• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The Official 2019/20 Premier League Thread

Actually cant read it - paywalled.

Does it state why they dont show the actual image? Or even why the fatter lines used on public display dont line up with the thinner ones?
 
mudshark said:
It's a classic confusion of precision with accuracy. What they need is thicker lines (ones that reflect the true uncertainty in the system). Then, if there's any overlap, no offside.
Click to expand...
Then there'll be arguments about the one pixel difference between overlapping and not overlapping.

It will always come down to a single pixel, no matter where you decide to measure it.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
I think there is a pretty obvious tolerance in these things - take the width of the lines they apply to the image for example.

The image quality is not so accurate that they can place and judge these things with absolute certainty - so what if there needed to be no overlap on those lines to be deemed offside?

Its a simple solution that takes account of the room for error.

Pukki - you could barely see his line behind Alderweirelds. FAR to close to conclusively call.
Click to expand...
It would still be a matter of millimetres.
 
Kandi1977 said:
LOL. So then we end up with a situation where it's subjective. Yeah... That would make it better.
Click to expand...

Subjective at the absolute limit of the technology, yes.

When it is just too close to call - them not allowing for some leeway, insisting upon an absolute decision - makes it subjective anyway. They are effectively guessing where to put the lines etc.

There are far too many examples already where the timing of the frame used to judge is in question, or the quality of the image not allowing for absolute certainty, or some combination of both or others.

MOST offsides are clear as day, no problem whatsoever.

SOME are anything but, and with these some real judgement needs to be made. And "I just cant tell, leave it to the linesmans original decision" is a perfectly reasonable response.

And more acceptable, IMO, than "Oh yes, his toe/shoulder/ear was 5mm ahead of the other players pony tail so its absolutely not a goal according to where I put lines on a blurry image that might actually be a frame too late"
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Subjective at the absolute limit of the technology, yes.

When it is just too close to call - them not allowing for some leeway, insisting upon an absolute decision - makes it subjective anyway. They are effectively guessing where to put the lines etc.

There are far too many examples already where the timing of the frame used to judge is in question, or the quality of the image not allowing for absolute certainty, or some combination of both or others.

MOST offsides are clear as day, no problem whatsoever.

SOME are anything but, and with these some real judgement needs to be made. And "I just cant tell, leave it to the linesmans original decision" is a perfectly reasonable response.

And more acceptable, IMO, than "Oh yes, his toe/shoulder/ear was 5mm ahead of the other players pony tail so its absolutely not a goal according to where I put lines on a blurry image that might actually be a frame too late"
Click to expand...
First off all, football needs to decide what the purpose of VAR is. If it's to get every offside decision right, then the current method is as good as it gets, with current technology. If we want more goals, then a different approach is needed.
I'd favour a rule in which the attackers feet, both feet, needs to be in front for it to be offside. If both feet are in front, your trying to gain an unfair advantage. If a toe is "offside" your not gaining an advantage.
 
Kandi1977 said:
First off all, football needs to decide what the purpose of VAR is. If it's to get every offside decision right, then the current method is as good as it gets, with current technology. If we want more goals, then a different approach is needed.
I'd favour a rule in which the attackers feet, both feet, needs to be in front for it to be offside. If both feet are in front, your trying to gain an unfair advantage. If a toe is "offside" your not gaining an advantage.
Click to expand...

First of all, quite clearly, the current system is NOT as good as it gets. Hence the continued conversation around it.

The system simply cannot be as absolute as is necessary to be black and white about things.

So either we allow subjectivity in shoe-horning the current system around a binary decision (where to place lines etc), or we allow subjectivity in its application (recognising something as too close to call).

I dont mind close calls being made when it is actually quite clear in the image. Its happened many times, and I am genuinely grateful for the correct decision being made (either in favour or otherwise of the attacking team). VAR has proven to be able to correct errors in this respect, its great.

