View
37
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Judging offside in football. Journal Club, 2006. Errors in judging ‘offside’ in football. Oi Lino – are you blind?. Law 11: Offside. A player is in an offside position if he is nearer to his opponents goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Judging offside in footballJudging offside in football
Journal Club, 2006
Errors in judging ‘offside’ in football.Errors in judging
‘offside’ in football.
Oi Lino – are you blind?
Oi Lino – are you blind?
Law 11: OffsideLaw 11: Offside A player is in an offside position if he is nearer to
his opponents goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent
A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee involved in active play by: interfering with play interfering with an opponent
OffsideOffsideOnsideOnside
Oudejans et al (2000) - NatureOudejans et al (2000) - Nature Claim angle of viewing by assistant referee
leads to inevitable optical errors. 3 assistant referees. 200 offside judgements - 40 errors. ARs cannot see passer and receiver
simultaneously. ARs 1.2m ahead of offside line on average
Cause of errorCause of error One hypothesis:
AR shifts gaze from passer to receiver Alternate hypothesis:
Misalignment of AR and last defender (1.18m) Flag error (FE) - receiver wrongly perceived as
ahead of last defender No flag error (NFE) - receiver wrongly
perceived as behind last defender
FarsideFarside
FarsideFarside
FE/NFE: 171/31
FarsideFarside
FE/NFE: 171/31
FE/NFE: 21/43
NearsideNearside
NearsideNearside
FE/NFE: 34/16
NearsideNearside
FE/NFE: 34/16
FE/NFE: 19/84
ConclusionsConclusions FE bias when attackers go left. NFE bias when attackers go right. Errors caused by relative optical projections of
players on AR’s retina. AR limited by their perceptual systems (or
positioning systems!). Off-line analysis of video images from adequate
observation point.
Baldo et al (2002) - PerceptionBaldo et al (2002) - Perception Reanalysis of Oudejans et al’s data. Proposed that flag errors due to flash-lag
effect rather than geometrical/optical effect.
Flash-lag effect: A moving object is perceived as spatially
ahead of its real position at an instant defined by a time marker (e.g. a flash)
Flash-lag effectFlash-lag effect
Flash-lag model for footballFlash-lag model for football
Moving object: the receiver running towards goal.
Time marker: the moment that the passer kicks the ball.
This effect adds to the geometric/optical effect, leading to an overall bias towards FE than NFE
Geometric effectGeometric effect
NFE
FE
Geometric effect + Flash-lag effectGeometric effect + Flash-lag effect
NFE
FE
FE + FL
FE + FL
ResultsResults
FE/NFE ratio was 324/240 Asymmetry in left & right trajectories (FE
bias for left in geometric/optical effect). Flash-lag effect predicts increase in FE for
both left & right trajectories: (NFE/FE)LT < (FE/NFE)RT.
(65/266)LT < (58/175)RT.
ConclusionsConclusions Flash-lag contributes to an existing
geometric/optical effect. Other factors may contribute (over-
zealousness, FIFA recommendations etc.). Flash-lag errors could also occur when the
AR is in alignment with the offside line. Bridge between lab and field needs to be
made.
IssuesIssues Eagleman: flash-lag occurs when flash & moving
object appear in same location. Can FL occur when flash is in peripheral? Variance in relationship/distance between
attacker & defender (e.g., far/near)? Gaze shift hypothesis rejected after examination
of 1 AR! No gaze shift - how do ARs fulfil other
responsibilities (e.g., throw-in)?
Recommended