Any cause for concern

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
If they introduced an "off-side can", what the hell would I talk to the wife about on a Saturday evening, while she sleeps on the sofa? Goal cam is already going to stop half the conversation.
 
TheSecondStain said:
I sense a lack of imagination here. Where do we get all those great camera angles that prove or disprove the official's decisions..? Video replay cameras. They seem to be able to do the job remarkably well. Every Premier League match is covered by various cameras, and the feedback from them is instant, including replay. Makes sense to utilise them, don't you think..? It's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to make those cameras available. I wouldn't right off an opinion by suggesting that an implemented system could never be reliable.
Click to expand...

Ok, a computerised system could never be reliable, but requiring a human 'television official' is something that FIFA have always said they would never consider. The referee is the sole arbiter of the game in their view.

Plus, any human judgement is subjective, as the DRS controversy in cricket demonstrates.
 
TheSecondStain said:
To chalk that goal off must break some law in humanity somewhere. The lino really should have had to pay with some sort of prison sentence. It was bad enough in the 1980's when Keegan's shot was disallowed because the offside law was different then and David Armstrong was deemed to have strayed slightly offside, but Osvaldo's goal is perfectly good. That's the way to score an overhead. No shanking there.
Click to expand...

Any ref who disallowed either of those goals is an enemy of football.
 
I think for close calls the attacking team should be given benefit of the doubt. Isn't that supposed to happen anyway?
 
pass the football said:
Ok, a computerised system could never be reliable, but requiring a human 'television official' is something that FIFA have always said they would never consider. The referee is the sole arbiter of the game in their view.

Plus, any human judgement is subjective, as the DRS controversy in cricket demonstrates.
Click to expand...

I would submit that an elevated view replay of an offside decision is far easier to determine than any DRS system has to consider. Plus, I would never ever write off [not right, my own error there] a computerised system. Computerised systems are still in their infancy and the leaps and bounds that these systems are making would make the average person's head spin. Goal line technology has pushed the non-human intervention objection aside. The flood gates to electronic aided refereeing will open, sooner or later.
 
Offside should be automatically cancelled out whenever a goal of stunning brilliance like Osvaldo's (or Keegan's) is scored. In fact goals like that should count double, to encourage more players to try stuff like that. It would make football more entertaining in the long run.
 
ChilcoSaint said:
Offside should be automatically cancelled out whenever a goal of stunning brilliance like Osvaldo's (or Keegan's) is scored. In fact goals like that should count double, to encourage more players to try stuff like that. It would make football more entertaining in the long run.
Click to expand...

Yes, I like that. Like poetic justice or beauty being truth and thus truth being beauty. :)
 
TheSecondStain said:
I would submit that an elevated view replay of an offside decision is far easier to determine than any DRS system has to consider. Plus, I would never ever write off [not right, my own error there] a computerised system. Computerised systems are still in their infancy and the leaps and bounds that these systems are making would make the average person's head spin. Goal line technology has pushed the non-human intervention objection aside. The flood gates to electronic aided refereeing will open, sooner or later.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is the case, the referee still signals the goal, it's just that the technology informs his decision. I think that's how FIFA allowed it to get though it's cognitive dissonance about the referee having the last word. I don't see how it can work with offside. It's undeniably true that a television official would get more decisions right than on-field officials, but it still wouldn't be perfect, as demonstrated by lots of people on here somehow deciding that Rodriguez's goal against Sunderland should have stood (when it was correctly ruled out), despite having seen it played back. Plus, it would require a delay before the decision is reached, which is something the powers that be won't seem to allow.

Goal-line technology was a difficult challenge to overcome, offside decisions are many, many times more complex and as a computer science graduate, I'm afraid I really can't see it ever happening.

Augmented reality glasses showing the linesmen where the current line of the last defender is, maybe, but nothing more than that (and that would still be extremely difficult).

Lovelocum said:
I think for close calls the attacking team should be given benefit of the doubt. Isn't that supposed to happen anyway?
Click to expand...

Nothing in the rules about that, seems to have been invented by pundits.
 
The experience with cricket shows that even with tv replays it can take minutes to get an answer and that may be subsequently shown to be wrong. If you want a quick answer on offsides, the rules would have to be simplified so that the player is onside if his feet are behind that line. This rule about the head (since you can play with your head) is just nitpicking....especially as a running player's chest, head and arms may be ahead of his feet. Of course, this only applies if you are considering video replays....the human eye can only make snap judgement. On a side note, I have always wondered if the colour of the kit in relation to the opposition has any affect on what the eye sees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back