My issue is specifically with the Pukki type calls that are simply not reliable enough right now.
 
scaramanga said:
Then there'll be arguments about the one pixel difference between overlapping and not overlapping.

It will always come down to a single pixel, no matter where you decide to measure it.
Click to expand...

If there's an overlap (even of a single pixel) no offside. I'd be perfectly content with that. Recognition that there's inherent uncertainty, instead of the pretence there isn't.
 
Last edited:
mudshark said:
If there's an overlap (even of a single pixel) no offside. I'd be perfectly content with that. Recognition that there's inherent uncertainty, instead of the pretence there isn't.
Click to expand...
That relies on precisely the same margin of error we already have - you're just moving it an inch.

That's just changing the rule to the forward being within an inch of the last defender but still measuring to an accuracy of 1px
 
scaramanga said:
That relies on precisely the same margin of error we already have - you're just moving it an inch.

That's just changing the rule to the forward being within an inch of the last defender but still measuring to an accuracy of 1px
Click to expand...
Exactly, And it will always be like that, if we are to use technology to decide offside. You can't have "some leeway" or "common sense". Who's to decide what margin that is? Then you'd end up with situations where it might be deemed offside in one game, and the exact same margin be deemed onside in another situation.
 
scaramanga said:
That relies on precisely the same margin of error we already have - you're just moving it an inch.

That's just changing the rule to the forward being within an inch of the last defender but still measuring to an accuracy of 1px
Click to expand...

No it doesn't and no you're not. You draw the lines n pixels wide. The value of n is chosen to reflect the average inherent uncertainty. If the combined width (a measurement you can quote confidently) is less than 2n, they're overlapping, and no offside is given. Such a system would have the "clear and obvious" element (that they are now apparently saying they are going to stick to) built in, and would see an end to the ridiculous Pukki-type decisions we've had shoved down our throats.
 
Last edited:
mudshark said:
No it doesn't and no you're not. You draw the lines n pixels wide. The value of n is chosen to reflect the average inherent uncertainty. If the combined width (a measurement you can quote confidently) is less than 2n, they're overlapping, and no offside is given.
Click to expand...
"Time for a commercial break. We'll be back in about 10 minutes, after they've finished the VAR calculations and decided whether the attacker was less than 2n offside."
 
Kandi1977 said:
"Time for a commercial break. We'll be back in about 10 minutes, after they've finished the VAR calculations and decided whether the attacker was less than 2n offside."
Click to expand...

Would take seconds with appropriate software, and is no more complicated than what they're stumbling around trying to do at the moment.
 
mudshark said:
No it doesn't and no you're not. You draw the lines n pixels wide. The value of n is chosen to reflect the average inherent uncertainty. If the combined width (a measurement you can quote confidently) is less than 2n, they're overlapping, and no offside is given. Such a system would have the "clear and obvious" element (that they are now apparently saying they are going to stick to) built in, and would see an end to the ridiculous Pukki-type decisions we've had shoved down our throats.
Click to expand...
So the difference between overlapping and not overlapping will still be a single pixel.

So once that is the measurement we use, the difference between offside and onside is still the same as it was before. You're still measuring to a single pixel and there will still always be a situation when a player is one pixel either way.
 
scaramanga said:
So the difference between overlapping and not overlapping will still be a single pixel.

So once that is the measurement we use, the difference between offside and onside is still the same as it was before. You're still measuring to a single pixel and there will still always be a situation when a player is one pixel either way.
Click to expand...

It might well be, but so what? It would be much more likely, in "close" offsides, to be several pixels, and the point at which there would only be one pixel overlap would look like an "obvious" offside anyway, so a lot fewer arguments about armpits and toenails. The system would be recognising that there's inherent uncertainty instead of trying to pretend that precision is the same thing as accuracy, and that would be a lot more satisfactory afaic.
 
Remember the days when SOME idiots suggested VAR would stop all the long winded complaints and disagreements about the game. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back