Game 37: Germany vs Denmark live from the BVB Stadion Dortmund. Saturday ITV1 8pm

[ceefax the cat]

It should be heels of boots, because it's relatively straightforward to put sensors in the heels of boots + that's a better guide as to where body / legs are. It also takes foot size out of the equation - if that Danish chap had small feet he'd have been on, which is insane. 

The heels of both boots should need to be clear of both the defender's heels to be offside, so that if you're basically occupying the same lateral space as the defender, you've timed your run to perfection and will almost certainly be given on because your trailing foot will be behind their front foot.

That would align with most people's instinctive idea of what is and isn't offside. Nobody in the world wants to see an offside given because someone leaned their head forward, or stuck out a foot. If you're in a position to be doing that from an onside position and reaching the ball, basically any player or fan would agree that you're standing in exactly the right place and are in no way gaining an unfair advantage, which is what these rules are supposed to be about. It'd be a lot easier to stomach an offside knowing that you'd definitively moved fully clear of both of the defender's feet and were 100% standing in a more advanced position. A lot less outrage.

 

The heels of both boots. Done. I'd also use a snickometer vs position of heel sensors, because that takes frame rate out of the equation and means you can get it right to the microsecond. It's pretty easy to pick up the sound of the ball being struck. You can hear it on TV but why not point a gun mic at it just to be sure. 

Edited Sunday at 11:17 by ceefax the cat

[The_jagster]

If Germany had had an equaliser ruled out late on for a toe being offside pretty much everyone would be fine with it.

[m_fenton]

On 30/06/2024 at 10:11, Haguey said:

The offside is offside, this is why we have the semi auto VAR. Baffling that there is so much chat about it beyond it affecting the underdog.

The handball while technically correct (the best kind of correct) is obviously a bit annoying especially as the hand isn't up rather it's out away from his body to balance him turning from the cross. You'd be annoyed to concede that one.

And the dissent stuff getting booked is fine and has happened all tournament.

How can you be baffled about one decision being talked about because its technically correct, but be annoyed about a different one that's technically correct?

In each case, I think you can accept that the technically correct decision is right, but doesn't necessarily feel right to everyone. Hence discussions about how each could be improved. I think the automation of VAR is a big step towards it feeling fairer, but it still doesn't feel right to me that a player who is "basically level" is penalised. Nor does it feel right that a defender a long way from goal, with an arm out for balance, with a ball blasted from not far away, gets punished with a 75%+ chance of conceding a goal.

Without VAR, Foden's goal last night would somehow have been allowed, which probably becomes Slovakia's "Lampard v Germany" moment, so in that way it improves the game. Far from perfect though, and one way or another the game and rules will adapt to its useage.

[enigmatic]

4 hours ago, m_fenton said:

How can you be baffled about one decision being talked about because its technically correct, but be annoyed about a different one that's technically correct?

One's a simple, objective application of the offside rule as it's been written for years (the only recent change being a reduction in errors in both directions, which is difficult to argue are something sorely missing from the game)

The other's a subjective call (a subjective call the ref will be positively assessed for) based on a new interpretation of handball a lot of people think is excessive. Much easier to argue that's a bad development and Denmark did nothing wrong in that instance (I don't think it's one of the more egregious interpretations of that law though)

It's the difference between Germans having absolutely no legitimate argument that it was fairer for Lampard's goal not to stand but Argentines and Brits being entitled to argue the toss either way about penalties and the disallowed Campbell goal back in 98