Barry May Be Stupid, But Perhaps His Point Needs Discussion

[YankeeCanary 0]

Ceretainly some of you remember the famous exchange on Canary Call between "Barry" and Neil Adams. As I recall, the gist of it was that Barry believed Norwich players were always being caught in offside positions. Many of you still laugh ( as I do ) when listening yet one more time to Barry doing his darndest to hammer his point home, "Well, wot are they doin'' on the trainin'' ground Neil? Answer me that. Stop sittin'' on the fence Neil", to which Neil after trying a number of times to explain that he doesn''t know said, "Are you stupid Barry? I keep telling you I don''t go to the training ground."

Now here''s what I''d like to discuss. After watching Premiership matches for a number of years now it is clear to me, even from my television chair, that football officiating has a higher than acceptable error factor with offside being called when, in fact, no infraction had taken place. Linesman repeatedly getting calls wrong because their reaction time is SEEING a player in an offside position as the ball is en route to him but not seeing the ACTUAL POSITION of the player he is penalising when the ball was played. This to me is a serious deficiency in football for the following reason. Football is not a game where, on average, a great many goals are scored. The ability of the attacking player to surprise the defender by excellent timing of his run is something that adds to the game. The number of errors that I see are detracting from the game.

Let me digress for a moment. I''ve just been watching wrestling competition at the Olympic Games. Without intending to demean the sport ( as it has a long history ) I was amazed to see the officials stopping the match as they reviewed video replays. This is for a competition between two individuals on a relatively small area with the judging panel sitting right in front of them and, on numerous occasions I see the officials reviewing video replays to make sure the decisions are correct. Now, I am not using this example to suggest video replays should be used in football. However, if I compare wrestling with football I would have to conclude wrestling review to be overkill with the the opposite being true in football.   

So, back to Barry''s point. I told you what I''m seeing in premiership football. What are you seeing at Carrow Road? Was Barry correct last season ( I think it was last season ) when he said Norwich players were always being caught offside. Of course, Barry''s focus was on the Norwich players but I believe the more important issue is the one I posed earlier relating to the game overall. If video reviews are not appropriate because it would slow the game down is there another method that can cut down the number of times incorrect offside calls are made, thereby enhancing the attacking threat in the game?

[nutty nigel 7,902]

The errors in offside calls are there for all to see now because of TV replays. It''s not surprising that there are errors because it seems the officials have to watch two events, sometimes 50 yards apart simultaneously. Sometimes it must be impossible  to see the ball released by one player and the position of other players at that exact moment. I would be in favour of replays being used and I believe modern technology is there to be used. But one of the main problems I can see with using video replays to make offside decisions would be stopping the game to do so. At what point could this be done?

 

[Stone 0]

I''m sure I read or watched somewhere that it''s nearly impossible for a human being to judge many offsides where the ball is played from a longer distance because they can''t watch both event''s simultaeneously. ie, the ball being played, and the position of the attacker.

I don''t think a video ref would slow things down too badly - although should only be used to officiate key decisions! Many an advantage would have to be played before passages of play are reviewed though. If asst refs are then proven to have missed key decisions too often I can''t see the system being loved by officials!

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

Are ''linesmen'' tested to ensure they have adequate peripheral vision?

If not, why not?

OTBC

 

[Tipster101 0]

they should just get rid of offside.

[First Wazzock 1,014]

Technology would make no difference. Replays would show things more clearly , but then someone still has to make a decision. The fact that human beings all see things differently, is a huge factor. When we see a match and an foul takes place, the Ref may send the offender off, book him or give him a talking to, all based on his opinion of how he sees the offence. The same is true of offsides. The game is getting faster and the rules are constantly being tampered with, to the extent that most people are not sure about this first phase, second phase thing. To say we need more consistency is unrealistic, the assistant referee makes his decision based upon his opinion, and, as I said we all see things differently.

[James Kent 0]

I would have no problem with replays as it would take a matters of seconds and would have little impact.

[Badger 0]

They are meant to give the benefit of the doubt to the striker. If this were properly enforced it would solve the problem. Linesmen should not be censured if they fail to give an offside but should be if they give on that is wrong.

In cricket, it could be similar to "not out" for LBW - "I can understand the umpire not giving that." eg - "it was offside but the linesman couldn''t have known for certain and therefore ws right not to give it."

This might stop teams pushing up to the half way line and trying to squeeze play and catch people offside.

ps for Linesman read assistant referee.

[Chip20 69]

What would you actually do when a replay shows a ref''s decision to be incorrect. If it transpires the attacking player was onside after all then the advantage gained by successfully springing the offside trap would have been lost. You could award the resulting free kick to the attacking side rather than the defending side so they at least retain the ball instead of it going to the opposision, but then is it worth breaking up the flow of the play to do this? How many times in an average match is an offside decision called? To have to wait twenty or thirty seconds for a replay each time (and possibly on occasions another three minutes for the players/managers/vehement fans to argue that they see something different on the screen to what the ref sees) would be tedious in the extreme. I guess there would be more gains the other way; i.e. if a player scores and is subsequently proven to have been offside then nobody has been unfairly punished.

I know dodgy ref and linesman calls are frustrating, but football has done alright for over a century without the ''benefit'' of in-match replays. I suppose it would be interesting to see whether the system could be trialled a few times in some frienldy matches or something, because it''s all theory and opinion otherwise.

Pros and cons both ways, I guess. Yup; I''m your original fence-sitter. [:)]

[Chip20 69]

On a related note, I agree with above posters who point out that one can''t usually see both the passing and receiving players in the same instant the ball is passed. I''ve often wondered whether linesmen (lines ''people''!!!?) actually just watch the defending line and ''listen'' for the sound of the ball being struck as it''s passed forward (can any linesfolk on here confirm/deny?). That thought takes me back to the experiment at school where a classmate bangs two bin lids together at the far side of the playing field and there is a slight delay between your seeing the impact and actually hearing the noise, thus demonstrating that light travels far faster than sound. Might this apply to the linesperson, who has seen the forward stray half a yard past the last defender before he hears the sound of the ball being passed?

Or are the distances involved too short to be of any consequence and I''m talking gonads?

[Felixfan 53]

They dispensed with the offside rule in hockey many years ago and the game changed for the better.

[The Walking Man 13]

[quote user="Tipster101"]they should just get rid of offside.[/quote]

 

Yes, and we''ll play 5 upfront constantly in the opposition penalty box, whilst the remaing 5 defenders hoof the ball up field to the strikers. You have got to be kidding...

[First Wazzock 1,014]

[quote user="The Walking Man"]

[quote user="Tipster101"]they should just get rid of offside.[/quote]

 

Yes, and we''ll play 5 upfront constantly in the opposition penalty box, whilst the remaing 5 defenders hoof the ball up field to the strikers. You have got to be kidding...

[/quote]

I think I''m right in saying it was tried as an experiment a few years ago in one of the senior leagues. I think it did nothing to make the game any better and the idea of trialling it at a higher league was dropped.