / confederations will have different interpretations and implementations of the Laws, regardless of how they are written and guidance provided. Pundits, teams and fans will still complain, just as they did w/o VAR - matches will still be won, drawn or lost in part due to referees' judgement decisions - so my question is: is VAR really worth the time, expense and aggravation?
No. (Though some disagree with me. Alas, within that "some" are all the people who make the decisions. . .)
That's a really bad argument though. VAR might not be perfect but human referees/ARs quite clearly aren't either. Deciding offside by VAR will mean a lot higher accuracy than doing it by human ARs. There's still controversy but the discussion is about the situations where players are a few inches off (or something close to) and not about situations where players are a few feet off as has happened on and off in the past. For this I'll agree with SoCal. VAR as it is used at the moment is more of a bother than a gain IMO.
Really? Sure there are a few more moving parts to the decision but that's for the humans to sort (and will be easier to do than without video). But players moving on the pitch will move with a lot less pace than a tennis-ball on the court. If there is a frame rate issue in football that issue would have to be several times bigger in tennis.
Video review always starts or expands because of a shocking officiating error. But the simple fact is for every New Orleans pass interference call, there's 200 wrong pass interference calls that are wrong but not shockingly wrong and there's a 1000 calls that people may argue are wrong. We all agree we want the first one caught. The problem is how to handle the 2nd and 3rd groups which are much more common and not clearly as wrong.
But the ball hits a stationary line in tennis. You’re measuring the moment of impact against a fixed target. In football, you have to establish the offside position line based off at least two moving humans while pausing it at the exact time the ball has left the foot. Literally nothing is fixed. Yes, speed of ball is higher than tennis. But everything else is more difficult in our sport for offside. You don’t have to measure the exact moment the ball has first struck the racket in tennis!
I know I am not going to win any arguments with my thoughts, but what is the purpose of Offside? I assume it was to prevent very advantageous positioning of strikers. If so, how does an extra couple of inches that are not really visible to the human eye in real time fit into that concept? Especially when compared to the time involved to examine and correct it? This is (IMO) not a problem with the game. There are plenty of other problems (Dissent, DR, etc..) that I would rather see addressed. As others have said, save VAR for the "biggies" and get on with the game! (and yes, I know a goal, no goal is a biggie, but c'mon...)
So (once you have VR) where are you going to draw the line? Only if OS by a foot? It doesn’t matter where you draw the line, there will b3 border cases. And once you have VR, how do you say “yes, that was OS, it we aren’t going to call it because it was too close”? These fine lines are part of why many of us opposed VR in the first place. Once the Genie is out of the lamp, it is very hard to manage the Genie.
Agreed and no good response. I did like how the Professional Lacrosse League game I watched today handled it. Coach had 1 challenge. If he gets it right, he can use it again. Use it wrong and too bad on the next "bad call". Not perfect, but then we go back to only using it for the "biggies". And the game speeds up. Of course then we go the route of the NFL and official review in the last 2 minutes etc..
And I am one of those people...and I'm right. I have science and math on my side vs culture and the need for a decision. When you say you "get it", I don't think you actually do. You say: "But the best we can do is pick a frame and make a decision as if that frame is the exact moment the ball is kicked." The best we can do is NOT pick pick a frame and make a decision....because it is NOT exact. Neither are the lines on the field. The best we can do is to say "we don't know...the benefit of the overwhelming doubt goes to the attacker." THAT is the best we can do.
NO...in Tennis they use very high frame rate cameras that are fixed, high contrast, and relative to a football stadium, quite close. They are more like GLT. (which works better but still not 100 % accurate) Offside calls on the other hand are using cameras on a ped, that pan, tilt and zoom and run at the minuscule rate of 25 fps. Apples and oranges I'm afraid.
And for clarity, I think the IFAB clarified that "the moment" is when the foot first strikes the ball, not when it leaves the foot. It's great that the IFAB wants to discern between the two, without realizing that the tech is a few years away from discerning between the two.
It's Fox Sports. Their US soccer commentators have always been garbage. Either take the world feed or hire the top guns from England.
GER:CHN Referee doing a nice job in a tough game. China is physical, but the embellishment from Germany is ridiculous
Germany has been physically as well—sometimes less obvious by the bigger, stronger player. I agree it was well reffed; good use of slow whistles throughout. I did think there was a lot of tolerance of German players going through Chinese players on header situations—a different referee would have had a few fouls on that. (Could have been one in the build up to the German goal—certainly not enough for VR, however.)
On the Spain PK, GK well off the line—but it scored, so not a data point for VR and penalizing GKs. Spain attacker significantly in PA, suggesting we will not see zero tolerance from VR on encroachment.
And there is our first VAR induced PK--which no one on the field seemed to be asking for. Likely a game deciding call-, as well as resulting in a sendoff (2CT).
It was a poor decision Player plays ball while falling backwards and attacker keeps moving forward Definitely don’t understand the second caution No kick out No promising attack
I agree. I didn't see that as a PK either. Interesting that Unkel said she thought it should be a PK but didn't really explain why. The Spanish player basically ran into the bottom of her foot. It's always going to look worse when you play it over and over in slow motion
If you are going to call that a penalty, I think it has to be a card. I think it looked worse in slow motion than in real time though.