• benjecto@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    As long as the margin for error in the technology is within reason, works for me. I don’t know if it can be calibrated to have a little leeway or whatever but it is what it is.

    I’d rather live with the pointlessness of being offside by a cunt hair than have humans involved at all in objective matters.

    If the technology is consistent and quick, I’ll take it.

    • nekize@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      But let’s be honest, such offsides as this one from keene are also an anomaly. Usually they are never as tight as this. So if the technology get’s it right 99.8% of the time and the other 0.2% is a mistake like this, i have nothing against it. Still way better them the enaglish VAR lines or on field referees.

      • bert0ld0@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        When the VAR output falls inside the uncertainty of the technology we can’t consider the decision reliable! That what people are missing here. We still don’t know the range of accuracy of VAR because they never disclosed it but I expect 5-10mm, not certainly 1mm

          • steaknsteak@alien.topB
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            It really is that simple more or less, but people in this thread are against this because it’s “just drawing a line in a different place” as if an error bound is the same thing as the actual measurement

    • JimboScribbles@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Been saying this for a while, but the offsides line should be a shoulder-to-shoulder bar drawn from both players, and if there’s any overlap it should be onside.

      Easily measurable, gives enough leeway and is drawn from center of gravity. It would eliminate garbage calls like this or where a foot brings a player offsides but gives no obvious advantage.

      Calls like this are totally disingenuous and goes against the authenticity of the game, ESPECIALLY considering that both players were moving in the opposite direction of the goal…

    • kik00@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’d rather live with the pointlessness of being offside by a cunt hair than have humans involved at all in objective matters.

      You are an enemy of football

  • ampren7a@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    The only thing that matters in these situations is the center of balance of the players and the part of the body which they use to control the inbound pass. But this, when both players are facing the opposite direction of the goal, is ridiculous.

  • Pigman1994@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Thank God it was ruled off. How could the player possibly catch up to Kean after giving up such a head start? Thank you VAR for saving football once again.

    • theeama@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      For offside none. It’s either off or on. Wenger is trying to change it though so the attackers body have to be completely ahead of the defender to be counted as offside

      • Novrev@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        They’re not asking if VAR allows the attacker any leeway in offside calls. They’re asking about the accuracy/precision of the technology in generating these images, the answer to which is that the margin of error hasn’t been publicly disclosed.

      • GeshtiannaSG@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        “Clearly” as he means it is subjective and adds more bias and uncertainty. It’s much better to be like this where it’s a simple >0.

    • qh2150@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Presumably though the error is statistically unbiased. Meaning if it could have been less offsides it could equally have been more offsides so in either case the result should stand unless you think it’s biased and within margin of error.

  • Exroi@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I hate it. Of course it’s hard to draw that line between when this is ridiculous and when it’s ok, but millimetres like this shouldn’t be regarded as offside imo. Earlier there was a thing when close situations like this were pro-attacking and there was not that much pickiness about it

  • jjmanutd@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    This is insane. Players play the line all the time and this much hairsplitting effectively stops that since there’s zero margin. There should be some flexibility