I think half the problem is the camera angle at the swamp. There were a couple of decisions there last season that looked wrong (one for and one against them), but the VAR lines must be calibrated.I think the Rashford goal brought into light a new “it’s within tolerance” that many of us had never heard. This looked closer.
It’s gone from factual to err not quite factual & back to factual.
I think half the problem is the camera angle at the swamp. There were a couple of decisions there last season that looked wrong (one for and one against them), but the VAR lines must be calibrated.
I hope we will get there. They need to trust fans more. We’re not the ragamuffins that they think we are. (Barring some crossbar snappers)Yeah I agree it doesn’t help & lack of on field commentary that they have at Rugby doesn’t help. I was under the impression that was going to happen.
The Soton stoppage time made sense given the actual stoppages in the second half and in stoppage itself (I was in the stands and was actually timing the stoppages throughout as an exercise to see if we were getting more or less based on a discussion on here, funny enough; I also tend to keep stoppage time on my Apple Watch so as to know how much time we should have left given the stadium clock always stops at 90).Sterling vs Southampton vibes.
These things happen once in a while.
Not sure why different offsides are being compared. It’s a factual decision.
Do you have any evidence that the offside decision was manipulated tonight?The Soton stoppage time made sense given the actual stoppages in the second half and in stoppage itself (I was in the stands and was actually timing the stoppages throughout as an exercise to see if we were getting more or less based on a discussion on here, funny enough; I also tend to keep stoppage time on my Apple Watch so as to know how much time we should have left given the stadium clock always stops at 90).
And whether a player is actually onside or offside is indeed a matter of fact.
However, the way it is determined through VAR is highly subjective for the following reasons:
- The VAR selects the key frame showing when the ball is about to leave the boot of the player passing the ball forward and the position of the attacking player relative to the second to last defender in that moment — this itself is a point in the process that allows quite a bit of manipulation, especially given the limitations of digital video cameras, specifically capture frame rates which lead to motion blur.
- The VAR then sets, via the virtual spatial measurement system, the forward most playable surface of both the player receiving the ball and the second to last defending player — this is another point in the process that allows quite a bit of manipulation, as they determine the pixel placement of a 3D measure by reviewing a distorted 2D video still frame.
- The virtual spatial measurement system then draws “true” lines, superimposing a 3D mapping of the pitch to a 2D plane of a video still frame to establish the cross-pitch terminal planes of those two players — the full algorithms and methods for this system have never been released based on them being “proprietary systems” and the margin of error in the system (present for any sort of system that uses optical devices to map 3D spaces in varying environments, with varying implementations, as is the case with the 20 different PL stadiums) has never been acknowledged, much less confirmed.
- The new VAR policy is to no longer show the process as the VAR undertakes this assessment in real-time, only to show the resulting image establishing the determination — this allows for further manipulation. When you’re told you *can’t* see the sausage being made it’s reasonable to question whether you should eat it.
It has been shown on numerous occasions that tiny, reasonable changes to the first two of the steps for specific offside assessments could have changed the determination.
And, in the case of the Newcastle offside today, and the Rashford one earlier in the season, they are being compared because they are very similar in the setup and thus demonstrate how inconsistent VAR offside assessment can be.
Now, some will argue the inconsistency is evidence of incompetence rather than corruption, which could be true on the face of it.
But, what many fail to realise is that continued, unresolved “incompetence” eventually itself becomes corruption.
There are only so many times a person or organisation can say “oops” before the mistakes becomes a pattern of behaviour which can no longer be reasonably deemed incompetence.
Dumping raw sewage and chemical waste in to a major river used for potable water, fishing, and recreation when you are barred from doing once is incompetence. Doing it 5 times is corruption.
Of course I can’t.Do you have any evidence that the offside decision was manipulated tonight?
They might have used the wrong frame to judge. Do you have any evidence that they have?
The system cannot be perfect because there is human involvement. Even the same human could make a different decisions on two ”identical” judgements.
You can think that the decision is wrong tonight on the offside. You can’t prove it’s wrong though. The lines they use will be calibrated to the best of their ability.
The marginal decision went against the dippers for the Rashford goal and for them tonight. #corruption
I do understand your argument, I just don’t think it’s right.Of course I can’t.
Though, my response was to explain why determining offside in football, using VAR, is not a matter of fact.
It’s very important to understand the difference between an absolute state in a system (in this case, offside or onside) and a relative value of that state in a system (in this case, the subjective determination of offside or onside).
One exists in a perfect universe where all information is fully accessible, entirely known, and completely understood. The other exists in the universe we live in.
And, even then, unlike scientific determination—with the wide scrutiny, transparency, review, and iteration inherent to it—offside in football using VAR involves quite a bit of human subjectivity. And has become less transparent and accessible to scrutiny with each year it has been used.
Thus it is particularly at risk to corruption (both conceptual and functional).
And, as I *can* prove similar corruption in the financial world (specifically in the context of competitive and anti-competive practices), as that is literally what I used to do before my early retirement, and know of accounts of corruption in La Liga (one of the reasons I alerted everyone on here to how bad Barca’s financial woes were well before it became common knowledge), I am very confident that it exists in the Premier League, including institutional varieties.
This is the essence of fraud/corruption investigation. "Intent" is so hard to prove that it is, usually, only a repetitive pattern of behaviour that provides sufficient evidence and that requires proper studies to be conducted involving comparable incidents. That would include;There are only so many times a person or organisation can say “oops” before the mistakes become a pattern of behaviour which can no longer be reasonably deemed incompetence.
I think half the problem is the camera angle at the swamp. There were a couple of decisions there last season that looked wrong (one for and one against them), but the VAR lines must be calibrated.