Leicester 0-0 Wolves We've been roobbed Verdict thread:

[Paddingtonwolf]

The Sheffield United goal suggests even one intervening touch by an opposition player is going to allow the goal to stand. Which is an absolute muddle.

A poster on here (I think it was Tredman) said that a player of the pace of Sterling at full tilt is going to move something like 30cms in between frames on 25 fps film. So to then give an offside by a margin of probably a fifth of the frame rate is a serious flaw. We are going to need much higher frame rate cameras and something in the ball that nails the exact frame in that higher rate that the ball was kicked to be 100% accurate even on offside. That sort of thing is going to presumably be the next stage of technological development.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

If you go down the hard evidence route then you get rid of the ref long term and as thats ludicrous there has to be some margin of error. Thats why cricket gets away with it as it has umpires call. Its the interpretation thats nuts not VAR. VAR has called it right given the interpretation.

Completely hypothetical this and equally ludicrous but it shows why the current interpretation doesnt work for me.

A goalkeeper catches a cross and the area clears of all players bar the opposition centre forward . The opposition centre forward stands in front of the keeper , but no obstruction. The keeper takes umbridge and in a fit of pique throws the ball at the centre forward striking his arm. The loose ball is then in play and the centre forward, quickly rolls it into the net. The goal is disallowed as the ball strikes the centre forwards arm immediately before he scores.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

That's a foul for ungentlemany conduct by the keeper I think and therefore a penalty. I could of course be wrong, but that is how I would think to interpret.

 

[Johnny75]

The Sheffield United goal suggests even one intervening touch by an opposition player is going to allow the goal to stand. Which is an absolute muddle.

A poster on here (I think it was Tredman) said that a player of the pace of Sterling at full tilt is going to move something like 30cms in between frames on 25 fps film. So to then give an offside by a margin of probably a fifth of the frame rate is a serious flaw. We are going to need much higher frame rate cameras and something in the ball that nails the exact frame in that higher rate that the ball was kicked to be 100% accurate even on offside. That sort of thing is going to presumably be the next stage of technological development.

You can easily track the ball and player. They do it all the time for coaching purposes so that it is easy to track anything. I think there are 40 odd cameras at a game and together they can track everything on the pitch and up to several hundred metres in the air. If you can take a still shot at any time then it should be accurate.

 

[Johnny75]

If you go down the hard evidence route then you get rid of the ref long term and as thats ludicrous there has to be some margin of error. Thats why cricket gets away with it as it has umpires call. Its the interpretation thats nuts not VAR. VAR has called it right given the interpretation.

Completely hypothetical this and equally ludicrous but it shows why the current interpretation doesnt work for me.

A goalkeeper catches a cross and the area clears of all players bar the opposition centre forward . The opposition centre forward stands in front of the keeper , but no obstruction. The keeper takes umbridge and in a fit of pique throws the ball at the centre forward striking his arm. The loose ball is then in play and the centre forward, quickly rolls it into the net. The goal is disallowed as the ball strikes the centre forwards arm immediately before he scores.

I think the play is stopped immediately the ball strikes the arm (as in Boly's case) and then goes the way Paddy mentions.

 

[Charlie Wolf]

Clear and obvious error isn't what VAR is there for in football though. That is a DRS term from cricket where they stick with umpire's call on marginal decisions.

Football isn't going down that route. And offside or not offside is absolutely binary.

Our non-goal on Sunday is purely the result of VAR correctly interpreting a badly written piece of guidance. The contrast with the Sheffield United goal is an excellent cakse in point. If there was a handball in their build up, which seems inconclusive, then the fact that it then hit a Bournemouth player before being scored seems to mean it is no longer automatically chalked off, and that seems a bit whacky races.

Plus as we can now see from the other shot, the correct decision should have been "no goal - penalty" for the tug on Boly's shirt that caused him to handle the ball in the first place.

Sorry, but your first statement is totally wrong and misleading, to quote;
The video assistant referee (VAR) is a match official in association football who reviews decisions made by the head referee with the use of video footage and a headset for communication.

Following extensive trialling in a number of major competitions, VARs were first written into the Laws of the Game by the International Football Association Board (IFAB) in 2018.[1] Operating under the philosophy of "minimal interference, maximum benefit",[2][3] the VAR system seeks to provide a way for "clear and obvious errors" and "serious missed incidents" to be corrected.[4]

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

At full sprint a player like Raheem Sterling is probably going at just under 30km/h. So call it 500m per minute. 8.15m per second. So around 30cm per frame. So a still shot of that frame is actually anywhere within that 30cm margin. A 40 fps camera reduces that margin quite a bit, down to less than 20cm. There will obviously be cameras with even higher frame rates that could get the margin even lower, but how that would look on the telly for a viewer used to 25 fps I have no idea.

 

[Jinky]

Plus as we can now see from the other shot, the correct decision should have been "no goal - penalty" for the tug on Boly's shirt that caused him to handle the ball in the first place.

That was a different corner.

 

[BillyDee]

You can easily track the ball and player. They do it all the time for coaching purposes so that it is easy to track anything. I think there are 40 odd cameras at a game and together they can track everything on the pitch and up to several hundred metres in the air. If you can take a still shot at any time then it should be accurate.

