City's disallowed goal

[Jimmy]

last year both would have stood, I don't think the lino could see Perez due to where Evans was stood

[DeepSouthFOX]

I have yet to see anyone discuss how lazy Perez was in not getting into a proper “onside” position. This lack of energy and hustle is my biggest problem with him so far...well and the fact he can’t seem to dribble in the middle of the pitch with no one within 10 yards. 🤷🏼‍♂️

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, funkyrobot said:

How do you know this tho?

I think the issue is complicated further by at what point you freeze frame the ball leaving the foot of the passer ....

[Guest bennytwohats]

2 hours ago, funkyrobot said:

How do you know this tho?

It’s been quite widely discussed in response to yesterday that they don’t have a camera on the ball to show the moment when the ball leaves the foot. So the timing is imprecise and the lines drawn from the active body part are done manually - so there are a few pieces of judgement that are at play when making the offside call. 

 

I think it it would be good for them to do something like they do in cricket where if the technology shows it to only just be hitting the stumps (I think it’s half of the ball) then they go with the umpires original decision.

 

[jayfox26]

Imagine how entertaining it would be if they got rid of the offside rule. Would be so many goals. 

[twoleftfeet]

10 minutes ago, jayfox26 said:

Imagine how entertaining it would be if they got rid of the offside rule. Would be so many goals. 

Goal hangers

[easilee]

We should adopt cricket rules with VAR.

3 VAR claims per team, per match.

 

Edit...maybe 2

 

Edited 22 September 2019 by easilee

[Leeds Fox]

11 hours ago, bennytwohats said:

I think this is missing the point that the technology can’t be used to accurately rule offside to within a Cm or an inch - if it could then fine, but the ‘offside’ picture that is floating round is clearly spuriously accurate. To me they’re level and you give the benefit of doubt to the attacking player in that situation, their goal should have stood imo.

 

To you they’re level, but not to the technology that can pinpoint where the players actually are.

 

I’m not saying it’s perfect but it’s a hell of a lot more accurate than a linesman trying to focus on two places at exactly the same moment. 

[Guest bennytwohats]

7 hours ago, Leeds Fox said:

 

To you they’re level, but not to the technology that can pinpoint where the players actually are.

 

I’m not saying it’s perfect but it’s a hell of a lot more accurate than a linesman trying to focus on two places at exactly the same moment. 

See my post above, I’m not sure anyone is actually claiming that the technology can pinpoint this yet. If it could then no issues, if it can’t then it’s a bit silly to let it rule on such tight calls like this one.

 

Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favour of the technology and VAR as an idea. I just think the implementation could be improved.

[Pliskin]

9 hours ago, easilee said:

We should adopt cricket rules with VAR.

3 VAR claims per team, per match.

 

Edit...maybe 2

 

I agree, they should put a limit on challenges.

[treer]

not come across anywhere that explains how the actual image is arrived at.

But i think the're some misconceptions about the lack of accuracy being taken as gospel.

There are cameras that work at up to 2500 frames per second, whether this high  a rate is used, I don't  know , but the oft quoted 60 fps quoted by posters is surely too low.

As for the "where do they draw the line" often asked, the  easy answer is, they don't. The software will be drawing the line based on(at a guess) the colour intensity of an individual pixel.

As to when the ball is kicked, that will be easy for the computer as the ball velocity will be measured, again using a pixel count.

 

I am only guessing at this, but even if the techniques are more advanced than I can think of, it will be along similiar lines.

 

Maybe an idea b to join a professional camera/video  forum, could get an expert insight.

Edited 23 September 2019 by treer

[urban fox]

I suppose that my gripe really is the time taken, when a decision is that tight, and we are talking mm here, I think the rules need to changer to give the attacker the benefit of the doubt. That would speed things and we would all know where we stand. No system is perfect but it is what it is and nothing can change now at least until next season, or there would be outcry at the marginal decision taken so far.

 

I was not aware that the clear and obvious criteria did not apply to offside decisions but that now explains a lot. Until such time as the rules on what is and is not offside are changed we have to live with it. Personally I would like the criteria to be based on where the players feet are, or at lest enough separation to determine a clear advantage (although this will still be somewhat subjective).

Someone made a good point earlier when they mentioned that the body shape of a defender running out, compared to that of an attacker running in the opposite direction will always favour the defender in this situation as you tend to lean into the direction you are running, This can easily result in the attackers feet being behind the defenders yet their upper torso/head beyond the back of the defender, and hence offside when the lines are drawn.

Yes Son was hard to do in my opinion but despite the outcry, over a season these will pretty much balance out, hence why nothing can be changed until next season.

[UniFox21]

11 hours ago, easilee said:

We should adopt cricket rules with VAR.

3 VAR claims per team, per match.

 

Edit...maybe 2

 

Surely that has potential to cause just as many stoppages? 

Cricket is a stop start game as it is, football isn't. 

