Other sports worth following
Comments
-
Yes, football is determined to repeat all the same mistakes cricket made.ddraver said:It didnt at the start though...
Both the tech and the rules were altered to make it make more sense. Football's approach to that has been glacial (although I suppose there are massively more people involved)0 -
I agree entirely but it needs a fellow golfer to understand.kingstongraham said:I don't watch much golf, so just seen Collin Morikawa's swing for the first time. It's a thing of beauty.
0 -
Don't imagine too many people at the top level in football watch any cricket at all.TheBigBean said:
Yes, football is determined to repeat all the same mistakes cricket made.ddraver said:It didnt at the start though...
Both the tech and the rules were altered to make it make more sense. Football's approach to that has been glacial (although I suppose there are massively more people involved)0 -
No, but when introducing something new that has been done in other sports, it is sensible to consult with someone that has watched other sports.rick_chasey said:
Don't imagine too many people at the top level in football watch any cricket at all.TheBigBean said:
Yes, football is determined to repeat all the same mistakes cricket made.ddraver said:It didnt at the start though...
Both the tech and the rules were altered to make it make more sense. Football's approach to that has been glacial (although I suppose there are massively more people involved)
The points I'm making here, I made before VAR even came in. They were obvious.
Another point I made prior to its introduction was to sit a bunch VAR refs in the same room and show them historic incidents. Until the rules are such that every one of them comes up with the same decision, things need to change.0 -
It does give a margin for error though, the rule remains that no part of the player is in front of the last man but the on field decision remains unless it is shown they are in front by a certain amount to allow for error due to frame rate and picture quality.rick_chasey said:
Surely you're just moving the line of controversy? So is it 30cm or is it 29cm? and where does the torso end? Is he being penalised for tucking his shirt into his shorts? etcTheBigBean said:
Offside based on torso only. Same concept as umpire's call in cricket, so the decision isn't overturned unless the official was wrong by a certain amount e.g. 30cm.rick_chasey said:
how would you fix it?TheBigBean said:One definite upside of VAR in football is catching off the ball incidents. In the past, they would be punished retrospectively, so would disadvantage the perpetrator in the future, but give no advantage to the victim.
There are two issue with VAR in football. The out of date offside law which they attempt to enforce to the nearest millimetre and the confusion around handball in general. Both could be fixed.
Nothing will stop the bleating of the fan that feels the decision went ahainst them though, that's just a part of sport and it would take away the fun of discussing and analysing the game in the pub afterwards. I think that's part of the issue people have with VAR if they're honest with themselves, deep down they know the right decision was made and it takes away that feeling that they were "robbed".0 -
I disagree with this. To me it is not right that someone's foot or knee is offside when the rest of their body is not. The consequence is going to be that a striker now needs to stand a good half body onside to ensure this doesn't happen. This favours the defence and is the reason the rules were changed such that level is onside.Pross said:
It does give a margin for error though, the rule remains that no part of the player is in front of the last man but the on field decision remains unless it is shown they are in front by a certain amount to allow for error due to frame rate and picture quality.rick_chasey said:
Surely you're just moving the line of controversy? So is it 30cm or is it 29cm? and where does the torso end? Is he being penalised for tucking his shirt into his shorts? etcTheBigBean said:
Offside based on torso only. Same concept as umpire's call in cricket, so the decision isn't overturned unless the official was wrong by a certain amount e.g. 30cm.rick_chasey said:
how would you fix it?TheBigBean said:One definite upside of VAR in football is catching off the ball incidents. In the past, they would be punished retrospectively, so would disadvantage the perpetrator in the future, but give no advantage to the victim.
There are two issue with VAR in football. The out of date offside law which they attempt to enforce to the nearest millimetre and the confusion around handball in general. Both could be fixed.
Nothing will stop the bleating of the fan that feels the decision went ahainst them though, that's just a part of sport and it would take away the fun of discussing and analysing the game in the pub afterwards. I think that's part of the issue people have with VAR if they're honest with themselves, deep down they know the right decision was made and it takes away that feeling that they were "robbed".
I don't like it the other way either, that a striker's body is clearly offside, but is played on by a defender's foot.
For example, last night Lacazette's big toe was offside in the build up to a goal. He would have thought he was standing in an onside position, but he wasn't according to the current rules.
