Is this offside?

So who's off-side, the crossing sign or the telegraph pole?

 

Really? GPS is a wonderful thing but that’d never work in a million years!

 

Absolutely. I really don't understand the mentality of the way VAR is being applied. It should only be used when the officials have made a complete balls-up.

 

Given that most referees assistants cannot make a decision with regard to a throwing and they are also now getting overruled for offsides by VAR, I think that their usefulness may well be up soon.

 

GPS tracker wouldn’t work very well, however short distance triangulation driven by sensors in the stands would.

Either way, if they’re going for the “white or black” approach, they need to have real data and not be interpreting a single video feed. Hell, even just a second camera would allow a computer to model it with depth perception. The technology exists.

 

If we ever get to the Premier League, we can expect a couple of threads like this every week. At that point, I'll take a sabbatical.

 

I don't think GPS is accurate to more than a couple of metres, so it wouldn't work (I might be wrong). If you went with sensor technology you'd have to line the pitch with sensors (e.g. along the advertising hoardings). As each ground is unique (dimensions, distance of hoardings to pitch etc.) each system would be bespoke.

 

Yeah, 4 wide angled cameras located elevated at each corner of the pitch/ground.

 

It would if was against us!!

 

Dont think theres much wrong with it at the moment. It's the VAR officials that need replacing by people with common sense. Clear and obvious has been chucked out the window in favour of black or white for offside. Some of the decisions lately have been down to mm in some cases. I don't think you can even freeze frame a picture to 1mm at the moment the ball has started to leave the foot of the passer so it should be an instant assessment for offside. If it's taking longer than a couple of seconds it's not obvious so benefit goes with attacker.

 

Genuine question, because I don't watch any PL games...

When I watch a Reds match, I can usually figure out how much added time to expect. And a game that kicks off at 3pm tends to finish at around 4.50pm. Give or take.

How does it work when there have been numerous or lengthy (or both?) VAR stoppages? Is the amount of added time longer than in a non-VAR match, or does the ref actually stop the clock, like in American Football, then have added time as normal?
If a PL game kicks off at 3pm, does VAR make a noticeable difference to the time it finishes?

Sorry... I'm just curious. And a bit bored.

 

Those 4:50 finishes must have been defeats. When we're hanging on or in front they usually don't finish until 55 onwards.

 

I must be thinking of the good old days, when refs got everything right and nobody ever got injured. When games kicked off at exactly 3pm and the second half at exactly 4pm.

 

Our games (when fans were inside) very rarely kicked off at 3 pm and we've had several games in the last few years where the 2nd half hasn't kicked off until well after 10 past 4. With injury time it's been 5 o'clock and past it sometimes at the final whistle.

I really don't know where the ref gets his 15 minutes from, because it's over 20 sometimes! I think he must time it from when the ref gets to his dressing room and switches the kettle on!

 

should be the torso like in athletics,not hands feet etc

 

I'll take your word for it, oh ancient one.

 

PS How do I remove "Old" from my username? I'm starting to feel like a nipper on here.

 

It’s supposed to be any body part that can legally be scored with, which makes sense.

Hands and arms don’t count but shoulders do.

 

so heads shoulders knees and toes ,ruining game, all these high lines at free kicks, ref blows off side ,so boring