 

If we have the tech to make consistent decisions, why not utilise it rather than have it there but never use it?

[Leeds Fox]

1 hour ago, bennytwohats said:

See my post above, I’m not sure anyone is actually claiming that the technology can pinpoint this yet. If it could then no issues, if it can’t then it’s a bit silly to let it rule on such tight calls like this one.

 

Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favour of the technology and VAR as an idea. I just think the implementation could be improved.

 

Yeah I understand what you’re saying, but at the moment while it clearly isn’t perfect, they still have to go with what the technology offers. 

 

A linesman making a call on that has to use a certain degree of guesswork. It was a very fine margin but VAR showed enough for them to make a call. 

 

I wouldn’t have complain had the goal stood and the VAR stills were milliseconds behind. 

[Lambert09]

On 21/09/2019 at 12:37, Legend_in_blue said:

I'm amazed our decision went to VAR.  What the heck was the linesman doing? Clear offside.  Officials are becoming complacent, thinking technology can dig them out of a hole.  

 

Well, in this case, it did. 

 

I think they have been instructed to let more things go, knowing that VAR will get it right. If they incorrectly flag and play stops before a goal that can’t be undone. 

 

In the future we’ll be teaching kids, play until the ball is out of bounds rather than play to the whistle. 

[Gordon the Great]

On 21/09/2019 at 17:25, SouthStandUpperTier said:

Perez has clearly gained an advantage by being in an offside position when the rebound comes back to him. Correctly disallowed.

When the ball rebounds back to him he can`t be offside?

[Babylon]

3 minutes ago, Gordon the Great said:

When the ball rebounds back to him he can`t be offside?

He was offside when the ball was kicked... ergo he's offside when it rebounds back to him. 

 

This has been in place for like a couple of decades now, I'm not sure how people are having an issue with this. 

[Foxin_Mad]

Both goals were correctly disallowed in my view.

 

The time taken is irritating but the decision is correct.

 

Son was offside no matter how marginal. The lines show he was offside. 

[Jobyfox]

16 hours ago, easilee said:

We should adopt cricket rules with VAR.

3 VAR claims per team, per match.

 

Edit...maybe 2

 

Let’s think how that would’ve worked for the match on Saturday. Spurs would have challenged our first two goals. We would have challenged Spurs first two goals.

 

That’s two more VAR stoppage than we actually got then.

Edited 23 September 2019 by Jobyfox

[funkyrobot]

On 22/09/2019 at 15:50, bennytwohats said:

It’s been quite widely discussed in response to yesterday that they don’t have a camera on the ball to show the moment when the ball leaves the foot. So the timing is imprecise and the lines drawn from the active body part are done manually - so there are a few pieces of judgement that are at play when making the offside call. 

 

I think it it would be good for them to do something like they do in cricket where if the technology shows it to only just be hitting the stumps (I think it’s half of the ball) then they go with the umpires original decision.

 

It’s a damn sight more accurate than some schlepper on the side line waving a flag. Based on the technology we have at the moment he was OFFSIDE. Everyone is assessed using this technology so it’s consistent. 

[Spudulike]

I'm now more content to believe that it will even itself out over a season using VAR. Although 'evening itself out' was often used pre VAR it was difficult to believe given that it was clear that certain clubs usually got tight calls in their favour eg. Those plying in red at Old Trafford or Anfield.

[treer]

City fans should be rejoicing about the use of var, how many result changing decisions have Arsenal incorrectly been on the right side  of against us, since we came up?

Liverpool pen that should never been?

Big sides have always been favoured, this  nearly levels the chances.

 

[Guest bennytwohats]

On 25/09/2019 at 07:30, funkyrobot said:

It’s a damn sight more accurate than some schlepper on the side line waving a flag. Based on the technology we have at the moment he was OFFSIDE. Everyone is assessed using this technology so it’s consistent. 

You realise that’s no different to saying everyone is assessed with the guy on the sideline waving a flag so it’s consistent?

[ThaiFox]

On 25/09/2019 at 13:30, funkyrobot said:

It’s a damn sight more accurate than some schlepper on the side line waving a flag. Based on the technology we have at the moment he was OFFSIDE. Everyone is assessed using this technology so it’s consistent. 

What about the report last week that showed VAR could be as much as 14cms out? That margin of error could have put Son onside. 

 

12 minutes ago, bennytwohats said:

You realise that’s no different to saying everyone is assessed with the guy on the sideline waving a flag so it’s consistent?

And both disallowed 'goals' were initially given! 

[Captain...]

14 minutes ago, bennytwohats said:

You realise that’s no different to saying everyone is assessed with the guy on the sideline waving a flag so it’s consistent?

It is, it is a consistent approach everyone is judged by the same criteria with the same slightly inaccurate frame rate. Rather than each game having a different flawed human being on the sidelines with their own experience and interpretation which suffer from fatigue in different ways.