except it's not that easy. you cant just rock up and know you've calibrated your system for the camera and get this right. imo you are getting the the point where it's beyond the human eye. look at tennis. you have not abandoned officials and just rely on bleeping lines. you have officals calling and right of review. if you are going down to debating half an inch from 50 or 60 yards based on where you place the line then you've defeated the purpose. just make the officials make the call and the review on appeal. if you don't appeal then don't review the var. The worst case for me is a ref now just draws a box and sir if and you have no idea if he thinks it's a pen or not. He taps his ear price and shrugs like the game has nothing to do with him. surely he must wave a pen shout off and then it's appealed by attacking team or he gives pen and that's appealed by defending team. Imo var is being over used and is being poorly applied by trying to be over precise from tok far a distance and inconsistent angles.
You've gone off on a whole different path here. VAR can show if someone is offside, yes? Yes, it is easy, camera shows the position of the players at the moment of the video being paused, using multiple angles (there is more than one camera at the games). MoTD, Sky, BT and the rest are already doing this and have been for years. Now there is someone doing it in play. And so far its worked (I brought up that England/US one and looking at it again she was offside), only the explanation to the players and fans has been poor. Better communication is needed. I agree there is a point where it is practically impossible to tell without specialist cameras, like in the 100 meters or Horse racing. But at that point would people really expect that to happen in game, No of course not. Referral system, difficult one. People will have different ideas on that, how many? when can it be used? Do you lose it? etc (personally 1 per match would be my favoured idea). I also agree its being over used on general decisions and I also think that referees are influenced purely on the fact that a referral has been called for. Basically someone in your ear is telling you've made a mistake, but that is in their opinion, pressure is already on the ref to change their mind before they've looked at the replays.
We are reviewing everything and it's killing game. we are seeing officials.abdicate their jobs. imo the review system is best way to go and it's easy fix the numbers and start at 2 per game and see. but most importantly ref.must make infield decision and from second review is called he is out of look. let us hear what's said and decision made... its really simple in other sports and works. of.course you get twats.. tennis has it's very own couple of right ****s but **** it.. if you legislate based on twats you end up with a twattish sport.
Thought you were talking about a automatic system like hawkeye? Don't they already watch a recording?
i'm sorry but i don't have your faith in the accuracy of those lines and of the exact moment the ball was kicked .
Hawkeye works by calibrating all camera angles and known goal.line pregame. every ground is different, every camera position unique. in short it's highly likely that at least once this season var will fail due to technical issue.
I would agree with that. Its rather arrogant of fifa to think they could review every decision during a match. Essentially they've moved the power away from the onfield officials to a few people sat in front of a bunch of TV screens. I've also advocated mic'ing up the officials (guess that would include VAR as well now) so that fans can hear why a decision is made. At last, no not Hawkeye or similar system. Just VAR can prove a offside decision to stop all the arguing. Like I said offside should not be a contentious decision, you either are offside or you aren't. Now you're just arguing semantics. 'When is a ball kicked?' You think the current system of a person standing at the side of the pitch waving a flag is better? I personally think the computer is going to be better and has already proved to be.
thats a fixed line so is "easy" as it doesn't need to answer the varied questions that offside requires. Trouble is if you use VAR for any part of offside you use it for all and to its fullest extent and that must include telling linos not to flag for offside if it is close to "even the playing field".
Using a computer to go frame by frame. Its not just some guy with a VCR. I've used digital editing, it can be incredibly accurate and I'm guessing the ones they're using are alot better than the one I used
i just mentioned a TV technician and your post is in effect just agreeing with me . Think we will just have to disagree on the accuracy of VAR regarding offside.
That's a bold statement, now you have to prove it. From what I've seen arguments over 'ghost goals' have virtually disappeared because GL tech is so accurate. Football is worth billions, you don't think they have backups and pre game checks to ensure everything is working properly.
I don't have to prove anything, I already know and I'm informing others. If you don't believe me (or Solid) then look into it. I'll take Solid's word for it on the actually measurement but pundits and commentators mention this room for error fairly often
that is the official margin of error and since it is the same as quoted for Tennis i actually think it may in particular circumstances be a tad higher due to the much higher incidence of bodies blocking camera views.
much higher i just answered the question PS i'm 100% in favour of Goaline technology and always have been since it was unveiled as It is more accurate but it also fits these other criteria a) It is very quick b) It is a factual question with no subjectivity involved at all c) It actually speeds up the game. Edit see i'm not a total luddite