All of which I find very unsatisfactory.0 -
Just need to apply the ice hockey off side rule to football and everything is sorted.
Once you’re in the attacking zone, all is fair. The attacking zone stops long prospective punts and is marked by a line.
Problem solved.0 -
You'll never get a satisfactory solution though or at least not until frame speeds are much higher and definition much more clear on super slomo. The line has to (literally) be drawn somewhere unless you do away with offside altogether (and as SC has said it would be interesting just to trial that to see what happens and how teams adapt).0
-
They should decide what the offside rule is for now, and redesign it according to that. Could be that it makes sense being you can't be offside if you are more than 18 yards from the goalline. Opens up the midfield and doesn't cause goalhanging in the box.
I read once "nobody goes to a match hoping to see a good offside trap."0 -
Fixing the VAR offside problem is easy. It just needs the phrase " when viewed in real time" inserting into the regulations. The game is not about millimetres. VAR should not be able to use slow motion and freeze frame. The linesman does not have those . Whether a player was an inch offside or not is not the issue and VAR should not be making that judgement. The VAR has to decide " has the official made a clear and obvious error". In other words " should the linesman have been able to see that a player was offside or not while he was running along the side of the pitch". That is the only thing VAR should decide regarding offside .1
-
Before VAR the rule was that the benefit of the doubt went in the attackers favour. Much prefer this. The amount of goals ruled offside is ridiculous.
When I'm back in a stadium I want to get lost in the sheer moment of joy of a last minute winner, not looking at a screen for 5 minutes to see whether someones left gonad is a mm offside.
As Pross alluded to the moaning in the pub afterwards about a sh1t ref is all part of the fun.0 -
Can you articulate your thought in a sentence that makes sense please?ddraver said:Rugby Union feels seen...
0 -
The introduction of it was really caused by TV analysts having access to things that the officials don't - one of which is to see whether a player is offside or not in a freeze frame.piker2 said:Fixing the VAR offside problem is easy. It just needs the phrase " when viewed in real time" inserting into the regulations. The game is not about millimetres. VAR should not be able to use slow motion and freeze frame. The linesman does not have those . Whether a player was an inch offside or not is not the issue and VAR should not be making that judgement. The VAR has to decide " has the official made a clear and obvious error". In other words " should the linesman have been able to see that a player was offside or not while he was running along the side of the pitch". That is the only thing VAR should decide regarding offside .
0 -
I'm fine with it being the half-way line as it is now.kingstongraham said:They should decide what the offside rule is for now, and redesign it according to that. Could be that it makes sense being you can't be offside if you are more than 18 yards from the goalline. Opens up the midfield and doesn't cause goalhanging in the box.
I read once "nobody goes to a match hoping to see a good offside trap."0 -
No I don't think you're here to argue in good faith and I can't be arsed. If the reality of rugby's inconsistency in refereeing is not abundantly clear to you I won't be able to help.Dorset_Boy said:
Can you articulate your thought in a sentence that makes sense please?ddraver said:Rugby Union feels seen...
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Pretty unnecessary reply. You cearly can be arsed because you replied to my query.ddraver said:
No I don't think you're here to argue in good faith and I can't be arsed. If the reality of rugby's inconsistency in refereeing is not abundantly clear to you I won't be able to help.Dorset_Boy said:
Can you articulate your thought in a sentence that makes sense please?ddraver said:Rugby Union feels seen...
The 4 words you wrote genuinely mean nothing to me. They make no sense whatsoever.
I'm fully aware that in a sport where the laws are subject to interpreatation there will be inconsistencies. These should be minimised as far as possible though, but an individual referee being inconsistent during a match is not good, especially when they are supposed to be one of the two best in the world.
0 -
What's it for?TheBigBean said:
I'm fine with it being the half-way line as it is now.kingstongraham said:They should decide what the offside rule is for now, and redesign it according to that. Could be that it makes sense being you can't be offside if you are more than 18 yards from the goalline. Opens up the midfield and doesn't cause goalhanging in the box.
I read once "nobody goes to a match hoping to see a good offside trap."0 -
Sure but at the same time, the possibility of a mis timed offside trap is an exciting one on one?kingstongraham said:They should decide what the offside rule is for now, and redesign it according to that. Could be that it makes sense being you can't be offside if you are more than 18 yards from the goalline. Opens up the midfield and doesn't cause goalhanging in the box.
