Other sports worth following
Comments
-
I think you are in danger of arguing for the sake of it, and have ignored the point that I made. The purpose of DRS is to overturn obvious mistakes. That includes someone being caught even of off a thin edge, it doesn't include close lbws.kingstongraham said:
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.
The purpose of its introduction in football was to overturn obvious mistakes. This is the reason that fouls are not often overturned - there needs to be evidence the decision was wrong. This is entirely inconsistent with deciding offside decisions to the nearest millimetre - they are not obvious mistakes. An obvious mistake is more than a few millimetres.
Separately, no assistant referee has ever made an offside decision based on someone's foot or knee, even if it is in the rules. Therefore, it is not an obvious mistake to start using those bits of the body.
0 -
i do think they should tighten up umpires call so that it only applied to the bails and a pro rata amount on the sidesTheBigBean 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...0 -
how accurate are the GPS devices they all wear at the top level? could that tech be used to make offside decisions
and as Cloughie would have said - if you are not interefering with play then what are you doing on the pitch?0 -
suseptible to cheating though. accidently *move* it to be on your front or back etc.surrey_commuter said:how accurate are the GPS devices they all wear at the top level? could that tech be used to make offside decisions
and as Cloughie would have said - if you are not interefering with play then what are you doing on the pitch?0 -
I've wondered about this too. Chip on front and back of shirt combined with ball tracking. Assistant ref just needs to decide who kicked it.surrey_commuter said:how accurate are the GPS devices they all wear at the top level? could that tech be used to make offside decisions
and as Cloughie would have said - if you are not interefering with play then what are you doing on the pitch?0 -
They did tighten it up recently. I'm against further tightening as I quite like the excitement of the umpire's decision.surrey_commuter said:
i do think they should tighten up umpires call so that it only applied to the bails and a pro rata amount on the sidesTheBigBean 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...0 -
when only 49% of he ball is hitting the stumps it looks very outTheBigBean said:
They did tighten it up recently. I'm against further tightening as I quite like the excitement of the umpire's decision.surrey_commuter said:
i do think they should tighten up umpires call so that it only applied to the bails and a pro rata amount on the sidesTheBigBean 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...0 -
I guess it depends what you want the sport for.
I'm in it for the drama and I like the additional dimension the ref presents. That's lost with technology that assists them.
If it was up to me I'd make it more arbitrary, have only 3 refs on the pitch and no technology beyond a watch and a whistle.0 -
They tried extra refs in football. Apart from making them stand on the same side as the assistant referee which is beyond stupid, I'm not sure I have ever seen one make a decision.rick_chasey said:I guess it depends what you want the sport for.
I'm in it for the drama and I like the additional dimension the ref presents. That's lost with technology that assists them.
If it was up to me I'd make it more arbitrary, have only 3 refs on the pitch and no technology beyond a watch and a whistle.
0 -
*predicted to have been going to hit the stumps.surrey_commuter said:
when only 49% of he ball is hitting the stumps it looks very outTheBigBean said:
They did tighten it up recently. I'm against further tightening as I quite like the excitement of the umpire's decision.surrey_commuter said:
i do think they should tighten up umpires call so that it only applied to the bails and a pro rata amount on the sidesTheBigBean 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...
I presume that the leeway on pitched inline is less than that? I honestly don't know.
0 -
The problem with football is the scarcity of goals and therefore the chance of the disproportionate impact of a wrong decision.rick_chasey said:I guess it depends what you want the sport for.
I'm in it for the drama and I like the additional dimension the ref presents. That's lost with technology that assists them.
If it was up to me I'd make it more arbitrary, have only 3 refs on the pitch and no technology beyond a watch and a whistle.
strangely watching cricket live I don't think DRS detracts from the excitement and wouldargue that the whole crowd avidly watching the same footage as the 3rd umpire is utterly compelling.
I guess it is like getting/conceding a penalty in football.0 -
Same with rugby union, in my experience.surrey_commuter said:
The problem with football is the scarcity of goals and therefore the chance of the disproportionate impact of a wrong decision.rick_chasey said:I guess it depends what you want the sport for.