You can easily track the device on the back of the player. Don't know what the margin of error is, probably about half a metre?
You can't easily track heads, shoulders, knees and toes (knees and toes:icon_biggrin.
If absolute precision is desired, that ain't gonna do it...

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Sorry, but your first statement is totally wrong and misleading, to quote;
The video assistant referee (VAR) is a match official in association football who reviews decisions made by the head referee with the use of video footage and a headset for communication.

Following extensive trialling in a number of major competitions, VARs were first written into the Laws of the Game by the International Football Association Board (IFAB) in 2018.[1] Operating under the philosophy of "minimal interference, maximum benefit",[2][3] the VAR system seeks to provide a way for "clear and obvious errors" and "serious missed incidents" to be corrected.[4]

Fine. But offside is offside is offside. It is binary, so getting it wrong by even a tiny margin is the clear and obvious error to which you wish to refer. The problem occurs in that the technology isn't there to be 100% ironclad because of frame rates.

Not trying to mislead, that was my belief that the term only came from cricket, where it has always been the stated intent to avoid the obvious umpiring howler.

With handball, if a Boly situation occurs, then that has now become the clear and obvious error. But the Sharp goal isn't. Much as I dislike VAR, the problem isn't the system itself, it is the guidelines that have been written for its use and interpretation.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

That was a different corner.

Didn't know that - ignore that bit then. Was a bit busy on Sunday being repaired.

 

[The Bear]

The Sheff Utd goal, it hits the players chest not his arm. There's another angle on Twitter which clears it up.

 

[The Bear]

https://twitter.com/matthewmellis_/status/1160935788080783361?s=19

 

[Johnny75]

You can easily track the device on the back of the player. Don't know what the margin of error is, probably about half a metre?
You can't easily track heads, shoulders, knees and toes (knees and toes:icon_biggrin.
If absolute precision is desired, that ain't gonna do it...

The cameras will give absolute accuracy and the markers on the software placed on the ball (on the screen not the actual ball) will give absolute accuracy for ball movement.

There seems to be some misconception that only one camera is used for offside when it is a combination of several and I would guess (and it is a guess) that those cameras will be offset so the frame rate is closer to 200fps in doing so eliminating the distance.

 

[Charlie Wolf]

Fine. But offside is offside is offside. It is binary, so getting it wrong by even a tiny margin is the clear and obvious error to which you wish to refer. The problem occurs in that the technology isn't there to be 100% ironclad because of frame rates.

Not trying to mislead, that was my belief that the term only came from cricket, where it has always been the stated intent to avoid the obvious umpiring howler.

With handball, if a Boly situation occurs, then that has now become the clear and obvious error. But the Sharp goal isn't. Much as I dislike VAR, the problem isn't the system itself, it is the guidelines that have been written for its use and interpretation.

This I totally agree with, the practical methods, measurements and technology have got to meet the theoretical expectations. At this point it’s questionable if they do

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

The Sheff Utd goal, it hits the players chest not his arm. There's another angle on Twitter which clears it up.

I understand that. But IF the ball had been deflected on to the arm of the Sheffield United player and then went on to hit the Bournemouth player (which it did) and the touch from the Bournemouth player laid it off to Sharp, then the handball contact would not have assisted the goal, and so it would APPEAR that normal deflection rules for handball would apply.

In my humble opinion, it would be worthwhile if PGMOL released some further guidance in the light of the incidents from the first weekend to make it clear about interpretation.

I have no axe to grind about our goal not counting, it is the correct interpretation as things stand. But further guidance to officials could help ensure consistent interpretation throughout the season. And that has to be the key. VAR is new, and little teething problems are to be expected, but if these are reacted to correctly then everyone gets treated the same way.

 

[PuntsWolf]

The one touch thing is something someone has made up and then everyone is going along with it.

It’s simply if it leads to a chance. Where they draw the line is subjective (until there is further clarification).

The rule hasn’t been created for moments like Sunday. But now it’s been used for that it’s causing confusion.

Our goal at Bristol City would have been chalked off under the new rule. Ricocheted off Docs hand into his path and then he cut it back to Cav. Wasn’t deliberate but it hit his hand and he gained an advantage. Even if Cav had passed that to someone else or a defender got a toe on it and then we put it in I imagine it would still be disallowed.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

That's a foul for ungentlemany conduct by the keeper I think and therefore a penalty. I could of course be wrong, but that is how I would think to interpret.

Interesting- I see where youre going but I think its an indirect free kick for unsportsmanlike behaviour rather than a penalty and of course no goal.

 

[Walnut]

I am just waiting the moment one of the top 4 sides scores a goal like ours on Sunday and the goal will stand. Its going to happen believe me.

 

[darlowolf64]

Interesting- I see where youre going but I think its an indirect free kick for unsportsmanlike behaviour rather than a penalty and of course no goal.

From Law 12; Fouls and Misconduct are penalized as follows

If the ball is still in play, and a goalkeeper who is in his own penalty area deliberately throws the ball at an opponent who is standing outside of the penalty area, then you must award a penalty to the opponent's team. The offence of throwing the ball commenced inside the goalkeeper's penalty area, and is a penal offence, hence the award of the penalty kick against the goalkeeper. It does not matter where the opponent is standing (inside or outside of the goalkeeper's penalty area) or whether the ball hits the opponent or not. Caution or send-off the goalkeeper depending on the severity of the throw.