shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I think they use some kind of similar system TBF. Just not literal GPS.
LOL
I was assuming that the systems footballers use is more acurate, GPS probably being a misnomer. Thre wouldn’t be much point in producing player heatmaps if they were 3 metres out.
From a scientific paper in Orthopaedic reviewsI think they use some kind of similar system TBF. Just not literal GPS.
From a scientific paper in Orthopaedic reviews
The use of GPS and inertial devices for player monitoring in team sports: A review of current and future applications
John S. Theodoropoulos,1 Jeremy Bettle,2 and Jonathan D. Kosy1
Stadium based systems have now been developed to allow the use of receivers for indoor sports (or where satellite coverage is deficient).9 It is claimed that these Local Positioning Systems (LPS) can pinpoint position, within the arena, to within 10 cm.
Probably not accurate enough.
PS this is what being a pedant means.
He’s also using his years of experience to notice that Wright is going away from goal and Wan - Bissaka is going towards his own goalOr you know, we could just trust the guy with the flag who has trained & been doing it for years. It worked for centuries before & he literally couldn't have been better placed.
The on field officials were excellent btw.
View attachment 35288
Thats not offside, not even close, this gets worse the more we look at it. Jesus Christ, Doug King has to do something, this is fucking corruption of the highest order.Or you know, we could just trust the guy with the flag who has trained & been doing it for years. It worked for centuries before & he literally couldn't have been better placed.
The on field officials were excellent btw.
View attachment 35288
Maybe they've offered it already?Oh ok so it’s the FA and / or Man U you want to take on?
Bit silly and hot headed - hence my original comment
Time for the club to instruct lawyers.I've not really seen it any more than anyone else I don't think but I probably do analyse the intricacies of it because, as you well know, I have always been vocal in my disdain for VAR, even before it became a reality as I knew this would happen.
The relevant part from IFAB about when the ball is played says...
"At the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate.."
*The first point of contact of the ‘play’ or ‘touch’ of the ball should be used."
As others have said in this thread & I have been saying for years though, is it is IMPOSSIBLE to define exactly when that is because of the poor quality 50fps cameras they use so it's literally guesswork to the nearest frame. When you have players moving at speed in opposite directions this can make an enormous difference ; 15-20cm, possibly even more.
The authorities know this but still pedal the "offside is offside " bollocks & claim it is factual when it absolutely is not.
The IFAB VAR Protocol also tells us that offside is not exempt from the "clear & obvious" mantra but that is also ignored as they pretend that the tech is infallible.
View attachment 35279
Offered what?Maybe they've offered it already?
Exactly this, just as in cricket when they use umpires/referees call ,for any marginal decision, they use the umpire's decision. It works in cricket, the players now accept, and it is virtually never contoversial.VAR looks at an incident and if it looks too close to call to the naked eye, you go back to the on-field officials original ruling.
Anything that needs a slide rule and minutes of analysis, should be dumped.
It would be much fairer than having no VAR at all and wouldn't pee people off as much as VAR does right now.
Yesterday just happens to be the perfect example.
The ref said it was a goal, the linesman said it was a goal, the Man U players thought it was a goal, the City players and fans thought it was a goal and the Man U fans thought it was a goal too
Given that freeze frame, the VAR should immediately say "it's too close to call", stick with the on-field decision.
Ditch anything with miniscule interrogation (the technology is not good enough anyway). No drawing lines, unless it is to show someone was well offside. Not by a toenail. Clear on instant viewing. Something you can see in an instant.
There is still a decision to be made as to where you apply the ruling from in terms of distance etc,.but no one could look at that footage yesterday and say an obvious mistake had been made. No-one.
That's what VAR should be there for. Clear errors on the parts of the officials.
Thought Jones had a good game in all fairness.