I'm in it for the drama and I like the additional dimension the ref presents. That's lost with technology that assists them.
If it was up to me I'd make it more arbitrary, have only 3 refs on the pitch and no technology beyond a watch and a whistle.
strangely watching cricket live I don't think DRS detracts from the excitement and wouldargue that the whole crowd avidly watching the same footage as the 3rd umpire is utterly compelling.
I guess it is like getting/conceding a penalty in football.
If I recall correctly, they don't show replays of anything contentious in football grounds in case the poor flowers in the crowd can't control themselves.0 -
They spend most of the time in cricket standing around waiting for the next play so it works fine there.surrey_commuter said:
The problem with football is the scarcity of goals and therefore the chance of the disproportionate impact of a wrong decision.rick_chasey said:I guess it depends what you want the sport for.
I'm in it for the drama and I like the additional dimension the ref presents. That's lost with technology that assists them.
If it was up to me I'd make it more arbitrary, have only 3 refs on the pitch and no technology beyond a watch and a whistle.
strangely watching cricket live I don't think DRS detracts from the excitement and wouldargue that the whole crowd avidly watching the same footage as the 3rd umpire is utterly compelling.
I guess it is like getting/conceding a penalty in football.0 -
At one game I went to, they showed a replay of a goal which was several metres offside. The ref saw it and went to have a chat with the assistant to work out what he was doing. The crowd were obviously a bit confused. Anyway, they gave the goal because they had no way of overruling the decision already made. There wasn't a riot, but the ref did get a lot of abuse.kingstongraham said:
Same with rugby union, in my experience.surrey_commuter said:
The problem with football is the scarcity of goals and therefore the chance of the disproportionate impact of a wrong decision.rick_chasey said:I guess it depends what you want the sport for.
I'm in it for the drama and I like the additional dimension the ref presents. That's lost with technology that assists them.
If it was up to me I'd make it more arbitrary, have only 3 refs on the pitch and no technology beyond a watch and a whistle.
strangely watching cricket live I don't think DRS detracts from the excitement and wouldargue that the whole crowd avidly watching the same footage as the 3rd umpire is utterly compelling.
I guess it is like getting/conceding a penalty in football.
If I recall correctly, they don't show replays of anything contentious in football grounds in case the poor flowers in the crowd can't control themselves.
These days, I think they show hawkeye when it has/hasn't crossed the line.
0 -
the point was that a referral does not detract from th excitement of an eventrick_chasey said:
They spend most of the time in cricket standing around waiting for the next play so it works fine there.surrey_commuter said:
The problem with football is the scarcity of goals and therefore the chance of the disproportionate impact of a wrong decision.rick_chasey said:I guess it depends what you want the sport for.
I'm in it for the drama and I like the additional dimension the ref presents. That's lost with technology that assists them.
If it was up to me I'd make it more arbitrary, have only 3 refs on the pitch and no technology beyond a watch and a whistle.
strangely watching cricket live I don't think DRS detracts from the excitement and wouldargue that the whole crowd avidly watching the same footage as the 3rd umpire is utterly compelling.
I guess it is like getting/conceding a penalty in football.
like a penalty you celebrate the initial decision then celebrate the subsequent action0 -
Right because in cricket you're doing that anyway with the umpire.surrey_commuter said:
the point was that a referral does not detract from th excitement of an eventrick_chasey said:
They spend most of the time in cricket standing around waiting for the next play so it works fine there.surrey_commuter said:
The problem with football is the scarcity of goals and therefore the chance of the disproportionate impact of a wrong decision.rick_chasey said:I guess it depends what you want the sport for.
I'm in it for the drama and I like the additional dimension the ref presents. That's lost with technology that assists them.
If it was up to me I'd make it more arbitrary, have only 3 refs on the pitch and no technology beyond a watch and a whistle.
strangely watching cricket live I don't think DRS detracts from the excitement and wouldargue that the whole crowd avidly watching the same footage as the 3rd umpire is utterly compelling.
