The disallowed goal

[Paulclaret]

I think most people agree that the decisions are correct under the current interpretation of VAR. The thing is should VAR be interpreted this way, to the N th degree? VAR was brought in to correct obvious errors by the officials, I don't think it was intended originally to overrule the officials' interpretation of the law. It has been eased somewhat this season, with less penalties being given for players' falling over at the slightest touch. So why can't offside be adjusted in the same way? The onfield decision should stand unless there is a clear an obvious error, ie. there is clear daylight between the forward and defender.

[IanMcL]

That has never been part of the offside law. It doesn't matter which part of his body he uses to score. I'm not in any denial at all, he's quite simply offside at the time he heads as can be seen from the pictures. You are the one in denial, even as far as to make that ridiculous suggestion of cheating by believing it would have been given at the other end.

Blimey, you will be saying PM Johnson is an honest man, next, Tony!

[IanMcL]

I bet if Vardy had scored it, his hattrick would have been lauded on every media platform.

[Lancasterclaret]

I bet if Vardy had scored it, his hattrick would have been lauded on every media platform.

He'd have been as offside as Wood was, and it would have been disallowed, to much hilarity in the away end

[ClaretTony]

I bet if Vardy had scored it, his hattrick would have been lauded on every media platform.

If Vardy had scored that goal it would have been ruled out for offside, simple as that, unless, besides not understanding the offside law, you are again accusing Jon Moss of being a cheat by favouring one club over the other.

[IanMcL]

If Vardy had scored that goal it would have been ruled out for offside, simple as that, unless, besides not understanding the offside law, you are again accusing Jon Moss of being a cheat by favouring one club over the other.

Enjoy your innocence!

[ClaretTony]

Enjoy your innocence!

End enjoy your nonsense

[IanMcL]

End enjoy your nonsense

[ClaretTony]

I think most people agree that the decisions are correct under the current interpretation of VAR. The thing is should VAR be interpreted this way, to the N th degree? VAR was brought in to correct obvious errors by the officials, I don't think it was intended originally to overrule the officials' interpretation of the law. It has been eased somewhat this season, with less penalties being given for players' falling over at the slightest touch. So why can't offside be adjusted in the same way? The onfield decision should stand unless there is a clear an obvious error, ie. there is clear daylight between the forward and defender.

It was brought in to correct obvious errors but not in the case of offside unfortunately. They have brought in thicker lines but we don't see those now, we only see the one the broadcasters use. But they have stuck to offside being offside however tight it is. Our manager, by the way, is one who is fully in support of this interpretation. I suppose the minute you start giving leeway on a black and white decision is when you start getting problems.

[aggi]

I don't mind (as much as you can not mind a last minute goal being disallowed) this type of offside decision. He is objectively offside, adding some element of interpretation will just make it worse with different people applying it differently. The only issue is how long it takes to make the decision, ideally it should be happening in real time so there isn't the delay.

Obviously that's a different issue to the "offside" goal against Everton referenced in the first post. It's illustrates the issue of the decision being open to interpretation with an almost identical scenario being deemed as fine for Villa.

[IanMcL]

Perhaps what would be deemed correct, when no var operates, should be the same outcome with VAR.
I.e. if level, on. If the bit of body which scores is onside, on.

[ClaretTony]

Perhaps what would be deemed correct, when no var operates, should be the same outcome with VAR.
I.e. if level, on. If the bit of body which scores is onside, on.

That is not the law with or without VAR. There is no mention of which part of the body scores the goal.

[dsr]

It was brought in to correct obvious errors but not in the case of offside unfortunately. They have brought in thicker lines but we don't see those now, we only see the one the broadcasters use. But they have stuck to offside being offside however tight it is. Our manager, by the way, is one who is fully in support of this interpretation. I suppose the minute you start giving leeway on a black and white decision is when you start getting problems.

But they have to give leeway. In the same way as umpire's call in cricket, they have to make allowance for the uncertainty.

For VAR to operate properly, they need much faster cameras for one thing. The picture they showed on MotD was after the ball had left Barnes' head. Did VAR have a picture at the exact split second?

And then there is the question of when offside is to be judged. It could be at the point the ball first touched Barnes' head, at the point it last touch Barnes' head, or throughout the whole process, or at any point of the process. It should be made clear which point in time they are looking at.

They also need an exact definition of where the player's shoulder ends and his arm starts. Wood was offside because the line drawn based on the defender's shoulder was just a fraction too far back behind Wood's toe - or rather, the toe of his boot. Do they have an exact, undisputed, medical definition of where the shoulder ends? If they judge offside to the inch, they need to be certain that the lines are drawn exactly to the inch.

