Offsides can they get any right?
in [World Football]
|
Prev: strange jersey
Next: FORETELLING THE FUTURE
From: Abubakr on 7 Jul 2010 00:52 On Jul 7, 7:36 am, "Bob" <B...(a)Bob.com> wrote: > JCQ wrote: > > Watching the Uruguay Netherlands match. 4 close offsides calls and > > alll 4 wrong so far. This sport at least at the world cup level really > > needs some form of technology to take over and help get it right. > > "close offside calls" are the key words here. It's likely that ARs often > can't tell the difference anyway. I don't see the need to change the method > just because "close calls" aren't called the right way when most can't even > agree with the help of replay. I think there was a not very close offside call that was wrong as well in this match.
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on 7 Jul 2010 20:47 HASM <netnews(a)invalid.com> writes: > "Bob" <Bob(a)Bob.com> writes: > >> "close offside calls" are the key words here. It's likely that ARs >> often can't tell the difference anyway. I don't see the need to >> change the method just because "close calls" aren't called the >> right way when most can't even agree with the help of replay. > > Strange :-) I'm in totally agreement with Bob on this. > > It's offside when I whistle, I used to tell the players :-) And > players know that close calls go either way, throw a tantrum and > accept it. > > Technology may help disallowing awarded goals that were clearly > offside, it's starts to be a bit doubtful that they would help > awarding a disallowed goal as the defenders could claim they saw the > flag go up and stopped playing ODF. You play to my whistle. I might wave it off in any case. I'm actually in favor of taking a few seconds for a review when a goal is scored or ruled offside (as long as the whistle didn't precede the ball crossing the line) when the venue has the technology to allow it to be done. The ball is dead anyway, and it's just a matter of deciding whether the correct restart is a kickoff or an IFK. And the technology they've got at these games looks to be good enough and fast enough to correctly decide nearly all of the close cases in less time than it typically takes to get the ball restarted anyway. I'm less thrilled with the idea of using replays to determine "involved in play" or "did it touch a teammate" as that seems to still take several watchings and a fair bit more time. > (unless technology gets rid of the AR), and would just introduce > delays when used in otherwise inconsequential plays changing the way > the game is played. > > Some players have an incredibly fast first step. I wonder how they > decide when to freeze the frame and shade the field to show the > potential offside positions, and whether it is done real time or > slow motion, by someone looking at a frame by frame replay. > Probably much better than what an AR can do, but still a hard job. I've been assuming that it's someone going frame by frame, identifying when the ball is touched, pointing to a spot on the screen for where the offside line is, and having the processor figure out the line. The only problem I can see is that while it appears to be good at inferring the correct angle, you don't actually quite get a picture down the line, so when the applicable part of either player isn't the feet, there's still some guesswork involved. But I'd say that at least 80% of the time it's been clear, and the rest of the time you go with what was called on the field. For those who haven't done it, keep in mind that it's absolutely critical that the AR (1) be lined up *precisely* with the (moving) offside line, (2) be looking down a line precisely parallel to the goal line, and (3) be looking directly at the ball to tell when it was last played by a teammate. (2) and (3) are, of course, impossible to do at the same time, and (1) and (3) are impossible to do at the same time if the defender is moving (even if it's just his upper body that's moving). And if you're willing to trust your ears as to when (3) happened, you have to take into account that the sound takes a tenth of a second to go 37 yards, while what you're looking at is instantaneous. So you have to listen and decide "Was he offside a tenth of a second ago?" -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Bullwinkle: You sure that's the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | only way? Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Rocky: Well, if you're going to be | a hero, you've got to do kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com | stupid things every once in (650)857-7572 | a while. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
From: JCQ on 7 Jul 2010 21:22 On Jul 6, 5:36 pm, "Bob" <B...(a)Bob.com> wrote: > JCQ wrote: > > Watching the Uruguay Netherlands match. 4 close offsides calls and > > alll 4 wrong so far. This sport at least at the world cup level really > > needs some form of technology to take over and help get it right. > > "close offside calls" are the key words here. It's likely that ARs often > can't tell the difference anyway. I don't see the need to change the method > just because "close calls" aren't called the right way when most can't even > agree with the help of replay. I'm not talking about people watching a replay on TV. I'm talking about computers making the calls instantly. Replace the linesmen with red lights on top of the goal posts. When humans are involved most of the close calls are incorrect especially when the players are not off sides. There are 2 reasons for this. Number one is that the human eye and brain is not fast enough to process everything and make the correct call. Number 2 is that linesman have a flag in their hands so when in doubt they raise it because they are too afraid to be responsible for an off sides goal. FIFA has instructed them to keep the flags down unless the off sides is clear. I would be happy if they did that but these are not robots and human nature takes over. At least at the world cup level they could use technology for off sides calls because the matches are just too important for the constant mistakes that happen on these calls.
From: HASM on 7 Jul 2010 21:42 Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com> writes: >> it's starts to be a bit doubtful that they would help awarding a >> disallowed goal as the defenders could claim they saw the flag go up and >> stopped playing > ODF. You play to my whistle. I might wave it off in any case. I know that, but that won't stop the players and people on rss from complaining, that was my point. > I've been assuming that it's someone going frame by frame, identifying > when the ball is touched, Yes, but even viewing frame by frame sometimes it's hard to tell when the ball was touched. It is easy when it changes directions sharply, not so easy otherwise. -- HASM (ex-HP Labs :-))
From: HASM on 7 Jul 2010 21:53
JCQ <zelig9999(a)gmail.com> writes: > I'm not talking about people watching a replay on TV. I'm talking about > computers making the calls instantly. I think we're a few years away for such technology to work reliably. And then you still need to get enough viewing angles to account for all player's body parts that count, that can be obscured by body parts that don't count, the ball, other players, etc. -- HASM |