Juve - Werder: was the second Juve goal off-side ?

Juve - Werder: was the second Juve goal off-side ?

Post by FairFootbal » Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:43:07


Here are the facts as I know them: when the ball was centered from the
right, Emerson was definitely in an off-side position. But he didn't
get the ball, Wiese got it then he dropped it and Emerson scored.
Shouldn't the initial position have been reactivated or something ?

The FairFootball team

 
 
 

Juve - Werder: was the second Juve goal off-side ?

Post by Bruce Scott TO » Sun, 12 Mar 2006 03:03:06

Quote:
>Here are the facts as I know them: when the ball was centered from the
>right, Emerson was definitely in an off-side position. But he didn't
>get the ball, Wiese got it then he dropped it and Emerson scored.
>Shouldn't the initial position have been reactivated or something ?

No.  It's a new situation.  When the cross was taken everyone was
onside.  When the ball was fumbled it came from a defending player so
offside didn't apply.

Perfectly regular goal.

--
ciao,
Bruce

drift wave turbulence:  http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/

 
 
 

Juve - Werder: was the second Juve goal off-side ?

Post by encore22.. » Sun, 12 Mar 2006 04:51:49

No. Nistelrooy scores a lot of goals this way.

 
 
 

Juve - Werder: was the second Juve goal off-side ?

Post by FairFootbal » Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:13:32

Quote:

> >Here are the facts as I know them: when the ball was centered from the
> >right, Emerson was definitely in an off-side position. But he didn't
> >get the ball, Wiese got it then he dropped it and Emerson scored.
> >Shouldn't the initial position have been reactivated or something ?

> No.  It's a new situation.  When the cross was taken everyone was
> onside.  When the ball was fumbled it came from a defending player so
> offside didn't apply.

> Perfectly regular goal.

> --
> ciao,
> Bruce

> drift wave turbulence:  http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/

When the cross was taken, not everybody was onside. Emerson was
offside. You can take my word for it. Even if you don't, please
consider the hypothetical situation in which he would have been offside
- would it be a valid goal then ? Also, note that the moment Wiese
dropped the ball, Emerson was still offside and had been all the time
since the ball was crossed. When he shot, however, he wasn't offside
any more. So I find this is a rather tricky situation.

BTW, why would you think I'm italian ? As you see, I'm arguing against
Juve. (I'm not saying I'm not italian, I was just wondering.)

 
 
 

Juve - Werder: was the second Juve goal off-side ?

Post by Goldmun » Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:29:19

On 11 Mar 2006 00:13:32 -0800, "FairFootball"

Quote:

>When the cross was taken, not everybody was onside. Emerson was
>offside. You can take my word for it. Even if you don't, please
>consider the hypothetical situation in which he would have been offside
>- would it be a valid goal then ? Also, note that the moment Wiese
>dropped the ball, Emerson was still offside and had been all the time
>since the ball was crossed. When he shot, however, he wasn't offside
>any more. So I find this is a rather tricky situation.

>BTW, why would you think I'm italian ? As you see, I'm arguing against
>Juve. (I'm not saying I'm not italian, I was just wondering.)

The situation IS clear and IS tricky.
When a new action starts, the situation is resetted, so Emerson wasn't
offside when Wiese lost the ball.

The big problem with this cases is that it's quite stupid stating that
the situation is resetted, as evidently everybody is taking advantage
(or disadvantage) from the previous position.

I remember a goal by Wiltord during WC 2002: he was about 2 meters
offside when the counter attack started form the midfield, then a "new
action-situation" happened and he had the opportunity to score.
Evidently for Fifa it's not crucial the fact that 1) he started
running with 2 meters of advantage over the defender and 2) the
defender might ignore him, since he was offside (not foreseeing that
there MIGHT have been a new action) concentrating on the other
counterattackers

 
 
 

Juve - Werder: was the second Juve goal off-side ?

Post by FairFootbal » Sun, 12 Mar 2006 20:15:37

Quote:

> The situation IS clear and IS tricky.
> When a new action starts, the situation is resetted, so Emerson wasn't
> offside when Wiese lost the ball.

> The big problem with this cases is that it's quite stupid stating that
> the situation is resetted, as evidently everybody is taking advantage
> (or disadvantage) from the previous position.

