Son's Offside Goal

[Shotgunofmichalebrow]

Football doesn't work like that though. We go one up and we might defend deeper and not concede. Every action in the game is different and Kane likely doesn't get injured. Finishes 1-1 with Lloris palming a tame Milner strike into Salah's path for an easy finish in minute 89. ((I am very nervous about Lloris tonight)) . . ((Did we need another position to be nervous about?))

Your right award us the game we won 6-1

 

[1chriswaddle]

My apologies if this is in the wrong section

I know this kind of thing has been talked about before, and in the shit storm that followed the LFC defeat the incident seems to be largely overlooked, which is odd, given the potential impact the decision had.

The offside law is there to prevent players from seeking to gain an advantage by - in old time parlance, goal hanging. But with the introduction of the law a whole science has built up in (defences) running offside traps and (attackers) trying to defeat them, and now in the days of VAR, this farcical use of pseudo forensic science in trying to determine if a players wrist is in an offside position in relation to a defenders heel etc etc.

And what gets lost in some of this CSI drive for justice is the actual spirit of the game - in trying to make the game more entertaining, and trying to encourage teams to score goals, and not trying to teach teams to be negative in becoming cleverer at stopping them.

Son was determined to have had one insignificant part of his body in an offside position as he ran away from the opponents goal to receive a pass in a phase of play, prior to him receiving the pass that put him in a position - where he still had to work, to score the goal. The margin by which that determination was made was so minimal it was borderline comical, and I would be saying exactly the same thing had the same determination been made in the case of a Liverpool player, or any other team - because the application of that particular part of the law is killing the game in my opinion. The game of football was robbed of a beautifully well worked, well executed and clinically taken goal.

Offside needs to be re-worked to give the impetus to the attacker, even to the point where there even needs to be daylight between the attacker and the last defender before they are offside and that the attacker is facing in the direction of the goal in possession of, or intent on receiving possession of the ball. Not sure about the exact wording, someone better at this kind of thing than me can work on this and then bullet the caveats or exeptions, as long as the essence of the change is made to stop this farcical nit picking - which in my opinion is making a farce of the use of VAR and ruining the spectacle of football by robbing it of some wonderful goals.

One of the best posts I have ever read on this forum.Nice one Mick.

 

[Trotter]

I know what you mean but I havent ever seen a camera angle where it is directly in line with any incident

Well Sky use 24 cameras, 12 along touchlines, Even at best if spaced equally that is 1 every 10 yards, so the chances of actually having anything directly in line is quite remote, probably higher odds than than 1 in 100. AS I say it is a numbers game to get what you want, and is totally unrealistic.

 

[TottsAmazeballs]

VAR is killing things and needs to change.

Things to remember: the rules apply to everyone (except Liverpool and ManU, obvs.): what goes against goes for us some of the time. Some things look offside when they are not, so the idea of only checking it in real time is just where we were before VAR, which pissed everyone off.

We can ignore the direction people are facing because then it will come down to how rotated they are, whether the top of the body is more rotated, whether their left-foot is facing the wrong way etc. As a prototype rule, we could say 'where the hips are facing' and you then have everyone wearing baggy clothes so goals stand by omission of evidence. You could take the average direction of both feet, but then if one is off the ground and turning towards goal, they have an advantage as both their feet are going to be facing the goal in 1 millisecond and that pisses everyone off. Plus, Robert Pires would've crashed their computer.

We can't only use the position of the feet because people scoring with snapshot diving-headers will piss everyone off and that would be criminal, because they're fucking ace.

There aren't many options:

1. Get rid of VAR. We all know how that is. Maybe is was good enough. I don't think it was.
2. Get used to this. Meh.
3. More tech.

One possible thing to try would be a laser, writing the line on the ground, that constantly tracks the last defenders trailing body part. Everyone can see it, strikers will have no excuse and there would be fewer surprises.

I like the idea of body trackers. A single point, taken from the same devices that currently track their movement (placed between shoulder blades). We already have the tech, it's used on loads of players during games already. The only problem is that it isn't super-accurate, we could mitigate that by using the same tech for everyone, however if the teams managed their own tech, they could cheat and give false positions. Would have to be centrally managed.

