Offsides

[Maldini]

Amidst the media hype about goal-line technology it's kind of been lost that there are far more dodgy offside decisions that dodgy goal awards, why are they not trying to fix this through technology? There has to be some way of working this so that we can tell definitively whether a player is offside or not, chips in the jerseys or something like that.

 

There are dodgy offsides in every other game, we only need goal-line technology once or twice a season.

[Nerik]

Chips in the jersey will not work unless one finds a way of making the whole jersey's position known. Also a player's head, knee or foot may be further forward than his jersey and be the part of his body making him be in an offside position. Therefore it is very very difficult to have such a sensor determine whether a player is offside or not.

[Maldini]

I thought it was the torso that was judged to be offside

[John am Rhein]

Even if you have chips in the jerseys/boots/etc. the system would still need to have some way of determining the moment the ball was played - and played by a member of the attacking team. Would that be possible? Hard to see how.

[nvdm]

The correct way of doing it would be the appeals system that tennis has employed. Would it slow the game down? Definitely.

 

But thats the price you pay.

[John am Rhein]

The correct way of doing it would be the appeals system that tennis has employed. Would it slow the game down? Definitely.

 

But thats the price you pay.

 

I don't think that price would be worth paying. Even with legitimate use of such a system the game would be slowed down quite significantly. Add in illegitimate use - teams making bogus appeals to disrupt the play - and it would become a nightmare. And you'd STILL get bad decisions some of the time - disputes over whether the video evidence is sufficiently conclusive, etc. etc.

 

It would introduce new problems while failing to fully solve the problems it was addressing.

[nvdm]

I don't think that price would be worth paying. Even with legitimate use of such a system the game would be slowed down quite significantly. Add in illegitimate use - teams making bogus appeals to disrupt the play - and it would become a nightmare. And you'd STILL get bad decisions some of the time - disputes over whether the video evidence is sufficiently conclusive, etc. etc.

 

It would introduce new problems while failing to fully solve the problems it was addressing.

 

I'm talking about offside rulings specifically.

 

Force linesman to err totally in favour of the attacking player in making decisions he isn't 100% sure about. If a goal results, the opposing team may use 1 of 3 appeals to appeal for offside to force a TV ref to decide whether the player was offside or not. The decision may not take longer than 60 seconds to make. Any longer and the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking team.

 

Goal line technology is a complete no-brainer and should be instated together with the ruling that only a captain may talk to the referee.

 

The 60 seconds per decision it would take to adjudicate could easily be made up elsewhere, for example by forcing players not to dive and play-act by allowing retroactive punishment for 'simulation'.

[John am Rhein]

So that would be no attempt to correct offside decisions which a player was blown offside by the ref, but actually should have been ruled ONside?

[nvdm]

So that would be no attempt to correct offside decisions which a player was blown offside by the ref, but actually should have been ruled ONside?

 

When you instruct the linesmen to err on the side of leniency, you're partially correcting the problem.

 

I really think this is one of the few workable solutions. It's this or robots.

[John am Rhein]

When you instruct the linesmen to err on the side of leniency, you're partially correcting the problem.

 

They've already supposedly done that, though, That point was laboured on Sky last night in the Marseille game.

 

I really think this is one of the few workable solutions. It's this or robots.

 

I really don't think there IS a workable solution in the offside problem. Research showed a few years ago that it's not actually humanly possible to judge offside decisions reliably in real time. Video replay could make a contribution, but we've all seen numerous occasions where offside decisions have been debated at length on TV - hours or even days after the game - and there is STILL not a genuine consensus as to what the correct decision should have been.

 

This is why I said 1) it won't fully solve the problem and 2) it'll introduce new problems of its own.

[nvdm]

They've already supposedly done that, though, That point was laboured on Sky last night in the Marseille game.

 

TV should only be used in situations where there is a definite result, ie when a goal has been scored. A player called offside who was onside is capable of just about anything. Leave that ruling as it is. People make mistakes, thats what makes the game fun. If a goal has been scored in obvious error, an TV ref would be a logical choice to sort the issue out fairly. Since scoring a goal is about the rarest thing to happen in football, adjudicating when one has been scored fairly should be standard practice should there be any doubt. I've yet to find a striker or player that scores more times than he misses.

 

I really don't think there IS a workable solution in the offside problem. Research showed a few years ago that it's not actually humanly possible to judge offside decisions reliably in real time. Video replay could make a contribution, but we've all seen numerous occasions where offside decisions have been debated at length on TV - hours or even days after the game - and there is STILL not a genuine consensus as to what the correct decision should have been.

 

This is why I said 1) it won't fully solve the problem and 2) it'll introduce new problems of its own.

 

The offside decisions debated at length are typically the player active/inactive decisions. Stop all that s***. Clarify the rules for once and for all - even if it means changing the way the game is played.

 

When I watch American sports versus European sports, it impresses me how far the American games have evolved for the sake of fairness and clarity and to improve the fans' experience. European sports are dramatic and unecessarily complicated and it really is one of the reasons I've stopped watching as much football as I used to. I just can't take all the drama. They're slower, sure, but thats the nature of the games - they have fast games that are fair (hockey) and its because the rules are generally infallible and easy to follow. Football can remain fast while making changes to remove the unecessary drama.

[Nerik]

I thought it was the torso that was judged to be offside

 

 

Nope. Any part of the body that can be used to play the ball that is ahead of the defender makes a player offside. The arms for example do not apply.

[Logic]

Even if you have chips in the jerseys/boots/etc. the system would still need to have some way of determining the moment the ball was played - and played by a member of the attacking team. Would that be possible? Hard to see how.

Chip in the ball.

[John am Rhein]

Chip in the ball.

 

And you'd determine the player who kicked/headed/chested/etc. the ball from the position of the player's chip at that instant?

 

Woulnd't this be very unreliable in the fairly common event of two opponents being very close to the ball at exactly the same time? The system could easily decide on the wrong one?

[John am Rhein]

The offside decisions debated at length are typically the player active/inactive decisions. Stop all that s***. Clarify the rules for once and for all - even if it means changing the way the game is played.

 

Certainly agree with that. With or without video technology.

 

I don't think they'll ever be able to take a subjective element out of it though - if you say a player is offside even when he's neither interfering with play or (seeking to) gain(ing) an advantage then you get all sorts of absurd situations where a goal has to be disallowed because the player who set up the goal (with a cross, say) was offside when it was scored.

[Logic]

And you'd determine the player who kicked/headed/chested/etc. the ball from the position of the player's chip at that instant?

 

Woulnd't this be very unreliable in the fairly common event of two opponents being very close to the ball at exactly the same time? The system could easily decide on the wrong one?

That's where the ref enters the play.

 

But it should be possible to just put the chips in the boots as well as the ball. Then it wouldn't be too difficult to find out who kicked the ball. And you'll always have the ref to make the final decision.

[John am Rhein]

But it should be possible to just put the chips in the boots as well as the ball. Then it wouldn't be too difficult to find out who kicked the ball. And you'll always have the ref to make the final decision.

 

Defeats the object of the idea then, surely?

[Logic]

Defeats the object of the idea then, surely?

Probably.... but it sounded so good at the time.