Arsenes Daylight Theory

Black Country Wanderer

Black Country Wanderer

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
12,007
Reaction score
17,509
Apparently Arsene Wengers clear daylight for offsides is gaining momentum, with FIFA president giving backing according to Sky Sports
Personally it just seems like moving the lines with as much controversy as ever
Although the FIFA president did say it was as much how VAR is being used that is the problem in this country,a sentiment i agree with,thoughts?
 
Certainly would be more palatable than having your big toe tripping it all up like it suits the PL here with their ****.
 
Flynn said:
I think the problem is they are changing the rules of football to make VAR work, rather than changing VAR to make VAR work.
Click to expand...

I think they have to be adjusted on behalf of the sanctity of the game, the same as rules have been continually adjusted since football was invented. If they are applying the existing rules to a level of accuracy never before possible, and people don't like it...the rules have to change or be re-worded.
The trouble with technology is that it's now too quick for our eyes and brains to process in real time, but it is accurate. Then we realise that we didn't really want what we asked for because it's spoiling the experience.
 
The main problem with the "daylight" proposal is simply that it is such a radical change, that will shift the balance towards the attacker to a significant degree. That might work as an improvement to the game, it might also shift the balance too far and undermine the whole concept of "offside". Attackers having the scope to simply run through on goal could quite easily be a deterioration of the game's core tension.

A simpler idea is to widen the lines used to interpret offside, to remove the ultra marginal calls, which were never intended to be part of the offside rule. In this way the history and spirit of the game are retained, and the VAR absurdities are removed.
 
They will still draw lines, deciding whether somebody's **** is offside instead of their toes. Might as well scrap offside altogether.
 
BlahBlah said:
I think they have to be adjusted on behalf of the sanctity of the game, the same as rules have been continually adjusted since football was invented. If they are applying the existing rules to a level of accuracy never before possible, and people don't like it...the rules have to change or be re-worded.
The trouble with technology is that it's now too quick for our eyes and brains to process in real time, but it is accurate. Then we realise that we didn't really want what we asked for because it's spoiling the experience.
Click to expand...

From many articles I have read, it is not the case that the VAR system is 100% accurate. The camera only captures an approximation of the relation between the receiving player and the passing player at the time of release of the ball. In reality, the receiving player and defenders are all normally moving at the time of the release of the ball so scope for a margin of error emerges. This can be anything from 10cm up to 38cm depending on the speed, direction and location of the various players involved. This perspective, moreover, passes the commonsense test: these are elite players who train relentlessly to avoid being offside in attacking moves, ie doing the opposite of "seeking an advantage."
 
Why not flip It around - instead of drawing imaginary lines on the TV screen, why not have a solid line painted on the pitch at say 25 yards at each end and that becomes a fixed offside line? Would be easier to monitor with technology.

There would be downsides - Might mean that games get compressed into that middle 50 yards if both teams play a high defensive line and corners would become more important.

Actually more I think about it, it could see the return of Pulis Ball.
 
The daylight theory is basically how the old offside worked,just that then it was a pure lino/ref decision
The "clear and obvious error" is what our country is getting so wrong ,despite being told that by FIFA ,and also for refs to use the pitchside monitors,something they still dont do very often
If you have to use slow motion,frame by frame,slide rule technology then it is not "clear and obvious" therefore should not be used,it really is that simple
VAR has its place for handballs,off the ball incidents,penalties etc,but for offsides no,unless its a clear and obvious mistake, if theres any doubt a quick look at a replay on the monitor by the ref should suffice,that would take 30 seconds if that
Of course nothing can change this season but it has to for next season surely
 
I've said it before but a tiny overlap between an attackers trailing foot and a chasing defenders toe being seen as onside with some lines drawn on a freezeframe is just as bad as what we have now - except if favours goals. Just let the lino do his job (which they almost always got right) and overturn it if at a quick look by the ref the decision turns out to be wrong. No Stockley Park ****er, just a monitor at the side of the pitch to check.
 
wolvesjoe said:
From many articles I have read, it is not the case that the VAR system is 100% accurate. The camera only captures an approximation of the relation between the receiving player and the passing player at the time of release of the ball. In reality, the receiving player and defenders are all normally moving at the time of the release of the ball so scope for a margin of error emerges. This can be anything from 10cm up to 38cm depending on the speed, direction and location of the various players involved. This perspective, moreover, passes the commonsense test: these are elite players who train relentlessly to avoid being offside in attacking moves, ie doing the opposite of "seeking an advantage."
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly the point. It is not 100% accurate, but it's a level of accuracy that we've never seen before...picking up heel offsides on the far touchline for a player moving away from goal is something i never thought i'd see.
So how do we define the "commonsense" test into a written rule that everybody can follow and understand instantly, so it doesn't take 3 minutes of replays?
It's the same as trying to define what "clear and obvious" means, or even "interfering with play". I even heard Andy Townsend commentating on a handball the other week, saying that it wasn't "intentional". This guy doesn't even know the rules as they currently stand in the sports he's a professional commentator in?