Remember a player's foot may move 8 inches in 1/100th of a second, so in judging to the inch, they need the exact definition. If the technology is not adequate to judge to the inch (and it isn't), they need to allow leeway for error. Are the new thicker lines enough to allow leeway? I doubt it.

Ultimately, the laws committee need to clarify. They have the choice. Remove the whole concept of a forward being level so this aspect of the controversy doesn't apply any more, or else re-emphasise the concept of the forward being level and let VAR deal with that. It's the lawmakers' job to make the law, not VAR's.

[Roosterbooster]

dsr is spot on. Offside might be black or white. On or off. But you can't apply this practically if the equipment used to measure it has any margin of error. It does. And therefore there needs to be some practically applied leeway which takes this into account. Otherwise incorrect decisions will inevitably be made

[ClaretTony]

But they have to give leeway. In the same way as umpire's call in cricket, they have to make allowance for the uncertainty.

They don’t have to and they don’t. For an offside check it is totally based on the lines they use. There is no allowance for uncertainty.

When discussed with the clubs last season it was the clubs who wanted it retained like that.

Saturday’s is close but hardly needs lines to show it is just offside.

[Rileybobs]

It was brought in to correct obvious errors but not in the case of offside unfortunately. They have brought in thicker lines but we don't see those now, we only see the one the broadcasters use. But they have stuck to offside being offside however tight it is. Our manager, by the way, is one who is fully in support of this interpretation. I suppose the minute you start giving leeway on a black and white decision is when you start getting problems.

This is the frustrating thing for me. Why do they show the lines for some decisions but not others? I am very curious to see how close the lines were for Wood’s incident, and surely broadcasting that after reaching the decision would make it clear to fans that the correct decision had been made, whether we agree with the format of VAR or not.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I’ve worked out before the distance a player can run between camera freeze frames used by VAR. it is in the centimetres.

But Wood would have been off anyway. The new thicker lines and the fact he wasn’t at full sprint ensure that. Keith Hackett was saying the Wood one is the only one this season he disputes - he would make the line thicker so a player would be clearly offside without a study of the freezeframe.

[dsr]

They don’t have to and they don’t. For an offside check it is totally based on the lines they use. There is no allowance for uncertainty.

When discussed with the clubs last season it was the clubs who wanted it retained like that.

Saturday’s is close but hardly needs lines to show it is just offside.

Sorry, I wasn't saying that in practice they have to give leeway, I was saying that they ought to give leeway. They shouldn't be disallowing goals on the basis that they don't have the equipment but what they do have suggests that Wood was probably offside. Quite apart from the "level" controversy.

[ClaretTony]

Sorry, I wasn't saying that in practice they have to give leeway, I was saying that they ought to give leeway. They shouldn't be disallowing goals on the basis that they don't have the equipment but what they do have suggests that Wood was probably offside. Quite apart from the "level" controversy.

You can see with the naked eye that he was offside

[Ashingtonclaret46]

What is more worrying as far as I am concerned is the number of offside decisions which are not flagged because of the instruction for the AR not to flag immediately.
Every match you see players allowed to go on, in spite of being marginally offside but they have not been flagged. If the move breaks down the AR is supposed to flag and, In quite a number of cases, he does. However, on a number of cases, the attackers win a corner and this is rarely overturned, even though if should have been flagged originally. There is no excuse for this to happen because, with the modern communication headsets, the AR should be telling the referee.

The above only happens in matches where VAR is in use ----a fraction of the number of games played in the UK every match day -----therefore, VAR means that the interpretation of TLOG at the top level is different to TLOG at every other level and that should not be the case.

[dsr]

I’ve worked out before the distance a player can run between camera freeze frames used by VAR. it is in the centimetres.

But Wood would have been off anyway. The new thicker lines and the fact he wasn’t at full sprint ensure that. Keith Hackett was saying the Wood one is the only one this season he disputes - he would make the line thicker so a player would be clearly offside without a study of the freezeframe.

Usain Bolt covered 10.43 cm (a bit over 4 inches) in 100th of a second, on average in his world record 100m. One of his feet would be doing double that speed, so 8 inches. Obviously footballers aren't so fast, but call it 6 inches.

Bog standard TV cameras typically work at 26 frames per second, or 4/100ths of a second per frame. HD cameras are faster, and I would hope VAR cameras are too. Can anyone confirm?