Also, note that these trackers have a latency, which would need to be reduced before it could be used in competition. As it stands, they send their position every 500-1000 milliseconds, which is too slow and would give them the chance to go offside early without triggering the rule (in retrospect that would just look like they'd accelerated very quickly and then we'd be arguing what 'too quick' was). This problem never goes away, but we could agree on what was close enough.

One, let's say 'left-field', option is to use some combo of the above and put collars on the players, so that if they cross the line, they get a nasty electric shock. Something like 'The Running Man', but less gory. That'd be fucking hilarious and we'd see the end of offside in days, or get some good old gladiatorial entertainment instead.

:lamelashock:

Seriously though, I reckon we could find the middle ground. Merge the above. Use the body-trackers: a light/sound in the stadium and give the players a 'buzz' from their trackers when they go offside and we get some more-immediate indicator for both player and fans when tech spots the problem. The player will know if their buzzer was going when they got the pass. Less time spent watching/celebrating non-goals and also gives the players a kick to get back onside quicker.

Or, get rid of offside entirely. Go full 19th century and play 1-0-10!

 

[1chriswaddle]

In an ideal world just get rid of VAR and give us our game back.
Sadly that ship has already sailed and we are stuck with it.Such a shame we didn’t win the CL Final, Spurs fans everywhere could have been eternally grateful to VAR for that night in Manchester.

 

[Perryman]

My apologies if this is in the wrong section

I know this kind of thing has been talked about before, and in the shit storm that followed the LFC defeat the incident seems to be largely overlooked, which is odd, given the potential impact the decision had.

The offside law is there to prevent players from seeking to gain an advantage by - in old time parlance, goal hanging. But with the introduction of the law a whole science has built up in (defences) running offside traps and (attackers) trying to defeat them, and now in the days of VAR, this farcical use of pseudo forensic science in trying to determine if a players wrist is in an offside position in relation to a defenders heel etc etc.

And what gets lost in some of this CSI drive for justice is the actual spirit of the game - in trying to make the game more entertaining, and trying to encourage teams to score goals, and not trying to teach teams to be negative in becoming cleverer at stopping them.

Son was determined to have had one insignificant part of his body in an offside position as he ran away from the opponents goal to receive a pass in a phase of play, prior to him receiving the pass that put him in a position - where he still had to work, to score the goal. The margin by which that determination was made was so minimal it was borderline comical, and I would be saying exactly the same thing had the same determination been made in the case of a Liverpool player, or any other team - because the application of that particular part of the law is killing the game in my opinion. The game of football was robbed of a beautifully well worked, well executed and clinically taken goal.

Offside needs to be re-worked to give the impetus to the attacker, even to the point where there even needs to be daylight between the attacker and the last defender before they are offside and that the attacker is facing in the direction of the goal in possession of, or intent on receiving possession of the ball. Not sure about the exact wording, someone better at this kind of thing than me can work on this and then bullet the caveats or exeptions, as long as the essence of the change is made to stop this farcical nit picking - which in my opinion is making a farce of the use of VAR and ruining the spectacle of football by robbing it of some wonderful goals.

You’re right it has become a bit of a nightmare. Son was hardly seeking to gain an advantage as he was facing the other way.
There are 2 different uses of VAR in the world
MLS which is run by exPL ref Howard Webb..they look at the frame without using the lines. If there is nothing obvious they go with refs decision.
Holland have introduced a thicker line in the picture ..10cm width. Approx 4inches. Takes out all the armpit offsides and big toes etc.
Why not..same for all sides.
Wenger who currently works for FIFA is suggesting that you are not offside if any part of your body is alongside a defender.

 

[JDM]

I saw Andy Gray discuss VAR in use of offside goals and the whole thing is a disgrace. I can't remember everything perfectly so I will just type what I remember. There are 3 frames in a second and passing a ball is seen over all 3 frames. First frame the passer makes contact with the ball, second frame the ball has been hit but is still touching the foot, and finally frame 3 the ball has left the passers foot. They then showed a Man City game in which 2 goals went to VAR, one goal used frame 1 to decide whether it was onside and the other goal used frame 3; as a result the goal using frame 1 was deemed as onside and the other using frame 3 was deemed as offside. They then looked at both goals more closely and the goal that was given as offside was more onside than the other goal when they both used the same frame to judge the goal.

Now onto the Son goal, that is clearly frame 3 (ball has left Tanguy's foot) if they used frame 1 or frame 2 then Son would have been onside. Due to a lack of consistency they can manipulate close decisions in favour of certain teams.

