Jesus offside goal vs West Ham - Explanation in the Mail

We have to remember that the spirit of offside in the early days of football was to prevent goalhanging. Likewise, the goalkeepers not moving forward of the goalline at penalties was to stop them charging the ball down. So what we have are 2 rules that were never meant to be a precise science suddenly attempting to be analysed by equipment not capable of delivering precise answers. Certainly it is fair to say that the introduction of offside was never to see fantastic goals ruled out by faceless computer operators in TV studios 200 miles away, who are literally guessing at what may or may not have occurred on a frame of film that does not exist. In short we have been EU'd, i.e. taken over and dictated to by faceless unelected individuals who don't appear answerable for any of their unexplainable decisions!
You mean BoJo’d.
 
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.
Can you let me know what these ‘signal senders’ are mate? And what technique would be used for the position calculation? Sorry but what you are describing is a fantasy. There are loads of reasons why having equipment in the ball, boots etc is unrealistic. The current tech can work, but there are limitations with its current use model for VAR.
 
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.

Doesn’t VaR have its own camera system. Surely it’s not connected to the broadcast output.

I assume it’s a separate system, so there’s no need to use 1/25 when some cameras including sodding smartphones and gopros etc can record 120fps. And more if they stick to HD.

They can easily shoot the game at 120 or 240 FPS and in HD and this can be sent down the line with less bandwidth than 4K 25p.

I can’t believe that VAR is based on a ‘domestic’ broadcast system.
 
Doesn’t VaR have its own camera system. Surely it’s not connected to the broadcast output.

I assume it’s a separate system, so there’s no need to use 1/25 when some cameras including sodding smartphones and gopros etc can record 120fps. And more if they stick to HD.

They can easily shoot the game at 120 or 240 FPS and in HD and this can be sent down the line with less bandwidth than 4K 25p.

I can’t believe that VAR is based on a ‘domestic’ broadcast system.

I just did a bit more research on this and Sky Q UHD is 50fps so it’s not quite as bad as I thought but I’d say we’re talking about 6 inch accuracy rather than a foot. So all this talk of mm precision is bollocks. It’s probably closer to half a ball minimum.

Anyway, addressing your point, yes they are are using broadcast feeds for VAR

720p has a data rate of approx 1MegaPixel per frame

1080p is about 1.6MP per frame

4K UHD is approx 8MP per frame

So yeah there is probably a trade off where you could send higher frame rates at lower resolution but tbh even at 50 FPS the time (and therefore possible distance travelled of a boot or ball) is quite big. To be really accurate I’d say it would need maybe 200fps. Easily doable by the cameras but not a standard for broadcast.

Hence my other point that the VAR video should be in a dedicated network in the stadium. They could then use the full capability of the cameras.

They’ve chosen a cheap solution which is a bit shite tbh.

I’ve got a lot of faith in the goal line technology as it’s processed locally at high FPS but the rest of it is flawed in my opinion
 
Doesn’t using more FPS increase the margin for error or manipulation?

Wouldn’t one frame per second be better as we should not be measuring offside to such margins?
 
Doesn’t using more FPS increase the margin for error or manipulation?

Wouldn’t one frame per second be better as we should not be measuring offside to such margins?
No it increases the accuracy. Your complaint seems to be that it shouldn't be that accurate in the first place?

Also Usain Bolt can run 10 metres in a second. Kyle Walker probably isn't far off that. 1 frame per second would have close to a 10 metre margin of error.
 
That’s not how goal line technology works mate.

There are no sender ‘chips’ in balls, boots, arses or knobs.

Goal line tech works just like the new offside thing with a couple of important differences. It uses a load of high speed cameras (16 per goal I think) the camera data is used to triangulate the 2D position of the ball in relation to the posts and line. There’s a lot of data but it is processed locally and so the system can use the full resolution and frame rate of the cameras. That’s why I’m personally satisfied that goal line tech is accurate enough to be reliable. It is also not dependent on human interpretation so less scope for cheating.
not "sender" chips.
chips to be sensed, like the one in the ball sensed by the goal line sensors, being a row of sensors down each touchline, if they can be hidden in the posts, they can be setup nondescript i would imagine.
no mention of cameras i can find anywhere regarding this.
i would think the technology for something like this would be rather simple for tech's, the problem most certainly would be cost and implementation, and even more-so selling the idea to the powers that be at every level
and do i think its a good idea? i dont know if what we saw against spurs was any indication of how much "better" technology has made the game so far. not arsed it started out as a semi joke anyways, but really there is nothing that cant be done regarding this, its just choosing to do it or not.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal-line_technology
Cairos-Goal-Line-Technology-system..jpg
 
Last edited:
Professional video cameras are easily capable of 60fps and above, but the full frame rate isn’t used by the broadcasters as it requires more transmission bandwidth. The bandwidth issue gets exacerbated by higher resolution so old style SD to 2K and 4K systems creates a large expansion of the data that you have to move around.

I’m very confused why they have centralised the VAR referees. If every PL stadium had a VAR room with Multi Gigabit networking capability, they could put the VAR refs in there and use the full capability of the cameras.

Makes no sense to use the Broadcasters feeds.
It makes sense if full transparency isn't what you want
 
No it increases the accuracy. Your complaint seems to be that it shouldn't be that accurate in the first place?

Also Usain Bolt can run 10 metres in a second. Kyle Walker probably isn't far off that. 1 frame per second would have close to a 10 metre margin of error.

It's more about transparency. It should not be measured at 1mm. Your point about Kyle Walker is true but he runs that fast which of 50 frames per second do the operators stop the clock at the ball would not be travelling forward at speed when it is kicked but Walker will be doing 20mpm. It's so easy to select anyone of the 50 frames available in that second to find him offside when the benefit should be with the attacker.

I just do not trust VAR or the operators. For it to work it has to take away the human element or we just just use it for clear and obvious errors. Rather like when Milner was offside by a metre.

 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.