V.A.R. - Good for Purpose??

[Johnny75]

Because I'm sad I found my old data and various other bits since that if you're really interested in why Assistant referees aren't any good for determining offside you can read here, here and here.

VAR is implemented wrong IMO and one of the articles does spell out why the offside law needs to change.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Dele Ali’s Back leg would definitely be level with some part of Stieperman’s leg, even if it’s not , let’s move him an inch backward, he’s still gaining an unfair advantage.

He’s closer to the goaline than the second most deep player, ergo gaining an advantage being offside.

Edit - just re read and saw your sanctimonious comment about simple rule in football being wrong when it is in fact you being wrong. Johnny got to Johnny though. I’m not referring to Arrons, I’m referring to Stieperman.

We didn't get it wrong, we jumped on the definition Johnny put forward, he was either too thick or too lazy to use the proper definition.

 

[The Bear]

Isn't the 50fps the broadcast rate not the capture rate? There are high speed cameras that Sky use that are 20,000fps and broadcast cameras that can go at 1650fps. I'm pretty sure that the cameras used for VAR are much higher capture rate that the 50fps the broadcasters use for our TV's.

Yes. It suggests that the broadcast cameras are used to determine the point of contact.

"Hawk-Eye can also use any broadcast camera to identify the point of contact with the ball by the attacker, and synchronises all cameras for this purpose.

The broadcast cameras operate with 50 frames per second, so the point of contact with the ball is one of those frames inside the 50 per second."

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1488423

 

[Johnny75]

Dele Ali’s Back leg would definitely be level with some part of Stieperman’s leg, even if it’s not , let’s move him an inch backward, he’s still gaining an unfair advantage.

He’s closer to the goaline than the second most deep player, ergo gaining an advantage being offside.

Edit - just re read and saw your sanctimonious comment about simple rule in football being wrong when it is in fact you being wrong. Johnny got to Johnny though. I’m not referring to Arrons, I’m referring to Stieperman.

So you can see Stieperman through Kane, fair play.

 

[PuntsWolf]

So you can see Stieperman through Kane, fair play.

I don’t get why you are being so obtuse. Let’s say you can see stiepermans foot (I’m sure they could calibrate it from all the cameras anyway). If dele Alli’s back leg is level with Stiepermens back leg, your rule would have that as onside? Simple yes or no answer?

 

[Johnny75]

We didn't get it wrong, we jumped on the definition Johnny put forward, he was either too thick or too lazy to use the proper definition.

Yes, you're quite right Mark, I should've mentioned that arms don't count, I just assumed with people's football knowledge any fucking simpleton would know that arms don't count for being offside.

ANY fucking simpleton.

 

[Rui_CostCo]

Isn't the 50fps the broadcast rate not the capture rate? There are high speed cameras that Sky use that are 20,000fps and broadcast cameras that can go at 1650fps. I'm pretty sure that the cameras used for VAR are much higher capture rate that the 50fps the broadcasters use for our TV's.

Bear says not? If they 'are' using high speed camera footage for decisions then it might make sense to use that when playing the incidents back? Edit - Bears already addressed this.
50fps is not fast enough

 

[Johnny75]

I don’t get why you are being so obtuse. Let’s say you can see stiepermans foot (I’m sure they could calibrate it from all the cameras anyway). If dele Alli’s back leg is level with Stiepermens back leg, your rule would have that as onside? Simple yes or no answer?

He isn't though is he?

And if his back leg was level with the defender then yes he would be onside under my preferred definition of offside. I will caveat that with we don't know if two frames before he is level with Stieperman or Arrons as that could be where the ball player had the ball. (which is another complication with the current set up)

As I've answered your question how about you do me the courtesy of answering mine?

 

[Johnny75]

Bear says not? If they 'are' using high speed camera footage for decisions then it might make sense to use that when playing the incidents back?

I'd agree with that, I do wonder why they aren't it isn't as if the tech isn't there.

 

[Tredman]

I'd agree with that, I do wonder why they aren't it isn't as if the tech isn't there.

Can’t imagine there is the ability to transfer the data back to the VAR HQ if they were to use 20,000 FPS. That’s a shit load of data.

 

[Johnny75]

Can’t imagine there is the ability to transfer the data back to the VAR HQ if they were to use 20,000 FPS. That’s a shit load of data.

You would need a fair old server to do it I imagine. With the oodles of cash the PL have got I'm sure they could find a way.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Yes, you're quite right Mark, I should've mentioned that arms don't count, I just assumed with people's football knowledge any fucking simpleton would know that arms don't count for being offside.

ANY fucking simpleton.

You're such a cunt.

 

[PuntsWolf]

He isn't though is he?

And if his back leg was level with the defender then yes he would be onside under my preferred definition of offside. I will caveat that with we don't know if two frames before he is level with Stieperman or Arrons as that could be where the ball player had the ball. (which is another complication with the current set up)

As I've answered your question how about you do me the courtesy of answering mine?

I did answer it. And I’m not getting caught up in semantics anyway.

I don’t feel Dele Alli should be allowed to be onside if he has a 1mm cross over with Stieperman (despite being clearly offside, your making an offside decision 100% of people would agree with onside, bizarre).

I completely disagree and even worse for the game causing more problems.

 

[The Bear]

Can we have less of the sweary name-calling please.

We get it, you don't agree. Let's not let it get out of hand.

 

[Tredman]

You would need a fair old server to do it I imagine. With the oodles of cash the PL have got I'm sure they could find a way.

It’s more the pipe to get it back. You need 25 meg connection for one 4k stream at 24 FPS. So we are talking 2.5 gigabit for one 20 kHz camera. Pretty impossible for multiple cameras.

 

[Johnny75]

I did answer it. And I’m not getting caught up in semantics anyway.

I don’t feel Dele Alli should be allowed to be onside if he has a 1mm cross over with Stieperman (despite being clearly offside, your making an offside decision 100% of people would agree with onside, bizarre).

I completely disagree and even worse for the game causing more problems.

Did you answer it I have missed it, where?

I think it's a pretty important semantic when you're telling what it is about the law you would want changed and why you disagree.

 

[Johnny75]

It’s more the pipe to get it back. You need 25 meg connection for one 4k stream at 24 FPS. So we are talking 2.5 gigabit for one 20 kHz camera. Pretty impossible for multiple cameras.

Could always do it onsite, maybe in a truck outside the stadium.

 

[Rui_CostCo]

I'd agree with that, I do wonder why they aren't it isn't as if the tech isn't there.

The only scenario i can think of where you would impliment something flawed from the outset, is if you think that flaw will add something in itself, like 'excitement'

 

[Tredman]

Could always do it onsite, maybe in a truck outside the stadium.

That’s far too sensible.

 

[PuntsWolf]

Did you answer it I have missed it, where?

It doesn’t matter. It’s completely irrelevant.

You think Dele Alli is onside (or a similar incidence is). I think that is fucking stupid. I was just checking that is what your new rule was, you have confirmed it. If after all this discussion and evidence you still think it’s a good idea then it’s pointless carrying on as I won’t change your mind. So we will leave it there