BlueHammer85
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 36,809
up to a foot.
and when a player is a foot and one centimetre offside. The same arguments will happen
up to a foot.
A foot is about right if the equipment has a margin of error of around 30cms. That is probably about where you can see "clear daylight" If they did this most decisions would be correct. The line-drawing farce is subject to human error. Another way would be just to take the position on the line of the front foot. This debate about shirt sleeves and arm position is just absurd.up to a foot.
No they wouldn’t. I foot and one inch is clear and obvious. An inch isn’t.and when a player is a foot and one centimetre offside. The same arguments will happen
Agree it should only be any part of the leg, the toe to the kneeA foot is about right if the equipment has a margin of error of around 30cms. That is probably about where you can see "clear daylight" If they did this most decisions would be correct. The line-drawing farce is subject to human error. Another way would be just to take the position on the line of the front foot. This debate about shirt sleeves and arm position is just absurd.
No they wouldn’t. I foot and one inch is clear and obvious. An inch isn’t.
I've got no solutions that involve offside and VAR pal; people point to changing the rule for offside but whatever this new interpretation is (level/clear daylight/etc) we'll simple be in exactly the same position as we are now with PiGMOL pointing to examples where an attacker's trailing bootlace is still level with the stud on the outstretched leg of the defender so he's onside (exactly the same arguments as now just shunted forward a bit); the issue is, as somebody else has already said, the technology simply isn't up to the task (frame rate of camera vs speed of players run) to be accurate to the degree that they're implementing.how many inches should they allow a player to be offside ?