Eccles Blue
Well-Known Member
Crikey at the pace that Kyle Walker runs VAR would be forever way, way, way behind him!! :-)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Jesus offside goal vs West Ham - Explanation in the Mail
- Thread starter MCFC1993
- Start date
That's been my view point after these 2 weeks as well.For me, there’s too many fine intricacies for VAR to be used, with the poor technology, for goals.
It should be used for red card and penalty incidents only.
NO VAR FOR GOALS!
Far too many subjective incidents in the build up to a goal.
Penalties and Red Cards would be a 'happy' compromise.
Very interesting although according to reports the cameras are at 50 frames per second but even so it isn’t perfect at all.I design ‘chips’ for a living and it’s not that simple.
The problem is that to accurately determine a 3D spatial position it can only be done optically as there isn’t a precise enough positioning technology available currently. GPS is not precise enough.
It is possible that in the future other radio based triangulation systems could be developed but nothing exists currently that has the required precision.
So optical is the only way at the moment which leads to the follow up problem that because time is a factor the measurement needed is actually 4D. Current broadcast video is 25 frames per second which means that there is uncertainty of 1/25 sec between frames. Clearly that time period is significant when people are using the system to accuracies of a few mm’s.
The system is fundamentally flawed until replaced by high resolution video systems which operate at higher fps. 60 Frames per second is available and used in industrial optical inspection systems and could be deployed in VAR if high speed networks were available. It’s still not perfect but higher FPS translates to more accurate position resolution.
VAR needs 60 FPS video connected to a facility within the ground via high speed direct fibre connections. This could easily be implemented using a facility similar to the post production trucks used by the TV broadcasters, these are the lorries that we see parked up outside the ground.
The tech could be easily implemented but they have chosen the cheap option of using the standard TV feeds and a central facility.
However, good a system is however, let’s be in no doubt that it would be used to fuck us over at every opportunity.
BlueMoonRisin’
Well-Known Member
If players are judged to be offside in future by a fuckin' toenail by some biased and skewed twat sat in their secret bunker, then I'm done going to games. Watching paint dry will become more appealing than watching football governed by VAR.
Tommy_Catons_Perm
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2011
- Messages
- 2,456
Excellent. I raised the question last week about what tolerance VAR can measure to and here we have the precise answer, it's 13cm at 14·5 mph. I.e. sterling can be further forward than the last defender by 13 cm and he would be considered level and hence not offside. So VAR got it Wrong!
Also the tolerance is dependent on speed of the forward. For the second offside VAR review, sterling was running much faster, he was blurred in the photo, and should be given a larger tolerance.
But this is all taken into account of course according to ex referee Peter Walton on BT sport. I really don't trust this VAR. It's making a simple game too complicated.
Also the tolerance is dependent on speed of the forward. For the second offside VAR review, sterling was running much faster, he was blurred in the photo, and should be given a larger tolerance.
But this is all taken into account of course according to ex referee Peter Walton on BT sport. I really don't trust this VAR. It's making a simple game too complicated.
Tommy_Catons_Perm
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2011
- Messages
- 2,456
Also the relative velocity of the defender and attacker should be used, which if they are moving in opposite directions could be 28 mph, giving a tolerance of 26 cm. That's nearly a foot!
Football has lost the plot. Players will need a degree in physics at this rate to calculate their speed and positions on the pitch to avoid being off side. VAR is just too complicated. Football is supposed to be a simple game.
Football has lost the plot. Players will need a degree in physics at this rate to calculate their speed and positions on the pitch to avoid being off side. VAR is just too complicated. Football is supposed to be a simple game.
This is a screen shot from last week's game. That's Sterling 'ghosting' through the defence. Check out the dotted blue line. Appropriately bent, it ends up at the defender's hand. Presumably, since it proudly bears the lion's head, the source of the image was ultimately the Premier League. Donkey's head would be more fitting. What a bunch of fucking clowns. It also explains why they allowed the goal. It was wiser to bury the whole thing.
I'm With Stupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 May 2013
- Messages
- 18,907
This is a screen shot from last week's game. That's Sterling 'ghosting' through the defence. Check out the dotted blue line. Appropriately bent, it ends up at the defender's hand. Presumably, since it proudly bears the lion's head, the source of the image was ultimately the Premier League. Donkey's head would be more fitting. What a bunch of fucking clowns. It also explains why they allowed the goal. It was wiser to bury the whole thing.