[dsr]

You can see with the naked eye that he was offside

You have better eyes than me. Of course, you might have had a better view from the game, but on MotD I couldn't even judge exactly where the defender's shoulder/arm was. Neither could the linesman, because he thought it was on.

[dsr]

What is more worrying as far as I am concerned is the number of offside decisions which are not flagged because of the instruction for the AR not to flag immediately.
Every match you see players allowed to go on, in spite of being marginally offside but they have not been flagged. If the move breaks down the AR is supposed to flag and, In quite a number of cases, he does. However, on a number of cases, the attackers win a corner and this is rarely overturned, even though if should have been flagged originally. There is no excuse for this to happen because, with the modern communication headsets, the AR should be telling the referee.

The above only happens in matches where VAR is in use ----a fraction of the number of games played in the UK every match day -----therefore, VAR means that the interpretation of TLOG at the top level is different to TLOG at every other level and that should not be the case.

If it goes out for a corner and the linesman thinks it was offside, he will always flag. If he doesn't flag, it's because he thought it was onside. If it goes out for a goal kick or the defending side wins the ball, he might not flag because of the advantage rule.

[ClaretTony]

You have better eyes than me. Of course, you might have had a better view from the game, but on MotD I couldn't even judge exactly where the defender's shoulder/arm was. Neither could the linesman, because he thought it was on.

The lino got nothing right all afternoon. I couldn't have been in a better position to see. I didn't celebrate because I wasn't sure. It looks a clear offside to me from the tv pics.

[ClaretTony]

What is more worrying as far as I am concerned is the number of offside decisions which are not flagged because of the instruction for the AR not to flag immediately.
Every match you see players allowed to go on, in spite of being marginally offside but they have not been flagged. If the move breaks down the AR is supposed to flag and, In quite a number of cases, he does. However, on a number of cases, the attackers win a corner and this is rarely overturned, even though if should have been flagged originally. There is no excuse for this to happen because, with the modern communication headsets, the AR should be telling the referee.

The above only happens in matches where VAR is in use ----a fraction of the number of games played in the UK every match day -----therefore, VAR means that the interpretation of TLOG at the top level is different to TLOG at every other level and that should not be the case.

Happens without VAR in use too. Twice at the Rochdale game with non PL officials and no VAR.

[Zlatan]

Usain Bolt covered 10.43 cm (a bit over 4 inches) in 100th of a second, on average in his world record 100m. One of his feet would be doing double that speed, so 8 inches. Obviously footballers aren't so fast, but call it 6 inches.

Bog standard TV cameras typically work at 26 frames per second, or 4/100ths of a second per frame. HD cameras are faster, and I would hope VAR cameras are too. Can anyone confirm?

https://www.reddit.com/r/football/comme ... efinitive/

good explanation and also justifies why Wood may well have actually been onside and not offside. The real issue for me is that not enough people understand the tolerances and how the VAR system works - if they did, then Wood's goal would have stood because the VAR system and associated tolerance would have been interpreted correctly and as such there is no way to use VAR to prove Wood was offside therefore it was not a clear and obvious error.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

If it goes out for a corner and the linesman thinks it was offside, he will always flag. If he doesn't flag, it's because he thought it was onside. If it goes out for a goal kick or the defending side wins the ball, he might not flag because of the advantage rule.

Are you sure? What he is supposed to do and what actually happens on occasion are two different matters.

[dsr]

Are you sure? What he is supposed to do and what actually happens on occasion are two different matters.

I'm sure that's what is supposed to happen. I haven't seen any evidence that linesmen are deliberately ignoring offsides.

[superdimitri]

Usain Bolt covered 10.43 cm (a bit over 4 inches) in 100th of a second, on average in his world record 100m. One of his feet would be doing double that speed, so 8 inches. Obviously footballers aren't so fast, but call it 6 inches.

Bog standard TV cameras typically work at 26 frames per second, or 4/100ths of a second per frame. HD cameras are faster, and I would hope VAR cameras are too. Can anyone confirm?

They use several slow motion cameras for VAR. They use the 50fps broadcast feed to sync when the player touches the ball. The players movement is calculated at something like 300fps.

So when they show the result with the lines (or so they should) it's a still frame of these combined 'virtual' footage.

Of course that can mean that to us on replays it looks closer than it seems slowed down so much. Showing slowed footage at 50fps won't show the same stages as 300fps.

[superdimitri]

I disagree entirely. If the drama of a disallowed goal was so great, then they might as well have a "roll the dice" button every 5 minutes and if you get a double 6, the opposition lose a goal. It's scoring goals that makes football what it is; no-one ever comes off saying "what a great disallowance that was".

