Curvature
- Thread starter FatCat
- Start date
TeaCider
Well-known member
But it's not out, you just don't understand the laws, or are choosing to ignore them.
Balls are often incorrectly given out by linesmen because it can be hard to judge in real time, VAR makes it easier.
chickenrunner
Well-known member
Wouldn't solve anything. We'd be left trying to decide where the point of contact with the grass is. Which might be more difficult given that it's obscured by the curvature of the ball.
ForssAwakens
Well-known member
Because of goal line technology. If the whole ball has to cross the line to trigger a goal then the same should apply to a goal kick, corner and throw ins
They've ruined football for me. We are talking about 5mm maximum and football isn't about millimetres. Common sense to ne says that was out but I can see that officially it was in.
It's the same with offsides. So his hand was offside? So what?
And penalties. Yes the goalie touched Messi but a penalty? For me no way.
VAR has removed common sense.
Rant over
It's the same with offsides. So his hand was offside? So what?
And penalties. Yes the goalie touched Messi but a penalty? For me no way.
VAR has removed common sense.
Rant over
TeaCider
Well-known member
Common sense would surely be that if some of the ball was on the line, then it's in.
ForssAwakens
Well-known member
If you want to have ai, ai can only deal in absolutes. Everyone was for the technology to stop things like the lampard incident. By bringing technology in it can give you an exact decision. We cant ask for it and tell it to ignore incorrect decisions
We either have technology or we don’t
Colgates_shaving_foam
Well-known member
Surely all ball sports, including football are decided by a mm here or there?
xxlshirts_fit_all
Well-known member
I think at the end of the day, if it had been given out, no one would’ve complained and the game would’ve moved on..
but it wasn’t so it’s done what’s happened for years and given fans and pundits stuff to talk about…
Maybe with this talk of curvature we can put the ‘66 debate behind us
but it wasn’t so it’s done what’s happened for years and given fans and pundits stuff to talk about…
Maybe with this talk of curvature we can put the ‘66 debate behind us
I'm not sure what anyone is complaining about or arguing against. This has always been the rules. The decisions have always been made by, severely flawed, humans. Technology assists them in getting the correct decision more often and anything that is binary like on/offside or in/out is perfect for the technology. People just hate anything marginal which is weird. The NFL have been using this for years because to score a touchdown you have to "break the plane" which means any mm of the ball touching the vertical wall that goes upwards from the very edge of the goal line. Football is a bit different because we require the entire ball to go through the plane rather than just breaking it (and our plane is the back of the line and not the front but the principle is still the same.
It isn't a two tier system. The only thing that matters is that both teams in the same match are using the same system. Having VAR in one game and not another isn't unfair. You might get different decisions with each system but the same would be true if you just had a different refereeing team. The rules are still the same.
It isn't a two tier system. The only thing that matters is that both teams in the same match are using the same system. Having VAR in one game and not another isn't unfair. You might get different decisions with each system but the same would be true if you just had a different refereeing team. The rules are still the same.
The ball does not have to "touch the line" at corners.
The principle is always the same. As long as the tiniest sliver of ball is above any part of the line it's in play. Touching the line is irrelevant. In the case of corners it's the quadrant and the extension of the quadrant through the goal line and touch line.
I wonder, given that the technology exists now, that the rules could change to allow offside decisions from corners.
It doesn't help that the rules about balls being in or out are all different in rugby, tennis, golf, and football. I played golf last week with a guy who was sure his ball was in bounds because it was on the white OB line.
Chutney
Well-known member
Aside from the technicalities of in/out, I had two broader questions:
Did Japan deserve to qualify?
Did Germany deserve to qualify?
The outcome of the VAR decision - whilst correct - is very marginal, but neither objectively nor subjectively has any kind of injustice happened here. I know people love to pore over these things, but this is an open and shut case to me.
Did Japan deserve to qualify?
Did Germany deserve to qualify?
The outcome of the VAR decision - whilst correct - is very marginal, but neither objectively nor subjectively has any kind of injustice happened here. I know people love to pore over these things, but this is an open and shut case to me.
Rofesleg
Well-known member
Didn't Tav have a 'goal' disallowed a few seasons ago because a tiniest sliver of the ball was on the line? As frustrating as it was it was the correct decision.
If we say that tiny slivers shouldn't count, then where do you draw the line? 5cm? Who then measures that? What if there is 4.5cm on the line? Does the 5mm difference count? Or is it to the nearest centimetre. What if it's 1.1cm? And so on.
Also, if FIFA decided to do away with the technology altogether (and VAR), as some are suggesting, you can be sure TV would still use it and we would be back to analysing every incident to show all the mistakes.
If we say that tiny slivers shouldn't count, then where do you draw the line? 5cm? Who then measures that? What if there is 4.5cm on the line? Does the 5mm difference count? Or is it to the nearest centimetre. What if it's 1.1cm? And so on.
Also, if FIFA decided to do away with the technology altogether (and VAR), as some are suggesting, you can be sure TV would still use it and we would be back to analysing every incident to show all the mistakes.
Jedi boro
Well-known member
The issue I have with this type of var is how subjective it seems to be, did you se the off side the other day disallowed by var as shoulders were a mm infront of the other but it wasn’t a visual image still frame they showed no it was a computer interpretation of the two players on the field.
So we are not basing it on reality ( as our Hawkeye system uses) by analysing the image and configuring out how that related to the incident.
No this system is based purely on the computers empirical map of the field and how the computer interprets the action based on sensory feedback.
So it’s very different to ours.
So we are not basing it on reality ( as our Hawkeye system uses) by analysing the image and configuring out how that related to the incident.
No this system is based purely on the computers empirical map of the field and how the computer interprets the action based on sensory feedback.
So it’s very different to ours.
FatCat
Well-known member
Do we have the technology for throw ins? I get they can use the go alone technology for last nights decision but does it work for throw ins?
dooderooni
Well-known member
Of course it's a two tier system and the argument about different refereeing teams is null and void in this case as the officials said the ball was out, as would 99.9% of officials in real-time.
If the exact same incident had happened at The Riverside, Stadium of Light or any other ground without VAR that goal wouldn't have stood and nobody would be arguing otherwise.
While it might be a technically correct decision, until that technology is available across all professional football at least then it is a case of the haves and have nots.
That's like saying it's ok for the rich to avoid tax just because they have the means to employ good accountants while the rest of us pay our way under the self same taxation laws.
MolteniArcore
Well-known member
Aye, let's go back to dodgy decisions and poor reffing. It was much better back then.
In all fairness nothing has changed. Instead of arguing about decisions that we thought were wrong we are now arguing about decisions we know are right.