The blue line is the defender's arse keeping him onside. For the record, in real time, I actually thought the second one was offside and the first one was onside. VAR came to the opposite conclusion.
OccupiedPalestineBlues
Well-Known Member
Getting VAR for offside to work using cameras isn't readily achievable at this point in time but you could have a very accurate system using signal senders in boots and the ball.
You'd need to tweak the offside rule to make it relevant only to the feet, but I can't see a problem with that.
If all players had senders in their boots, and there was a sender in the ball, you could catch the moment the ball was kicked or otherwise redirected (the point of the pass) and know the positions of every players feet at that moment - instantly.
There would be no wait for a decision.
You'd need to tweak the offside rule to make it relevant only to the feet, but I can't see a problem with that.
If all players had senders in their boots, and there was a sender in the ball, you could catch the moment the ball was kicked or otherwise redirected (the point of the pass) and know the positions of every players feet at that moment - instantly.
There would be no wait for a decision.
Last edited:
yeseye said: ↑
Microchip in ball,
Microchip in all players boots.
Determine the exact position of Forward / Defender at the exact time the ball has been played.
No need for these silly lines.
Well you could use the same 2d technology that they use for goal lines, cumbersome but doable.
the ball already has a chip.
the home and away teams have chips with different frequencies(obviously).
other than keepers, all players have chips mounted on their bodies, one behind each ear, on each shoulder, each elbow, each hand, hip, knee and boot, so whichever way you are angled you will always have a most forward position.
you also have one on the back of your ass and one your nob end for if a player is facing directly forward or backwards.
here's what makes it work the most fairly of all systems so far getting around which video frame to use. you always use the frame, no exceptions, no interpretation, where the chip on the ball is closest to the chip on the boot at the moment of impact, while measuring whose chip is closest to the goal line at that moment.
any player not having all chips in place at the half or full time gets a two match ban.
any player caught trying to remove an opposing players chips gets a five game ban.
simple.
Microchip in ball,
Microchip in all players boots.
Determine the exact position of Forward / Defender at the exact time the ball has been played.
No need for these silly lines.
I design ‘chips’ for a living and it’s not that simple.
The problem is that to accurately determine a 3D spatial position it can only be done optically as there isn’t a precise enough positioning technology available currently. GPS is not precise enough.
It is possible that in the future other radio based triangulation systems could be developed but nothing exists currently that has the required precision.
So optical is the only way at the moment which leads to the follow up problem that because time is a factor the measurement needed is actually 4D. Current broadcast video is 25 frames per second which means that there is uncertainty of 1/25 sec between frames. Clearly that time period is significant when people are using the system to accuracies of a few mm’s.
The system is fundamentally flawed until replaced by high resolution video systems which operate at higher fps. 60 Frames per second is available and used in industrial optical inspection systems and could be deployed in VAR if high speed networks were available. It’s still not perfect but higher FPS translates to more accurate position resolution.
VAR needs 60 FPS video connected to a facility within the ground via high speed direct fibre connections. This could easily be implemented using a facility similar to the post production trucks used by the TV broadcasters, these are the lorries that we see parked up outside the ground.
The tech could be easily implemented but they have chosen the cheap option of using the standard TV feeds and a central facility.
However, good a system is however, let’s be in no doubt that it would be used to fuck us over at every opportunity.
Well you could use the same 2d technology that they use for goal lines, cumbersome but doable.
the ball already has a chip.
the home and away teams have chips with different frequencies(obviously).
other than keepers, all players have chips mounted on their bodies, one behind each ear, on each shoulder, each elbow, each hand, hip, knee and boot, so whichever way you are angled you will always have a most forward position.
you also have one on the back of your ass and one your nob end for if a player is facing directly forward or backwards.
here's what makes it work the most fairly of all systems so far getting around which video frame to use. you always use the frame, no exceptions, no interpretation, where the chip on the ball is closest to the chip on the boot at the moment of impact, while measuring whose chip is closest to the goal line at that moment.
any player not having all chips in place at the half or full time gets a two match ban.
any player caught trying to remove an opposing players chips gets a five game ban.
simple.