Personally I believe you want the advantage to go to the attacker, that's what football is about so they should be using frame 1 every single time to stop disallowing perfectly good goals.

One last thing, didn't Allison handle the ball outside the area anyway? Did we not even get a replay for that? Let alone VAR look at it. Now it could have been inside the area, but at least show the audience to remove any doubt.

 

[prinmemo]

If they want to talk about millimeters, then they should also talk about milliseconds of the ball leaving the player.

This is what I don’t understand. When do they freeze the video to measure for offside? Is it when the player passing the ball starts his touch to pass? So let’s assume it’s a one touch pass. Is the frame based on when the ball first touches his foot? Or is it when the ball has just left his foot en route to the player in a possible offside position?

This can make a big difference.

 

[prinmemo]

I saw Andy Gray discuss VAR in use of offside goals and the whole thing is a disgrace. I can't remember everything perfectly so I will just type what I remember. There are 3 frames in a second and passing a ball is seen over all 3 frames. First frame the passer makes contact with the ball, second frame the ball has been hit but is still touching the foot, and finally frame 3 the ball has left the passers foot. They then showed a Man City game in which 2 goals went to VAR, one goal used frame 1 to decide whether it was onside and the other goal used frame 3; as a result the goal using frame 1 was deemed as onside and the other using frame 3 was deemed as offside. They then looked at both goals more closely and the goal that was given as offside was more onside than the other goal if they both used the same frame to judge the goal.

Now onto the Son goal, that is clearly frame 3 (ball has left Tanguy's foot) if they used frame 1 or frame 2 then Son would have been onside. Due to a lack of consistency they can manipulate close decisions in favour of certain teams.

Personally I believe you want the advantage to go to the attacker, that's what football is about do they should be using frame 1 every single time to stop disallowing perfectly good goals.

One last thing, didn't Allison handle the ball outside the area anyway? Did we not even get a replay for that? Let alone VAR look at it. Now it could have been inside the area, but at least show the audience to remove any doubt.

This was exactly my question. It sounds like their approach is even more ridiculous than I thought. They clearly provide the VAR referees options to “optimize” the decision.

 

[JDM]

It's killing the game, they've found another way of cheating teams and it's not acceptable.

 

[peter merison]

Well Sky use 24 cameras, 12 along touchlines, Even at best if spaced equally that is 1 every 10 yards, so the chances of actually having anything directly in line is quite remote, probably higher odds than than 1 in 100. AS I say it is a numbers game to get what you want, and is totally unrealistic.

Then if it cannot be implemented properly then it should just be used for ball in and out of play

 

[paddy spur]

Make the lines thicker make it more generous to attacking play

 

[Mick Cooper]

I agree that VAR is killing things and needs to change.

Things to remember: the rules apply to everyone (except Liverpool and ManU, obvs.): what goes against goes for us some of the time. Some things look offside when they are not, so the idea of only checking it in real time is just where we were before VAR, which pissed everyone off.

We can ignore the direction people are facing because then it will come down to how rotated they are, whether the top of the body is more rotated, whether their left-foot is facing the wrong way etc. As a prototype rule, we could say 'where the hips are facing' and you then have everyone wearing baggy clothes so goals stand by omission of evidence. You could take the average direction of both feet, but then if one is off the ground and turning towards goal, they have an advantage as both their feet are going to be facing the goal in 1 millisecond and that pisses everyone off. Plus, Robert Pires would've crashed their computer.

We can't only use the position of the feet because people scoring with snapshot diving-headers will piss everyone off and that would be criminal, because they're fucking ace.

There aren't many options:

1. Get rid of VAR. We all know how that is. Maybe is was good enough. I don't think it was.
2. Get used to this. Meh.
3. More tech.

One possible thing to try would be a laser, writing the line on the ground, that constantly tracks the last defenders trailing body part. Everyone can see it, strikers will have no excuse and there would be fewer surprises.

I like the idea of body trackers. A single point, taken from the same devices that currently track their movement (placed between shoulder blades). We already have the tech, it's used on loads of players during games already. The only problem is that it isn't super-accurate, we could mitigate that by using the same tech for everyone, however if the teams managed their own tech, they could cheat and give false positions. Would have to be centrally managed.