I read once "nobody goes to a match hoping to see a good offside trap."
0 -
Fundamentally, the problem with cricket is that there are mm-scale issues when answering the question 'Did the ball touch the bat' for example.TheBigBean said:
I'm fine with it being the half-way line as it is now.kingstongraham said:They should decide what the offside rule is for now, and redesign it according to that. Could be that it makes sense being you can't be offside if you are more than 18 yards from the goalline. Opens up the midfield and doesn't cause goalhanging in the box.
I read once "nobody goes to a match hoping to see a good offside trap."
My limited understanding of the offside rule is that it is to prevent 'goal hanging' so the ridiculous examples I see where they're calling things by a pixel or so is just spurious over-precision.
Piker's suggestion of making the replays real time seems like a really easy and sensible fix to me
But then I don't watch much outside of world cups or the last few rounds of the CL...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
The equivalent in cricket is lbw. Whether the ball would have hit the stumps. There is a margin of error for the umpire. No reason the assistant referee can't get the same in football.ddraver said:
Fundamentally, the problem with cricket is that there are mm-scale issues when answering the question 'Did the ball touch the bat' for example.TheBigBean said:
I'm fine with it being the half-way line as it is now.kingstongraham said:They should decide what the offside rule is for now, and redesign it according to that. Could be that it makes sense being you can't be offside if you are more than 18 yards from the goalline. Opens up the midfield and doesn't cause goalhanging in the box.
I read once "nobody goes to a match hoping to see a good offside trap."
My limited understanding of the offside rule is that it is to prevent 'goal hanging' so the ridiculous examples I see where they're calling things by a pixel or so is just spurious over-precision.
Piker's suggestion of making the replays real time seems like a really easy and sensible fix to me
But then I don't watch much outside of world cups or the last few rounds of the CL...1 -
I think the equivalent is no ball.TheBigBean said:
The equivalent in cricket is lbw. Whether the ball would have hit the stumps. There is a margin of error for the umpire. No reason the assistant referee can't get the same in football.ddraver said:
Fundamentally, the problem with cricket is that there are mm-scale issues when answering the question 'Did the ball touch the bat' for example.TheBigBean said:
I'm fine with it being the half-way line as it is now.kingstongraham said:They should decide what the offside rule is for now, and redesign it according to that. Could be that it makes sense being you can't be offside if you are more than 18 yards from the goalline. Opens up the midfield and doesn't cause goalhanging in the box.
I read once "nobody goes to a match hoping to see a good offside trap."
My limited understanding of the offside rule is that it is to prevent 'goal hanging' so the ridiculous examples I see where they're calling things by a pixel or so is just spurious over-precision.
Piker's suggestion of making the replays real time seems like a really easy and sensible fix to me
But then I don't watch much outside of world cups or the last few rounds of the CL...
Lbw requires some prediction of where the ball would have gone, which is open to a level of doubt even when it is the computer doing it. That said, I would expect the computer to be right on marginal calls more often than the umpire in real time.0 -
You're missing the point. The whole reason there is an "umpire's call" is not because the umpire is more accurate than the computer, but to ensure that an umpire's decision is only overturned if it is very wrong. This is what football needs. Most fans don't object to a goal being disallowed if it transpires their player was several metres offside. They do object to millimetre decisions especially when the technology is not there to provide that level of accuracy.kingstongraham said:
I think the equivalent is no ball.TheBigBean said:
The equivalent in cricket is lbw. Whether the ball would have hit the stumps. There is a margin of error for the umpire. No reason the assistant referee can't get the same in football.ddraver said:
Fundamentally, the problem with cricket is that there are mm-scale issues when answering the question 'Did the ball touch the bat' for example.TheBigBean said:
I'm fine with it being the half-way line as it is now.kingstongraham said:They should decide what the offside rule is for now, and redesign it according to that. Could be that it makes sense being you can't be offside if you are more than 18 yards from the goalline. Opens up the midfield and doesn't cause goalhanging in the box.
I read once "nobody goes to a match hoping to see a good offside trap."
My limited understanding of the offside rule is that it is to prevent 'goal hanging' so the ridiculous examples I see where they're calling things by a pixel or so is just spurious over-precision.
Piker's suggestion of making the replays real time seems like a really easy and sensible fix to me
But then I don't watch much outside of world cups or the last few rounds of the CL...