The problems arise when you realise that everything ends up with a human brain making a decision, and that can be a polar opposite from the man sitting next to you, depending on their own perspective and subconscious bias. You only have to sit with an opposition fan to realise that.
We can't even agree on what should be reviewed by VAR on a consistent basis...sometimes they review, sometimes they completely ignore it, in consecutive games on the same day. That's the human input.
They need to articulate the rules correctly to suit the current climate, but it's natural for rules to evolve in parallel with the technology. It's very difficult to do.
The way it's been implemented in the UK is different to elsewhere, they put decisions solely in the hands of a brainless system...but then a human still decides whether the system gets used, so we retain the bias?
Arguably, that is the least-biased way to go, but the rules need to be nailed down to make it workable or you end up killing the spectacle.
 
Var was brought in and rules were changed to accommodate it, to try to stop stupid decisions from refs/assistants.

Now they're changing more rules, to stop var from making even worse decisions, by the same refs/assistants, sitting in a transit miles away from the match.

You couldn't make it up.
 
wolvesjoe said:
From many articles I have read, it is not the case that the VAR system is 100% accurate. The camera only captures an approximation of the relation between the receiving player and the passing player at the time of release of the ball. In reality, the receiving player and defenders are all normally moving at the time of the release of the ball so scope for a margin of error emerges. This can be anything from 10cm up to 38cm depending on the speed, direction and location of the various players involved. This perspective, moreover, passes the commonsense test: these are elite players who train relentlessly to avoid being offside in attacking moves, ie doing the opposite of "seeking an advantage."
Click to expand...

you're twisting my melon man.
 
Boss Hogg said:
Why not flip It around - instead of drawing imaginary lines on the TV screen, why not have a solid line painted on the pitch at say 25 yards at each end and that becomes a fixed offside line? ......... with games becoming compressed in the middle 50 yards if teams play with a high line..... .
Click to expand...

Boss Hogg, I think you are describing Subbuteo :D

D9BAC706-A28D-4DE8-B44A-6DB8D322903F.jpeg
 
Players are now wearing those vests with GPS tracking so that their clubs can monitor all aspects of their performance.
I wonder if it would be possible to implement some kind of technology into them for offside decisions, similar to the goal line technology they're now using?
 
I think the simplest answer is that offside should be about the part of the body that contacts the ball. So it doesn’t matter if your ankle or left foot is two inches offside, if the head or right foot you hit the ball with is onside.
 
Black Country Wanderer said:
Apparently Arsene Wengers clear daylight for offsides is gaining momentum, with FIFA president giving backing according to Sky Sports
Personally it just seems like moving the lines with as much controversy as ever
Although the FIFA president did say it was as much how VAR is being used that is the problem in this country,a sentiment i agree with,thoughts?
Click to expand...
I agree with your post. Now just waiting for Mike 'Smug, Arrogant, ****' Riley to insist that he's got it right and what do FIFA know ...
 
BlahBlah said:
Yes, that's exactly the point. It is not 100% accurate, but it's a level of accuracy that we've never seen before...picking up heel offsides on the far touchline for a player moving away from goal is something i never thought i'd see.
So how do we define the "commonsense" test into a written rule that everybody can follow and understand instantly, so it doesn't take 3 minutes of replays?
It's the same as trying to define what "clear and obvious" means, or even "interfering with play". I even heard Andy Townsend commentating on a handball the other week, saying that it wasn't "intentional". This guy doesn't even know the rules as they currently stand in the sports he's a professional commentator in?

The problems arise when you realise that everything ends up with a human brain making a decision, and that can be a polar opposite from the man sitting next to you, depending on their own perspective and subconscious bias. You only have to sit with an opposition fan to realise that.
We can't even agree on what should be reviewed by VAR on a consistent basis...sometimes they review, sometimes they completely ignore it, in consecutive games on the same day. That's the human input.
They need to articulate the rules correctly to suit the current climate, but it's natural for rules to evolve in parallel with the technology. It's very difficult to do.
The way it's been implemented in the UK is different to elsewhere, they put decisions solely in the hands of a brainless system...but then a human still decides whether the system gets used, so we retain the bias?
Arguably, that is the least-biased way to go, but the rules need to be nailed down to make it workable or you end up killing the spectacle.
Click to expand...
I completely agree but for one thing. You talk about implementation in the UK. You actually mean England courtesy of that refereeing 'genius' Riley.
 
Get rid of the lines used to make the decision. The level of accuracy implied is false relative to the potential sources of error, and the interpretation is so far from that of fans and players, that it undermines the legitimacy of the decisions. Perhaps the PGMOL officials need to be investigated to see if they have received “incentives” from Hawk-Eye.

The VAR official should simply check for offside in the replay and if he/she spots was they think is an offside affecting the outcome of a goal or other major decision where it’s being used, then it’s referred to the referee to watch the monitor and decide. No lines, just human judgement as it was but with the benefit of another pair of eyes and replays.