No, but they will go away saying they're glad the other teams goal was disallowed. The issue isn't the means that the decision is made but incorrect decisions themselves.

[IanMcL]

You have better eyes than me. Of course, you might have had a better view from the game, but on MotD I couldn't even judge exactly where the defender's shoulder/arm was. Neither could the linesman, because he thought it was on.

You are seeking truth and fairness.
I agree.

[DAVETHEVICAR]

I was at the game and when we scored I took the view as at every goal Will VAR intervene.
I watched the linesman who immediately ran towards the half way line and then VAR announced it was offside.
Seeing it on MOTD later I was amazed that VAR had intervened as it was clearly not an obvious error and to me the goal should have stood.
I believe the same result at the other end and the goal would have stood and I would not have objected.

[ClaretTony]

Seeing it on MOTD later I was amazed that VAR had intervened as it was clearly not an obvious error and to me the goal should have stood.

There is no reference to clear and obvious error on an offside - it's not relevant what referee and assistant have given, it is based on the technology.

[DAVETHEVICAR]

Ok thanks Tony
Have heard the “ clear and obvious error” mentioned so many times and thought it was relevant to all VAR decisions.
Clearly the correct call was made then

[CrosspoolClarets]

They use several slow motion cameras for VAR. They use the 50fps broadcast feed to sync when the player touches the ball. The players movement is calculated at something like 300fps.

So when they show the result with the lines (or so they should) it's a still frame of these combined 'virtual' footage.

Of course that can mean that to us on replays it looks closer than it seems slowed down so much. Showing slowed footage at 50fps won't show the same stages as 300fps.

This is what I was alluding to above, and dsr was also writing similar. Even at 300fps last season’s method would result in errors but this season’s probably wouldn’t (although that defender was very cleverly whizzing his foot back very fast).

The issue is whether any advantage has been gained from such a small margin, that seems to be Hackett’s argument which is that a minor rewrite of rule 11 is needed, that’s why the old system before VAR would probably have allowed Wood’s goal due to being roughly level, and arguably that being the fair outcome.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

This is what I was alluding to above, and dsr was also writing similar. Even at 300fps last season’s method would result in errors but this season’s probably wouldn’t (although that defender was very cleverly whizzing his foot back very fast).

The issue is whether any advantage has been gained from such a small margin, that seems to be Hackett’s argument which is that a minor rewrite of rule 11 is needed, that’s why the old system before VAR would probably have allowed Wood’s goal due to being roughly level, and arguably that being the fair outcome.

FIFA's quest for the perfect game of football continues. I have never seen one in 70 years and I very much doubt that anyone watching now will see one in the next 70 years! The problem is just how much will the game be sterilised further in the atttempt to achieve the objective and will it be worth watching?

[Devils_Advocate]

before VAR would probably have allowed Wood’s goal due to being roughly level, and arguably that being the fair outcome.

Before VAR strikers were given offside when they were sometimes behind the defenders and given onside when they were in front of defenders like Wood was.

With VAR this is now no longer the case

[berbs78]

Wood was born offside.He needs a kick up the arse.His laziness is costing us goals and points.

[superdimitri]

Wood was born offside.He needs a kick up the arse.His laziness is costing us goals and points.

You'll get some flack for saying that here but I agree. I knew it was offside when it went in, not because I saw it particularly, its just become the norm.

[RMutt]

He’s not daft, he knows he gets caught offside a lot. He also realises he needs to hedge his bets to gain an advantage. Dyche will also know he’s playing a percentage game. He doesn’t have blistering pace and with the greatest of respects to him his movement isn’t up with the best of the world’s strikers, some of whom are in the Premier League. He’s doing what he has to, slightly frustrating as it is sometimes.

[Rowls]

Have to agree with IanMcL on this thread.

Being in the ground when it happened you assume he's offside. I mean, what happened to that guidance that there had to be "air" between defender and attacker?

This "offside by by a pixel" nonsense has to stop.

They need to find a way to broaden the lines and empower the linesmen to make decisions otherwise we'll end up with corwardly, useless linesmen like we got at the weekend.

[Erasmus]

It was offside, but it was another of those things that just aren't going our way at the moment because if he'd moved a split second later he would still have scored and it would have been shown to be onside. I'm sure things will change for us soon. I watched the replay of the full match today and we played really well in both attack and defence. We got the same result as Napoli and they are top of Italian League so we can't be that bad.