> I remember a goal by Wiltord during WC 2002: he was about 2 meters
> offside when the counter attack started form the midfield, then a "new
> action-situation" happened and he had the opportunity to score.
> Evidently for Fifa it's not crucial the fact that 1) he started
> running with 2 meters of advantage over the defender and 2) the
> defender might ignore him, since he was offside (not foreseeing that
> there MIGHT have been a new action) concentrating on the other
> counterattackers

Thanks for your answer.
I really don't think the situation is that clear. Was there really a
new action ? Wiese caught the ball then almost immediately dropped it -
did he really catch it ? What if he had only touched the ball, would
this count as a new action ? IMHO, what he did was closer to just
touching the ball than to catching it, retaining it then throwing it
again into play. So, you see, the situation is even trickier.
 
 
 

Juve - Werder: was the second Juve goal off-side ?

Post by Goldmun » Sun, 12 Mar 2006 20:53:06

On 11 Mar 2006 03:15:37 -0800, "FairFootball"

Quote:

>I really don't think the situation is that clear. Was there really a
>new action ? Wiese caught the ball then almost immediately dropped it -
>did he really catch it ? What if he had only touched the ball, would
>this count as a new action ? IMHO, what he did was closer to just
>touching the ball than to catching it, retaining it then throwing it
>again into play. So, you see, the situation is even trickier.

Let's say it's 'clear' on football standard, I mean as clear as
offside, fouls, etc. can be.
A straight line rarely exists (and all uncertain situations are
unfortunately emphasized by Fifas interpretations), but I'd say that
'touching the ball' is meant to be something quick and often
unintentional. Wiese's intervention on the ball was long and
intentional enough to fall into the category of 'new action'.

That said, I see no reasons for such a rule. It's ok not considering
offside somebody who doesn't take part to the action, but he must be
considered offside until the action REALLY ends, that is imo when the
ball goes outside, passes back the midfield line or the keeper throws
in.

 
 
 

Juve - Werder: was the second Juve goal off-side ?

Post by MH » Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:41:05

Quote:

> I remember a goal by Wiltord during WC 2002:

I don't remember France scoring any goals in WC 2002.
Which match was this ?

  he was about 2 meters

Quote:
> offside when the counter attack started form the midfield, then a "new
> action-situation" happened and he had the opportunity to score.
> Evidently for Fifa it's not crucial the fact that 1) he started
> running with 2 meters of advantage over the defender and 2) the
> defender might ignore him, since he was offside (not foreseeing that
> there MIGHT have been a new action) concentrating on the other
> counterattackers

 
 
 

Juve - Werder: was the second Juve goal off-side ?

Post by Goldmun » Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:25:51

Quote:


>> I remember a goal by Wiltord during WC 2002:

>I don't remember France scoring any goals in WC 2002.
>Which match was this ?

You are right, it must have been another cup. Might it be the 3rd goal
against Denmark in Euro2000?
 
 
 

Juve - Werder: was the second Juve goal off-side ?

Post by FairFootbal » Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:51:05

Quote:

> On 11 Mar 2006 03:15:37 -0800, "FairFootball"

> >I really don't think the situation is that clear. Was there really a
> >new action ? Wiese caught the ball then almost immediately dropped it -
> >did he really catch it ? What if he had only touched the ball, would
> >this count as a new action ? IMHO, what he did was closer to just
> >touching the ball than to catching it, retaining it then throwing it
> >again into play. So, you see, the situation is even trickier.

> Let's say it's 'clear' on football standard, I mean as clear as
> offside, fouls, etc. can be.
> A straight line rarely exists (and all uncertain situations are
> unfortunately emphasized by Fifas interpretations), but I'd say that
> 'touching the ball' is meant to be something quick and often
> unintentional. Wiese's intervention on the ball was long and
> intentional enough to fall into the category of 'new action'.

> That said, I see no reasons for such a rule. It's ok not considering
> offside somebody who doesn't take part to the action, but he must be
> considered offside until the action REALLY ends, that is imo when the
> ball goes outside, passes back the midfield line or the keeper throws
> in.

OK, you may be right. As you see I'm still not 100% convinced, but
since nobody else seems to think like me and you seem to know what
you're saying, I guess I'll have to trust you're right.
Agree totally that the rule is not very reasonable. IMHO, common sense
would say that in this instance at least it should have been an
off-side.
If I may ask, do you have any experience with refereeing ?

