Yep, exactly. I resolved my doubts for myself during this argument with @Oliver even if I didn’t for him.
If the rule doesn’t state it has to have left contact with the striking player, then that isnt the rule.
I don’t really see why it couldn’t eventually evolve to nearly as good as tennis - quick validation behind the scenes and virtually immediate remediation. Yes, there will be grey cases, then just leave them alone… I wouldn’t be surprised if there was nearly 1 per game of clearcut errors around offside.
Exactly, it’s not as complicated as people are making out. We have more than enough technology at this point to do it in an efficient manner. Hell, we’ve had more than enough technology for years. This is the kind of technology that might’ve seemed cutting edge in the 80s or 90s. Even refer to this kind of thing as ‘technology’ to someone at the cutting edge of technologies in one field or another would risk you being laughed at.
The rule states when the ball is played or touched (reading between the lines, touched would only be in the case of a deflection or first touch ‘playing’ of the ball). A ball is played–past participle–when it is leaving the foot of a player. It is the exact same with a first touch or deflection, as the touch and the moment of the ball leaving the foot of the player is the same. It’s pretty clear what the rule is suggesting, IMO, and it’s not what you are trying to tease out of it.
you can clearly see in that photo the ball has been played.
Nah, there are still a few split seconds where the ball is in contact with his foot–as it was something of a dragged flick–in that frame. You’ve just chosen the one that suits you, let’s be honest.
He was offside by a fraction of a foot/second. It sucks, and it feels rather stupid, but that’s the way it is, and you can’t complain about the referee making the right decision (in this case), however arbitrary and unlucky it feels.
What we could complain about is that the referee missed 3, maybe 4 penalties, and happened to get it right, in the luckiest of fashion, on another call that went against us.
A tad amusing that you are suggesting i am ‘picking what suits’ and ‘trying to tease’ out meaning, when your understanding of the definition depends entirely on you to ‘read between the lines’ with a requirement you have pulled out of thin air, that isnt written anywhere in the official rules or any dictionary of the English language.
Three massives? I’m not sure there are enough debatable decisions at all to warrant even one massive.
Tbf you can’t actually see that the ball is played as part of the ball (and the foot Giroud uses) is hidden behind a Stoke player.
One massive for each penalty decision that would’ve been changed yesterday
Anyways, football is a game where one decision change a match drastically, just as one goal, or one red card can. Don’t think it’s too hard to understand why it’s the sport most in need of correct decisions and video technology.
You can still identify the moment the ball is struck…
Are we judging by the lines in the grass? Because if you think a football pitch is an exact rectangle, then you are mistaking. To get the exact measurement, down to a millimetre is impossible. No TV can ever be the exact judge of this, if not sensors are planted in super duper makes-me-allidocious precision so the lines are painted exactly right.
What’s the next step? Let the technology measure up the exact distance to the wall on a free kick? Maybe in future we play football on an interactive pitch, so we get the exact measurements with a blink of an eye. Imagine a playing on a iPad surface!
Anyhow who cares. The call was made (imo correctly) because if the linesman would have let it pass, his eyes would have been better then any other human. All these if’s…won’t give us 3 points. And that’s not debatable!
It doesn’t need to be down to a milimetre though…Lacazette’s heel is about the closest offside decision I can remember and it was more than milimetres. The lines drawn for TVs are certainly sufficient to make such decisions.
Haha do we want the decision to be right or just look like its probably right?
lol what does being totally sufficient to make the right decision have to do with your question?
But what if there is a situation where the player is less then a millimetre offside Then measuring must be damn exact for using technology. Where do we draw the line? And if it’s a TV decision, is the camera in the right angle? Is the line being drawn really accurate enough? Because it must be without a doubt.
Then you don’t change the call lol… the whole point is to reverse clear cases of errors and there are plenty where existing tech is more than sufficient… when you aren’t sure, you stay with the ref’s call.
It’s very simple science to draw the line at the correct angle, perpendicular to the horizontal lines on the sideline.
You guys are making it a lot more complicated than it is, as @ljungbergkamp 's post would rightly suggest. It isn’t rocket science or complicated technology in the least.
Basically if they do this I want them to do it properly, no questions over decisions. And we don’t know what’s involved in that. I’m not against it, just want it done properly if it’s to be done and if they can’t, I’m fine with things as they are for the very few cases this would be worth having it for anyway.
There aren’t any questions over decisions, at least offsides, that is. And over other judgment decisions there will always be questions, but it’s obviously going to improve your degree of accuracy having the benefit of the view on the television. It’s really quite simple. Your stance is tantamount to between 50% accuracy and 98% I’ll take 50% until we’ve got 100%, and mine is, yeah, I’ll take 98%.