I think that’s compelling
Too late now,
I remember when VAR was being discussed it was said the implementation was wrong, supposed to be clear in obvious errors.
i think the system being talked about for location is the sort of thing farmers and earthwork contractors use but they are dealing with vehicles not people who have arms and legs,
That's the VAR protocol. As soon as they see the motion blur on the ball they say that's too late as it's clearly already been kicked so roll back to a previous frame. The knock on effect as to how much players have moved, especially when going in opposite directions, is massive.I think that’s compelling
I think the official has used an incorrect frame
What a tit
It’s not corruption it’s an awful mistake to assume the pass is made at a time it isn’t
That’s what I think the club needs to make the point and have emailed to sayThat's the VAR protocol. As soon as they see the motion blur on the ball they say that's too late as it's clearly already been kicked so roll back to a previous frame. The knock on effect as to how much players have moved, especially when going in opposite directions, is massive.
Doesn’t make it any easier does it PeteI think that’s compelling
I think the official has used an incorrect frame
What a tit
It’s not corruption it’s an awful mistake to assume the pass is made at a time it isn’t
They should allow for the margin of error then, common sense really.That's the VAR protocol. As soon as they see the motion blur on the ball they say that's too late as it's clearly already been kicked so roll back to a previous frame. The knock on effect as to how much players have moved, especially when going in opposite directions, is massive.
It does look like the wrong frame was used, however none of the players positions seems to change significantly. AWB still has his weight (still standing) on his right foot, so his line would still be in the same place. Haji still has both feet on the floor (so not moving) and pointing to where he wants the ball - so his line would still be in the same place.I think that’s compelling
I think the official has used an incorrect frame
What a tit
It’s not corruption it’s an awful mistake to assume the pass is made at a time it isn’t
If AWB is moving which he was his position by the laws of physics will have to have changed even if it is by millimetres which is enough.It does look like the wrong frame was used, however none of the players positions seems to change significantly. AWB still has his weight (still standing) on his right foot, so his line would still be in the same place. Haji still has both feet on the floor (so not moving) and pointing to where he wants the ball - so his line would still be in the same place.
its the drawing of the lines that is the problem, in reality they probably overlap which means level and not offside
You can see AWB left leg has moved forward a little, but his right foot is ”planted”. Would it have moved? I’m not sure but not convinced. However, it wouldn’t half stop controversy if they took more care to use the right frame. They haven’t thought at all about the nature of O’Hare’s movement of the ball to effect the pass.If AWB is moving which he was his position by the laws of physics will have to have changed even if it is by millimetres which is enough.
Wright on the other hand doesn't move until the ball is fully played.
yes he is moving, unless he has some how fucked with the laws of physics he has movedYou can see AWB left leg has moved forward a little, but his right foot is ”planted”. Would it have moved? I’m not sure but not convinced. However, it wouldn’t half stop controversy if they took more care to use the right frame. They haven’t thought at all about the nature of O’Hare’s movement of the ball to effect the pass.
That's supposedly what the 'thicker lines' shown on TV do, giving a 10cm margin of error, but I'm not convinced. It's insufficient anyway as studies show the actual margin of error can be up to 38cm.They should allow for the margin of error then, common sense really.
I know-it’s a strange one. You would assume that penalties were not classed as part of the same match.But y tho?
The whole attitude to pens is so weird. Game goes down as a draw. Cards are wiped. Goals scored don’t count in the stats. Just weird.
I know-it’s a strange one. You would assume that penalties were not classed as part of the same match.
TBH, thats the least of the worries about penalty shootouts. The double jeopardy of separate coin tosses for end and first pen is seriously wrong.It’s the not counting goals that gets me. Hajis pen in the game counts to his stats, but his pen in the shootout doesn’t…
TBH, thats the least of the worries about penalty shootouts. The double jeopardy of separate coin tosses for end and first pen is seriously wrong.
Similar to "umpires call" in cricket is sensible.That's supposedly what the 'thicker lines' shown on TV do, giving a 10cm margin of error, but I'm not convinced. It's insufficient anyway as studies show the actual margin of error can be up to 38cm.
Is that the margin. The gap looked less than that on Sunday!That's supposedly what the 'thicker lines' shown on TV do, giving a 10cm margin of error, but I'm not convinced. It's insufficient anyway as studies show the actual margin of error can be up to 38cm.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?