The only benefit lines can bring to the VAR decision is correcting for the angle of the camera and providing the viewer an indication of the true position of the players relative to the pitch. So you may overlay on the VAR replay an indicative line on the pitch just ahead of the players being checked to aid the visual decision, but it’s not lines tagged to the attacking and defending players as today.

No need to change the offside rule, just use VAR the way we were told it would be used.
 
Black Country Wanderer said:
The daylight theory is basically how the old offside worked,just that then it was a pure lino/ref decision
The "clear and obvious error" is what our country is getting so wrong ,despite being told that by FIFA ,and also for refs to use the pitchside monitors,something they still dont do very often
If you have to use slow motion,frame by frame,slide rule technology then it is not "clear and obvious" therefore should not be used,it really is that simple
VAR has its place for handballs,off the ball incidents,penalties etc,but for offsides no,unless its a clear and obvious mistake, if theres any doubt a quick look at a replay on the monitor by the ref should suffice,that would take 30 seconds if that
Of course nothing can change this season but it has to for next season surely[/QUOTE ]

Couldn't agree more with this it's the clear and obvious element that VAR has so wrong. Unfortunately due to the pig headed ignorance of the PGMOL in this country it will probably take a law change to sort rather than forcing them to use the technology for what it was intended for.
Click to expand...
 
Black Country Wanderer said:
The daylight theory is basically how the old offside worked,just that then it was a pure lino/ref decision
The "clear and obvious error" is what our country is getting so wrong ,despite being told that by FIFA ,and also for refs to use the pitchside monitors,something they still dont do very often
If you have to use slow motion,frame by frame,slide rule technology then it is not "clear and obvious" therefore should not be used,it really is that simple
VAR has its place for handballs,off the ball incidents,penalties etc,but for offsides no,unless its a clear and obvious mistake, if theres any doubt a quick look at a replay on the monitor by the ref should suffice,that would take 30 seconds if that
Of course nothing can change this season but it has to for next season surely
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more with this it's the clear and obvious element that VAR has so wrong. Unfortunately due to the pig headed ignorance of the PGMOL in this country it will probably take a law change to sort rather than forcing them to use the technology for what it was intended for.
 
The way I see it is the old daylight theory used the shirts as the guide, because that's what the linesman looked for as it's the only way to judge it with the naked eye. VAR is looking for studs, which if you add the daylight rule to that, will cause chaos.

Said it before, two people could be running dead level at the same speed but if they're at different points in their stride pattern the VAR call would literally be switching from onside to offside every few hundredths of a second and it's a complete lottery whether you are on or off. But a simple view of a replay which would take seconds would return a call of onside - level.

Don't change the rules, just take all the rulers and lines away from the replays and give the linesman the job of reviewing it at the pitch side monitor
 
The answer is to sack Mike Riley and his merry men and employ the Europa league refs. 9 goals in our Europa league tie against Espanyol and not once did we have the dreaded wait for a check to see if any goal could be ruled out for a toenail or armpit.

Instead a cursory check was made in the background for CLEAR AND OBVIOUS ERRORS. It was as though VAR wasn't even in use. The only time you were aware of it's use was for checking the "headbutt" incident in the first leg.

The way VAR is being implemented in the Prem is the problem.
 
As said by Sussex Wolf .....Get rid of the lines and get the ref to watch the replays monitor, no more scrutiny to the enth degree
 
Let's face it, the people who run our game are not very bright. Bowing before goals are routinely ruled out for one infringement or another in the build up.

Mind you, to be fair, how many times have managers and fans publicly berated referees for not giving a free kick for an infringement before their team conceded.
 
Arsene's daylight theory .................... this is a guy who saw no incidents on the pitch at all whilst in charge at Arsenal !! 8-)
 
Still of the opinion that if the naked eye viewing ome or two slowed down replays, no ****ing lines, cannot see an offside then if's not offside.
 
If any goal scoring part of the body is level with the last defender then you should be onside. The current application of the laws has taken us back 30 years when level was offside.

The rule was changed to promote attacking play, if we persist with the millimetre lines on var the game will be far less appealing for impressionable youngsters just getting into the game.

Goals are what people want to see, this simple adjustment would keep everyone happy and is just common sense. I can't believe it's even up for debate.
 
Having VAR hasn't improved the game as a spectical but built a new aggravation at minimal decisions. The constant checking and time involved in doing so is boring and mainly always debatable as the technology isn't accurate enough. Clear and obvious is a quick check nothing major has been missed which would be taken in seconds. As it is it takes away rather than gives to the game.
 
wallace said:
Having VAR hasn't improved the game as a spectical but built a new aggravation at minimal decisions. The constant checking and time involved in doing so is boring and mainly always debatable as the technology isn't accurate enough clear and obvious is a quick check nothing major has been missed which would be a taken in seconds. As it is it takes away rather than gives to the game.
Click to expand...


I agree totally.

Football was always about being a simple game with simple rules and we embraced the controversy that comes with the human element of refereeing in "real time".

I never liked how rugby league etc had all the gimmicks like VAR and was always pleased football never had that *******s and nothing has happened to change my opinion

VAR = BS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom