Try kicking a ball, its fraction on fractions from contact to ball moving. Surely its a non factor? That looks as much on the foot as off
Refs & VAR 2020/2021 Discussion
- Thread starter Annihilate Now!
- Start date
Try kicking a ball, its fraction on fractions from contact to ball moving. Surely its a non factor? That looks as much on the foot as off
Yeah I agree with this.
This one wasn't close, you could see from ther first replay he was clearly off.
But when it gets down to the millimeter, spending five mins debating it, this does affect the flow of play. It's not 'clear and obvious' at this point, go with the on-field decision - however that should favour the attacker IMO.
Yeah, I agree. Based on what the broadcast used it isn't offside, and to be honest, that's all we really have to go on. If VAR uses something else to measure it, then OK, they may well have accurately confirmed it is offside, but that can't really be part of the discussion.
Well when the offside call is that tight, surely it matters? The ball has clearly left Silva's boot in the image above.
My issue with VAR for offsides is that the various inaccuracies will add up: the frame the ball hits the foot, the calibration and placement of the cameras, hell even the resolution of the picture the use to draw the lines. They then proceed in some cases to come up with results that are literally a centimetre or two offside and I cannot believe the system we have is accurate to that.
I would have no problem using the video some other way, but they are using it in a way that the accuracy cannot support.
I would have no problem using the video some other way, but they are using it in a way that the accuracy cannot support.
Last edited:
Been differing reports on the frame rates of the cameras VAR use for offsides, so it's hard to know the margin of error (which will be inconsistent anyway based on various factors).
People complaining about the accuracy usually cite that the frame rate they use is 50fps, the same as is broadcast. But we know that a) they have to shoot at a higher frame rate than that, b) the VAR have access to higher frame rate images than are broadcast and c) that the company who run VAR happily use much higher frame rate cameras in other sports and indeed other situations in football. So unless there's some technical reason they specifically have to use the 50fps images for offside....
But regardless, it looked offside to the naked eye, it was confirmed offside by the tech which is the most accurate measure we currently have and it was certainly less close than many other offside calls that are made every week, either by VAR or linesman. So that's fine, I think. Sure, it will be better when the more accurate semi-automated tech is introduced but for now he's offside as far as anyone can tell and that's a good basis for Leicester not to have their win stolen from them.
Not disallowing the Leicester goal for handball in the build-up was the correct call too.
People complaining about the accuracy usually cite that the frame rate they use is 50fps, the same as is broadcast. But we know that a) they have to shoot at a higher frame rate than that, b) the VAR have access to higher frame rate images than are broadcast and c) that the company who run VAR happily use much higher frame rate cameras in other sports and indeed other situations in football. So unless there's some technical reason they specifically have to use the 50fps images for offside....
But regardless, it looked offside to the naked eye, it was confirmed offside by the tech which is the most accurate measure we currently have and it was certainly less close than many other offside calls that are made every week, either by VAR or linesman. So that's fine, I think. Sure, it will be better when the more accurate semi-automated tech is introduced but for now he's offside as far as anyone can tell and that's a good basis for Leicester not to have their win stolen from them.
Not disallowing the Leicester goal for handball in the build-up was the correct call too.
Whenever the ref goes to monitor, they see what we see in the replays, no some special footage only VAR has.
Think they're using same footage we see for offsides too. They do play with their lines there.
Think they're using same footage we see for offsides too. They do play with their lines there.
Could not agree more. I was positive to VAR because i thought it would rid us of diving and playacting, which is has to a degree (unless you are playing Spurs) but these ultra tight offsides are ridiculous.
But how much movement can a payer really make between firstly contacting the ball and making ths thing move? Plus its clearly offside in real time anyway, a still wasnt needed.
Please change the Offside Rule. It was introduced to stop goal-hanging and now it takes away goals and make Defenders use Offside Trap every Free Kick and Counter Attack. Offside Rule is currently Anti Entertainment
I have no idea what the commentator and pundit (was it oaf Jenas?) were on about - I called it offside with the naked eye. This is how VAR should work, making the result of a game correct
this wasn't anywhere close to be tight
It is 50FPS because for offside calls they use the broadcast pictures and pick the best angle they can and then the frame that they deem to be closest to the foot touching the ball.
There is a margin of error for all offside calls using VAR it depends on how fast the players in question are moving lets say for example Chilwell was moving at 5 MPS that means that he would move 10cm in between frames generating a 10cm margin of error. And thats only taking Chilwells movement in to account, the last defender is also moving so there is an added margin of error for him aswell.
I cant believe we're glossing over the fact Perez handballed it 
Why would they use broadcast pictures though when we know the game is shot at a higher frame rate than that and we know that they have access to higher frame rate footage than is broadcast?