I guess it is like getting/conceding a penalty in football.
like a penalty you celebrate the initial decision then celebrate the subsequent action
I don't think that applies to football. You don't want to wait if the goal is a goal or not. The moment of elation is the moment the ball crosses the line - you don't want to be waiting for 5 minutes, the juice is gone.0 -
Not necessarily disagreeing with you as the current implementation should be seen (hopefully) as a work in process.rick_chasey said:
Right because in cricket you're doing that anyway with the umpire.surrey_commuter said:
the point was that a referral does not detract from th excitement of an eventrick_chasey said:
They spend most of the time in cricket standing around waiting for the next play so it works fine there.surrey_commuter said:
The problem with football is the scarcity of goals and therefore the chance of the disproportionate impact of a wrong decision.rick_chasey said:I guess it depends what you want the sport for.
I'm in it for the drama and I like the additional dimension the ref presents. That's lost with technology that assists them.
If it was up to me I'd make it more arbitrary, have only 3 refs on the pitch and no technology beyond a watch and a whistle.
strangely watching cricket live I don't think DRS detracts from the excitement and wouldargue that the whole crowd avidly watching the same footage as the 3rd umpire is utterly compelling.
I guess it is like getting/conceding a penalty in football.
like a penalty you celebrate the initial decision then celebrate the subsequent action
I don't think that applies to football. You don't want to wait if the goal is a goal or not. The moment of elation is the moment the ball crosses the line - you don't want to be waiting for 5 minutes, the juice is gone.
I would like to see a trial of use for off the ball stuff and let the captain have 3 (at max) appeals per a game
this would have added comedy value as some would be monumentally bad at it0 -
Have you ever watched cricket?rick_chasey said:
Right because in cricket you're doing that anyway with the umpire.surrey_commuter said:
the point was that a referral does not detract from th excitement of an eventrick_chasey said:
They spend most of the time in cricket standing around waiting for the next play so it works fine there.surrey_commuter said:
The problem with football is the scarcity of goals and therefore the chance of the disproportionate impact of a wrong decision.rick_chasey said:I guess it depends what you want the sport for.
I'm in it for the drama and I like the additional dimension the ref presents. That's lost with technology that assists them.
If it was up to me I'd make it more arbitrary, have only 3 refs on the pitch and no technology beyond a watch and a whistle.
strangely watching cricket live I don't think DRS detracts from the excitement and wouldargue that the whole crowd avidly watching the same footage as the 3rd umpire is utterly compelling.
I guess it is like getting/conceding a penalty in football.
like a penalty you celebrate the initial decision then celebrate the subsequent action
I don't think that applies to football. You don't want to wait if the goal is a goal or not. The moment of elation is the moment the ball crosses the line - you don't want to be waiting for 5 minutes, the juice is gone.
0 -
The difference though in cricket is video tech is:
a) its not used to see if you have scored or not, only for wickets
b) for a lot of instances of taking a wicket, you have to appeal to the umpire for a decision. In footy that's not the case
0 -
elbowloh said:
The difference though in cricket is video tech is:
a) its not used to see if you have scored or not, only for wickets
b) for a lot of instances of taking a wicket, you have to appeal to the umpire for a decision. In footy that's not the case
In cricket, it can be used to determine whether a ball has been hit for a six or a four if the umpire isn't sure, or if a fielder touched/crossed the boundary with the ball in hand.
And you need to appeal in every instance of taking a wicket.0 -
Yes, you need to appeal, you don't really see a bowled being overturned (unless it's a no ball) and with catches only really if there's doubt when it's caught near the ground).kingstongraham said:elbowloh said:The difference though in cricket is video tech is:
a) its not used to see if you have scored or not, only for wickets
b) for a lot of instances of taking a wicket, you have to appeal to the umpire for a decision. In footy that's not the case
In cricket, it can be used to determine whether a ball has been hit for a six or a four if the umpire isn't sure, or if a fielder touched/crossed the boundary with the ball in hand.
And you need to appeal in every instance of taking a wicket.
As for whether it's a 4 or a 6 it's not often.
At the moment VAR is used for pretty much any goal.