At the end of this discussion, we can't help but inviting everybody
again on our new web site that deals with things like these:

http://www.fairfootball.com

And please, if you like it, let us know.
The FairFootball team

 
 
 

Juve - Werder: was the second Juve goal off-side ?

Post by Goldmun » Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:27:34

On 12 Mar 2006 00:51:05 -0800, "FairFootball"

[The answer is going to be a bit long]

Quote:
>OK, you may be right. As you see I'm still not 100% convinced, but
>since nobody else seems to think like me and you seem to know what
>you're saying, I guess I'll have to trust you're right.

Oh well, that's my point of view, as I was saying the problem with
this (as other) rules is that the uncertain is too wide and blurred.

What I mean is this: with any measure, there is the possibility of a
mistake, no matter how the rule is clear.
Eg: a goal is wehn the ball passes completely the line; the rule is
clear, the mistakes happen when it's not clear IF the ball has passed
the line or not; using techonology instead of referee's eyes could
reduce this error to almost zero.
Thus we have a rule wich is clear, with a probability of error whose
width can be reduces. the best we can hope for.

Unfortunately Fifa doens't just ignore this (claiming that it doesn't
want to introduce technology because it would slow down the game and
make it different than the one played in small clubs, two points that
are both stupid), but seems to make effort to reduce the number of
clear rules by introducing others that depend too much on the
referee's judgement.

A foul is uncertain for both reasons, but there isn't much we could do
about it. If I put a hand onto your shoulder and you fall down, apart
from me and you the others can't be sure whether I pushed you or not;
also technology wouldn't help much, you'd need close up videos and
sensors onto the body: impossible.
So we can't reduce the width of the probability of error, and actually
we can't do much about the rule.

But offside isa good example of rules that suffers from both problems
and actually shoudn't.
The probability of errors are wide, because a person cannot see at the
same time the ball and the players in the offside line, so it's pretty
evident that the linesman will make mistakes. The technology to reduce
this probability drastically exists and it's ignored by Fifa.
Plus, the rule suffers from being blurred too: something that was
pretty clear, almost as clear as a goal or a corner, is made
complicated: exceptions to consider non active players, exception to
the exception to consider some active players non active, and
viceversa, in the same action.
This introduces a further point to consider (active/non active), but
still it would be ok if we give a straight definition of active; no,
here Fifa makes another mistake, since it moves the judgement from
"activity" (which is still quite easily identified) to "action" that,
as you noted, is not so clear (in Emerson's case I said it falls into
the "clear" area, but there are many cases which stand in the middle).
And here again, let's blur things more: an action can be identified
somehow better taking advantage of the others straight rules of the
game that define when the game is active or not, and making few
complementary notes. But this isn't done, and they go for the blurred
and uncertain definition.

Recently many rules have been changed following this wrong attitude.
The intention was to avoid some limit situations (eg considering
offside somebody who's lying onto the ground) but the result is that
they created many more situations that lead to mistakes.
Take for example the rule about hand fouls, about tackles from behind,
about penalties, etc...

Quote:
>Agree totally that the rule is not very reasonable. IMHO, common sense
>would say that in this instance at least it should have been an
>off-side.
>If I may ask, do you have any experience with refereeing ?

No, never refereed a single match. I used to play when I was younger,
but my experience is mostly the one of a tv spectator.

Quote:
>At the end of this discussion, we can't help but inviting everybody
>again on our new web site that deals with things like these:

>http://www.fairfootball.com

>And please, if you like it, let us know.
>The FairFootball team

I find it an interesting attempt, altough the bigger problem imo is
that it's impossible to count how the game or even the 2nd legs of a
cup could have changed.
I mean, even counting the clearest mistakes (eg a goal not allowed
that tv shows clearly inside), nobody can say how the match would have
gone on, since the teams would have changed their attitude.
For example, I see the corretion of Bayern-Milan form 1-1 to 2-0; even
if one agreed, for sure milan (and Bayern) would have played the same
game in San Siro.
 
 
 

Juve - Werder: was the second Juve goal off-side ?

Post by FairFootbal » Mon, 13 Mar 2006 21:35:15

Quote:

> On 12 Mar 2006 00:51:05 -0800, "FairFootball"

> [The answer is going to be a bit long]

> >OK, you may be right. As you see I'm still not 100% convinced, but
> >since nobody else seems to think like me and you seem to know what
> >you're saying, I guess I'll have to trust you're right.