Also, note that these trackers have a latency, which would need to be reduced before it could be used in competition. As it stands, they send their position every 500-1000 milliseconds, which is too slow and would give them the chance to go offside early without triggering the rule (in retrospect that would just look like they'd accelerated very quickly and then we'd be arguing what 'too quick' was). This problem never goes away, but we could agree on what was close enough.

One, let's say 'left-field', option is to use some combo of the above and put collars on the players, so that if they cross the line, they get a nasty electric shock. Something like 'The Running Man', but less gory. That'd be fucking hilarious and we'd see the end of offside in days, or get some good old gladiatorial entertainment instead.

:lamelashock:

Seriously though, I reckon we could find the middle ground. Merge the above. Use the body-trackers: a light/sound in the stadium and give the players a 'buzz' from their trackers when they go offside and we get some more-immediate indicator for both player and fans when tech spots the problem. The player will know if their buzzer was going when they got the pass. Less time spent watching/celebrating non-goals and also gives the players a kick to get back onside quicker.

Or, get rid of offside entirely. Go full 19th century and play 1-0-10!

You are either having a giraffe, or you didn't understand one word I said..........

 

[Sumo70's]

For me it's about the officials who are controlling it and utilising (manipulating) the technology (or not) to favour certain teams more than others.

 

[Trotter]

I saw Andy Gray discuss VAR in use of offside goals and the whole thing is a disgrace. I can't remember everything perfectly so I will just type what I remember. There are 3 frames in a second and passing a ball is seen over all 3 frames. First frame the passer makes contact with the ball, second frame the ball has been hit but is still touching the foot, and finally frame 3 the ball has left the passers foot. They then showed a Man City game in which 2 goals went to VAR, one goal used frame 1 to decide whether it was onside and the other goal used frame 3; as a result the goal using frame 1 was deemed as onside and the other using frame 3 was deemed as offside. They then looked at both goals more closely and the goal that was given as offside was more onside than the other goal when they both used the same frame to judge the goal.

Now onto the Son goal, that is clearly frame 3 (ball has left Tanguy's foot) if they used frame 1 or frame 2 then Son would have been onside. Due to a lack of consistency they can manipulate close decisions in favour of certain teams.

Personally I believe you want the advantage to go to the attacker, that's what football is about so they should be using frame 1 every single time to stop disallowing perfectly good goals.

One last thing, didn't Allison handle the ball outside the area anyway? Did we not even get a replay for that? Let alone VAR look at it. Now it could have been inside the area, but at least show the audience to remove any doubt.

Sky films at 50 frames per second, not 3.
If it was 3 the match would be unwatchable.

And no Allison did not handball it outside of the area, wasn't even close to it in the end. Yes VAR obviously looked at it, but was not tight at all, which is obviously why BT Sport did not show again.

 

[bonaspur23]

I always wonder why they show the offside incidents from an acute angle and never in line with it.
Surely it would end all controversy to show it in line?

Because they don’t have 100 cameras looking exactly horizontally all the way down the sidelines.

You would need a moving camera perfectly in line with the last defender at all times

 

[TottsAmazeballs]

You are either having a giraffe, or you didn't understand one word I said..........

I realise as the thread starter you are very proud and feel like you're standing on a big hill in front of all the townsfolk. You might even imagine that people look up to you and hang on your every word. Maybe you expect every subsequent post is responding to you and you alone, but... you might want to sit down for this... you're not, they're not and I wasn't talking to you. Sorry. Life is harsh.

I was just responding to a general sentiment and looking for positives and constructive criticism of the current state.

Tell you what, I'll change the first line.

 

[peter merison]

Because they don’t have 100 cameras looking exactly horizontally all the way down the sidelines.

Yep, but have you even see them show an offside thats in line ? I havent

 

[bonaspur23]

Yep, but have you even see them show an offside thats in line ? I havent

Assuming 1 or 2 cameras there a very low probability it ends up at a perfect angle. I would assume they have good enough mathematicians to determine the camera angle and be able to draw the correct line.

 

[Trotter]

Then if it cannot be implemented properly then it should just be used for ball in and out of play

But that is what the VAR technology does, adjusts to take account of the camera angle. It is calibrated, vigorously tested and implemented properly. Just because YOU cannot have an angle that is directly in line for you to verify, because such an angle cannot exist without having 1000+ cameras, does not mean the technology is incorrect, far from it.