I've seen different sources say they do/don't use the broadcast standard images but nobody has ever explained why they would have to.
Last edited:
I cant believe we're glossing over the fact Perez handballed it
It's not a handball as the ball deflects directly off his knee into his hand. And it's not an attacking handball as the goal doesn't come directly from it.
Last edited:
I cant believe we're glossing over the fact Perez handballed it
Read the thread, they changed the laws back in March so accidental handball from a player that leads to another player scoring is not deemed as an offence now
How do we sometimes see the lines being adjusted in the pic we are watching? Isn’t that the Var adjusting the lines in the picture we see? Or is that just for us and they use their own one aswell separately?
it has to be the same pictures.
the sooner we get some transparency over the decision making process, the better.
Just now at Alkmaar game back in Dutchlandia they have shown nice view to what the VAR refs are watching on the screens. And all the screens were from the broadcast footage.
Was not offside situation though, but still, if they had different footage, they'd watch it here as well, wouldn't they?
Was not offside situation though, but still, if they had different footage, they'd watch it here as well, wouldn't they?
Offside rule needs to be changed now, it's a joke and it's ruining the game. Should be half a body ahead to be considered offside.
Might be same pictures but not same quality.
Hawkeye at cricket uses 340 fps but you dont need a special tv when they broadcast the call for an LBW in briadcast quality.
You can literally watch the same feed, at home, in SD, HD and Ultra whatever the feck HD!
That may well be the case, I'm just not sure why it would be.
For example, this is taken from FIFA's description of the tech available at the 2018 World Cup:
That seems to suggest that in addition to the broadcast cameras (some of which are ultra slow-motion ones anyway), they have additional non-broadcast cameras specifically for offside. So I don't get why the PL or other leagues wouldn't. Unless there's some technical reason they can't or they were just too cheap to get a better camera system?
That was World Cup, THE event of football, and first time where VAR was used on any big stage (if I recall correctly). It had to work, and it did work great, I was thrilled with the VAR usage there. But 20 teams, 20 stadiums in Premiership, maybe they really are cheap.
Another reason why I believe what we see is what they see is that there's no clear communication on technology. You don't see any quotes from FA saying they have better cameras but they just don't show us that, no "believe us, we have additional footage and we clicked right when the ball is played" type of quotes. And for instance see above some quotes from the official Premier League page about VAR, they only mention 50 FPS for broadcast cameras, surely if they had anything with more, they would have mentioned it.
I wish there was complete transparency about the VAR, tell us everything, small details about the process. Some of us might be interested.
Another reason why I believe what we see is what they see is that there's no clear communication on technology. You don't see any quotes from FA saying they have better cameras but they just don't show us that, no "believe us, we have additional footage and we clicked right when the ball is played" type of quotes. And for instance see above some quotes from the official Premier League page about VAR, they only mention 50 FPS for broadcast cameras, surely if they had anything with more, they would have mentioned it.
I wish there was complete transparency about the VAR, tell us everything, small details about the process. Some of us might be interested.
Who films the game at a higher frame rate than the broadcasters? Other than the goaline technology cameras.
Who films the game at a higher frame rate than the broadcasters? Other than the goaline technology cameras.
The broadcasters themselves film the action at a higher frame rate than they broadcast. How can they show you clear super slow-mo shots at 50fps unless they're shooting at higher than that?
You can see these Hi-Motion cameras (which record up to 1000fps) actively advertise themselves as being the ones the Premier League (and others) use.
https://www.nacinc.com/products/hd-ultra-slow-motion-cameras/Hi-Motion_II/
Quality isn’t it?Just seen that and about to post
It did not though. Now they're searching for slightest of contacts to turn a dive into "legitimate" penalty.
There's a United fan on Twitter I follow, saw it there.
Posted in the Cup Final thread too.
He was such a "look at me, I'm going to look great on social media" .. can't believe he didn't delete it
That disallowed goal for WBA must be one of the worst decisions I have ever seen.
Excactly. On the header (if this would be a goal) he was in the view from Alisson. But the shot after that? He wasn't in his view and he had no chance to save this.
Not popular here but it's the correct call. At the moment of the header the offside player is standing directly in front of the goalkeeper, in his line of sight. That's an offside, because the moment of the header is what counts. You judge offside from the moment the pass is played to the goalscorer, not when the goalscorer then takes a shot.
This is the rule:
• “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from
playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s
line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball
In what way does Phillips prevent Allison from playing or being able to play the ball?
• “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from
playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s
line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball
In what way does Phillips prevent Allison from playing or being able to play the ball?
No you don’t. If the ball was rolled to somebody on the edge of the box for a shot, offside is judged from when the shot is taken. Not the pass before it. Look at the rules.
That’s the rule, but you hardly ever see it given. They got lucky as feck with that decision.