> Oh well, that's my point of view, as I was saying the problem with
> this (as other) rules is that the uncertain is too wide and blurred.

> What I mean is this: with any measure, there is the possibility of a
> mistake, no matter how the rule is clear.
> Eg: a goal is wehn the ball passes completely the line; the rule is
> clear, the mistakes happen when it's not clear IF the ball has passed
> the line or not; using techonology instead of referee's eyes could
> reduce this error to almost zero.
> Thus we have a rule wich is clear, with a probability of error whose
> width can be reduces. the best we can hope for.

> Unfortunately Fifa doens't just ignore this (claiming that it doesn't
> want to introduce technology because it would slow down the game and
> make it different than the one played in small clubs, two points that
> are both stupid), but seems to make effort to reduce the number of
> clear rules by introducing others that depend too much on the
> referee's judgement.

> A foul is uncertain for both reasons, but there isn't much we could do
> about it. If I put a hand onto your shoulder and you fall down, apart
> from me and you the others can't be sure whether I pushed you or not;
> also technology wouldn't help much, you'd need close up videos and
> sensors onto the body: impossible.
> So we can't reduce the width of the probability of error, and actually
> we can't do much about the rule.

> But offside isa good example of rules that suffers from both problems
> and actually shoudn't.
> The probability of errors are wide, because a person cannot see at the
> same time the ball and the players in the offside line, so it's pretty
> evident that the linesman will make mistakes. The technology to reduce
> this probability drastically exists and it's ignored by Fifa.
> Plus, the rule suffers from being blurred too: something that was
> pretty clear, almost as clear as a goal or a corner, is made
> complicated: exceptions to consider non active players, exception to
> the exception to consider some active players non active, and
> viceversa, in the same action.
> This introduces a further point to consider (active/non active), but
> still it would be ok if we give a straight definition of active; no,
> here Fifa makes another mistake, since it moves the judgement from
> "activity" (which is still quite easily identified) to "action" that,
> as you noted, is not so clear (in Emerson's case I said it falls into
> the "clear" area, but there are many cases which stand in the middle).
> And here again, let's blur things more: an action can be identified
> somehow better taking advantage of the others straight rules of the
> game that define when the game is active or not, and making few
> complementary notes. But this isn't done, and they go for the blurred
> and uncertain definition.

> Recently many rules have been changed following this wrong attitude.
> The intention was to avoid some limit situations (eg considering
> offside somebody who's lying onto the ground) but the result is that
> they created many more situations that lead to mistakes.
> Take for example the rule about hand fouls, about tackles from behind,
> about penalties, etc...

> >Agree totally that the rule is not very reasonable. IMHO, common sense
> >would say that in this instance at least it should have been an
> >off-side.
> >If I may ask, do you have any experience with refereeing ?

> No, never refereed a single match. I used to play when I was younger,
> but my experience is mostly the one of a tv spectator.

> >At the end of this discussion, we can't help but inviting everybody
> >again on our new web site that deals with things like these:

> >http://www.fairfootball.com

> >And please, if you like it, let us know.
> >The FairFootball team

> I find it an interesting attempt, altough the bigger problem imo is
> that it's impossible to count how the game or even the 2nd legs of a
> cup could have changed.
> I mean, even counting the clearest mistakes (eg a goal not allowed
> that tv shows clearly inside), nobody can say how the match would have
> gone on, since the teams would have changed their attitude.
> For example, I see the corretion of Bayern-Milan form 1-1 to 2-0; even
> if one agreed, for sure milan (and Bayern) would have played the same
> game in San Siro.

Well.
First of all, thanks for your positive appreciation of our site. You're
the first, but we sure hope there will be more.
We wouldn't mind if you recommended it to others as well, if you think
it's worth it :) .

Normally we'd like feedback to be given at our group we've created
especially for this, there are links on the site to it. But for now
it's very OK to discuss things here for a while, since hopefully it
will attract more visitors.

About you objection (Milan and Bayern would have played a different
game at the San Siro): right, and as we acknowledge on the site, there
are limits to the approach. The general idea is try to make something
out that has good chances to be fairer than the official result, as you
know if you've read the general info on the site.
In this particular case, however, it's very unlikely that the end
result would have been in Milan's favor had Bayern won 2 - 0 in the
first leg. Such an advantage would have given Bayern the edge and they
would have likely got a better result in Milan. There are cases,
however, in which a different ruling would have changed the attitude,
as you say, such that the outcome would likely have been different than
after our corrections. We know but there's nothing we can do about it.
As said above (and on the site), we'll go on with our approach as it
is, with its limitations, and we'll see where it gets us.