Lbw requires some prediction of where the ball would have gone, which is open to a level of doubt even when it is the computer doing it. That said, I would expect the computer to be right on marginal calls more often than the umpire in real time.
In the case of no balls, there is no sympathy if a bowler has nothing behind the line, so it can be an exact decision. Essentially a bowler getting that close is being an idiot. However, even with no balls cricket has improved as these are now reviewed after every delivery not just after wickets. Therefore a bowler who is getting close is not likely to have his first no ball on a wicket ball which was the problem for a while.
0 -
Ah, I thought you said Barnes was the ref?Dorset_Boy said:
Pretty unnecessary reply. You cearly can be arsed because you replied to my query.ddraver said:
No I don't think you're here to argue in good faith and I can't be arsed. If the reality of rugby's inconsistency in refereeing is not abundantly clear to you I won't be able to help.Dorset_Boy said:
Can you articulate your thought in a sentence that makes sense please?ddraver said:Rugby Union feels seen...
The 4 words you wrote genuinely mean nothing to me. They make no sense whatsoever.
I'm fully aware that in a sport where the laws are subject to interpreatation there will be inconsistencies. These should be minimised as far as possible though, but an individual referee being inconsistent during a match is not good, especially when they are supposed to be one of the two best in the world.
2 -
No ball is a line decision, and if an umpire gets it just wrong, it gets overturned. If a batsman has only just nicked it, it gets overturned. That's where the similarity is. LBW is completely different, because it isn't a decision based on something that can be seen on a replay.TheBigBean said:
You're missing the point. The whole reason there is an "umpire's call" is not because the umpire is more accurate than the computer, but to ensure that an umpire's decision is only overturned if it is very wrong. This is what football needs. Most fans don't object to a goal being disallowed if it transpires their player was several metres offside. They do object to millimetre decisions especially when the technology is not there to provide that level of accuracy.kingstongraham said:
I think the equivalent is no ball.TheBigBean said:
The equivalent in cricket is lbw. Whether the ball would have hit the stumps. There is a margin of error for the umpire. No reason the assistant referee can't get the same in football.ddraver said:
Fundamentally, the problem with cricket is that there are mm-scale issues when answering the question 'Did the ball touch the bat' for example.TheBigBean said:
I'm fine with it being the half-way line as it is now.kingstongraham said:They should decide what the offside rule is for now, and redesign it according to that. Could be that it makes sense being you can't be offside if you are more than 18 yards from the goalline. Opens up the midfield and doesn't cause goalhanging in the box.
I read once "nobody goes to a match hoping to see a good offside trap."
My limited understanding of the offside rule is that it is to prevent 'goal hanging' so the ridiculous examples I see where they're calling things by a pixel or so is just spurious over-precision.
Piker's suggestion of making the replays real time seems like a really easy and sensible fix to me
But then I don't watch much outside of world cups or the last few rounds of the CL...
Lbw requires some prediction of where the ball would have gone, which is open to a level of doubt even when it is the computer doing it. That said, I would expect the computer to be right on marginal calls more often than the umpire in real time.
In the case of no balls, there is no sympathy if a bowler has nothing behind the line, so it can be an exact decision. Essentially a bowler getting that close is being an idiot. However, even with no balls cricket has improved as these are now reviewed after every delivery not just after wickets. Therefore a bowler who is getting close is not likely to have his first no ball on a wicket ball which was the problem for a while.
The real question is what is best for the game, and that is different in different sports. Football needs to decide if it wants accuracy or a flowing game - turns out they can't get both.0 -
Well that's a hot topic(s) All types of games/races will have to decide how they use evolving and evolved technology, it won't stand still (at least the technology won't)
On a different subject, here's a good video on the Vendée Globe, so far. Well worth a watch I think
0 -
This is completely my view too (and why i prompted the discussion). Football should be about the emotions. At the moment VAR kills it.skyblueamateur said:Before VAR the rule was that the benefit of the doubt went in the attackers favour. Much prefer this. The amount of goals ruled offside is ridiculous.
When I'm back in a stadium I want to get lost in the sheer moment of joy of a last minute winner, not looking at a screen for 5 minutes to see whether someones left gonad is a mm offside.
As Pross alluded to the moaning in the pub afterwards about a censored ref is all part of the fun.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PdnfF5qm1g