0 -
Sorry, I did put *pedant alert*, but because I put it in < brackets, it doesn't display.elbowloh said:
Yes, you need to appeal, you don't really see a bowled being overturned (unless it's a no ball) and with catches only really if there's doubt when it's caught near the ground).kingstongraham said:elbowloh said:The difference though in cricket is video tech is:
a) its not used to see if you have scored or not, only for wickets
b) for a lot of instances of taking a wicket, you have to appeal to the umpire for a decision. In footy that's not the case
In cricket, it can be used to determine whether a ball has been hit for a six or a four if the umpire isn't sure, or if a fielder touched/crossed the boundary with the ball in hand.
And you need to appeal in every instance of taking a wicket.
As for whether it's a 4 or a 6 it's not often.
At the moment VAR is used for pretty much any goal.0 -
You don't need to appeal in cricket if the batsman walks. No idea what that has to do with the price of fish though.
In football, penalties are rarely awarded unless the player falls over, so many fall over to make the appeal.0 -
There were 2 pens last night were the defender was also red carded (Luis for Arsenal and Bednarek).TheBigBean said:You don't need to appeal in cricket if the batsman walks. No idea what that has to do with the price of fish though.
In football, penalties are rarely awarded unless the player falls over, so many fall over to make the appeal.
For the Luiz one you couldn't really see if there was contact even on the VAR. And for the second I think the attacker (Martial dived) and apparently Martial said at the time (it looked like Bednarek was trying to tell the ref that Martial has said so) that it wasn't a foul, but the ref wasn't having any of it. Bednarek was even saying go and speak to Martial, but by that time he'd viewed the video and had his mind set.0 -
At least one problem in football atm seems to be the inordinate amount of time that they take to call the offside/put the flag up.
I would have VAR for across the line/not across the line (that can be done more or less instantly) and any truly heinous off the ball action0 -
I can't imagine it's super difficult to get a piece of software that can work out real time from the camera shot what is offside and what isn't.0
-
I'd rather get rid of it all together apart from the goal line technology.
2 -
I think Luiz's knee clipped the other player's foot. He looked guilty. It was harsh to be triple punished for it but that's a quirk of the rules.elbowloh said:
There were 2 pens last night were the defender was also red carded (Luis for Arsenal and Bednarek).TheBigBean said:You don't need to appeal in cricket if the batsman walks. No idea what that has to do with the price of fish though.
In football, penalties are rarely awarded unless the player falls over, so many fall over to make the appeal.
For the Luiz one you couldn't really see if there was contact even on the VAR. And for the second I think the attacker (Martial dived) and apparently Martial said at the time (it looked like Bednarek was trying to tell the ref that Martial has said so) that it wasn't a foul, but the ref wasn't having any of it. Bednarek was even saying go and speak to Martial, but by that time he'd viewed the video and had his mind set.
Is this relevant to anything?0 -
Arteta reckons they will appeal, which must be the first instance of a club trolling VARTheBigBean said:
I think Luiz's knee clipped the other player's foot. He looked guilty. It was harsh to be triple punished for it but that's a quirk of the rules.elbowloh said:
There were 2 pens last night were the defender was also red carded (Luis for Arsenal and Bednarek).TheBigBean said:You don't need to appeal in cricket if the batsman walks. No idea what that has to do with the price of fish though.
In football, penalties are rarely awarded unless the player falls over, so many fall over to make the appeal.
For the Luiz one you couldn't really see if there was contact even on the VAR. And for the second I think the attacker (Martial dived) and apparently Martial said at the time (it looked like Bednarek was trying to tell the ref that Martial has said so) that it wasn't a foul, but the ref wasn't having any of it. Bednarek was even saying go and speak to Martial, but by that time he'd viewed the video and had his mind set.
Is this relevant to anything?
0 -
The thing I like with cricket is the limit on appeals and the "wronged" team has to take the risk of losing the appeal. Maybe they could do that in football and only have a VAR referral where a captain requests it. Any disputes decision you use your review, argue with the officials at any point outside of requesting an official review and you get a free kick against you or a card.0