Regarding the rules, there are those which could and obviously should
be decided through technology, such as off-sides. It's really hilarious
that they don't judge these on TV, since the results would be
definitely better. But we think any situation would be better judged
with video help. It cannot hurt. In your "hand on the shoulder" case,
I'd say award a foul (and a penalty if needed) whenever it's not
obvious that there was no push. You have no business putting your hand
on my shoulder in the first place. Anyway, it is much better decided
with video help, you can see how the pushed player changes his
trajectory. If it's a regular foul maybe it's no use stopping the game
for it, but for a penalty this is what they should do. Referees tend to
deny penalty shots anyway, so probably it wouldn't be much of a delay
if they did it only for penalties; most times the video referee would
grant a penalty the field referee has seen as uncertain. As you say
also, it's ridiculous to say that applying technology would necessarily
slow down the game too much; clearly a good balance could be found.

Again if you don't mind, we'd like to know where you live (country and
town if possible). If you don't want to disclose this here, you can
write us privately. But we hope you'll understand we cannot be equally
open, we have kind of a policy to keep confidentiality since in the
long run (and if success is big enough, which we hope) there might be
some who'll get angry at what we are doing.

Regards and thanks again
The FairFootball team

 
 
 

Juve - Werder: was the second Juve goal off-side ?

Post by MH » Tue, 14 Mar 2006 06:13:36

Quote:



>>>I remember a goal by Wiltord during WC 2002:

>>I don't remember France scoring any goals in WC 2002.
>>Which match was this ?

> You are right, it must have been another cup. Might it be the 3rd goal
> against Denmark in Euro2000?

Quite likely.  I was in the middle of driving across Canada at the time
so I didn't see many Euro 2000 matches.
 
 
 

Juve - Werder: was the second Juve goal off-side ?

Post by Futbolmetri » Tue, 14 Mar 2006 06:57:18


Quote:
> On 11 Mar 2006 00:13:32 -0800, "FairFootball"

> The situation IS clear and IS tricky.
> When a new action starts, the situation is resetted, so Emerson wasn't
> offside when Wiese lost the ball.

If it had been basketball, would you have said that Wiese had control of the
ball? If yes, then it was right to restart the action, and ignore any
offside positions at the moment of Nedved's cross.

Quote:
> The big problem with this cases is that it's quite stupid stating that
> the situation is resetted, as evidently everybody is taking advantage
> (or disadvantage) from the previous position.

> I remember a goal by Wiltord during WC 2002: he was about 2 meters
> offside when the counter attack started form the midfield, then a "new
> action-situation" happened and he had the opportunity to score.

Wiltord against Denmark in Euro 2000. Also Van Nistelrooy againts Czech
Republic in Euro 2004.
But the situation there is quite different from the Wiese-Emerson case, as
it didn't involve a (potential) change of possession.

We've discussed this whole issue before, and personally I like the FIFA
approach of allowing referees the power of discretion in those gray-area
cases. It would be completely absurd to call an offside *every* time a
player is beyond the last defender, even if he clearly does not interfere
with play.

Daniele

 
 
 

Juve - Werder: was the second Juve goal off-side ?

Post by Futbolmetri » Tue, 14 Mar 2006 07:08:53


Quote:

> Well.
> First of all, thanks for your positive appreciation of our site. You're
> the first, but we sure hope there will be more.
> We wouldn't mind if you recommended it to others as well, if you think
> it's worth it :) .

Your approach is so ridiculously flawed, I don't even know how you could
expect anyone to take it seriously. You should start by converting
everything into probabilistic statements:

Example:
Bayern is leading 1-0 at the 57th minute.

Case 1: No penalty is awarded. The probability that the game ends 1-0, given
the strategy of the teams with score being 1-0, is p_10; the probability
that the game ends 1-1 is p_11; the probability that the game ends 2-0 is
p_20, etc.

Case 2: A penalty is awarded. It is converted with probability q (I'll help
you: q=0.75, more or less). The probability that the game ends 1-1 is q_11;
the probability that the game ends 2-1 is equal to q_21; etc.

Then calculate the change in the expected score resulting from the referee's
alleged mistake.

Daniele