FIFA Experiments With AI For More Accurate Offside Calls

FIFA, football's governing body, is experimenting with artificial intelligence in hope of making better offside calls with the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) system. From a report: FIFA tested the new system during last year's Club World Cup, but kept it separate from on-ground refereeing decisions, Forbes reported this week. Currently, on-ground referees use VARs to check whether a player involved in a goal was offside. Sometimes, when the call is too close, VARs need to manually mark the offside line and check if a player's limb is crossing it. This can prove very controversial when there are close calls. The new technology uses AI to determine the offside line when the ball was released, and also tracks limbs of players involved in the call. It will also have a limb tracking system that will consider 15-20 points on each player.

Re:

[Nidi62]

...flopping first? Easy way to solve it. Any person who is "injured" has to go to the hospital to be checked out. I guarantee this will eliminate 99% of all flops.

Yep. I broke my foot playing US football, and walked around on it for 3 days before it was even diagnosed as broken. Soccer players get tripped and they roll around like their femur just shattered.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[myth24601]

I suspect it has a lot to do with the way substitutions work in association football. Not an expert in the rules but, you only get 3 subs and once someone leaves the game they can't come back in (like baseball). Since the game involves so much running around, the guys get worn out so taking the opportunity to flop gives everyone a rest. (I am not clear on the rules for injured players who go out getting back in if the injury isn't serious but that might be an incentive to get a break if you can go back i

Re:

[Nidi62]

I know it's about drawing fouls, but it is so obvious and ridiculous that it can't possibly still work at this point. Hell, flopping made it's way into the NBA and got so bad and blatant they actually had to put in a rule that leads to either an in-game foul or a monetary fine.

US football, especially at the college level, has it's own version of flopping to give an on the field advantage. If the offense has momentum and is driving, or running a no huddle offense, a defensive player will drop to the ground

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[filesiteguy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhxHozHTV00

Re:

[Lonng_Time_Lurker]

Your first part was good, and then you derailed yourself.

But how about dealing with, in all sports, anything involving a line, or a measurement. Ball crossing a line, all the way over a line, etc. None of these should have been contested calls in the last 10 years.

Re:

[PmanAce]

This has nothing to do with the posted article, wtf?

But I suspect in order to detect flopping you need several factors that probably only a human that has actually played the game can detect.

How about changing the rul

[Ed Tice]

I understand why we need some type of off-sides rule, but maybe come up with a rule that's easier to referee.

Re:

[Lonng_Time_Lurker]

It would also fundamentally change the game. Which soccer purists are really celebrating. What changes have lead to 0-0, 0-1 games recently exactly (if this is even objectively true)? Pretty sure it's not offisides rules changes.

Do you just think more scoring = better no matter what?

- Offensive player camping back half of field all game?
- American football anyone can line up anywhere?
- Rugby forward passes to anywhere?
- Headshot bot in all shooter egames? MORE HEADSHOTS
- Chess you can move any piece anyw

Re:

[DNS-and-BIND]

The rules haven't changed. That's the whole problem. The game has changed.

It went from "trying to score more points than the other team" to "prevent the other team from scoring". The problem is that defense is overemphasized and leads to dull games. Basketball had the same problem a long time ago, and in response they adopted the shot clock. This had the effect of fixing the game and making it a more exciting spectator sport. I don't know what soccer needs, but needs this kind of rules fix. Something

Re:

[Lonng_Time_Lurker]

Well, you suggested getting rid of the rule, specifically. You didn't say "I don't know what soccer needs" in your first post. Getting rid of the offsides rule would lead to exactly the "absurd statements" I made. You would have at least one spy camping out on at least the 30 of the other half at all times in soccer.

All the "absurd statements" would be as game changing in almost the same ways in the other games in the ways I mentioned. Like suggesting use of hands in soccer, versus a shot clock, versus

Re:

[myth24601]

I would agree that the game at the highest levels has become too dominated by defense. Some rule changes could be made to encourage more offense without making massive changes to the game overall. Some suggestions:

Maybe don't get rid of offside but perhaps loosen it by making the rule moot after the ball is within a certain distance of the goal line. This would prevent players from setting up in the opponents goal area as well as discourage offside traps by the defense.

A more significant change would be

Re:

[Lonng_Time_Lurker]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe... [fivethirtyeight.com]

Well - since about '68 - the number of tie games and goal average has basically not changed. I don't know if we're comparing soccer from more than 50 years ago, but the perceived changes in *our* lifetime seems to not convey themselves in those stats. It doesn't cover the italy style 10 defense 1 striker counter versus the 11 brazil offensive players, but it doesn't seem from those stats there has been much scoring or results changes for quite a while.

But currently in this

Re:

[unimacs]

But based on the article you provided a link to, there was quite a jump in scoring after 1925 and it stayed that way until about 1968. This occurred after the the offside rule was changed to be less restrictive. It used to be that there had to be 3 defenders between the attacker and the goal (including the goal keeper), now there just needs to be two.

Since 1968, the number of goals scored has dropped to pre 1925 levels. Prior to 1925, the number of goals scored had been dropping since they started keepi

Re:

[Kjella]

The saving grace for soccer is that the low scoring seen at the highest levels doesn't exist at every level. Otherwise it wouldn't enjoy near the popularity that it has.

One of the main attractions of soccer is that losing side can walk out of the stadium talking about how they could have/should have/would have won based on a very biased interpretation of events. If it's a draw that's often both teams. If they did anything to make it "more exciting" = more goals, then pretty soon you'd have a score like 3-7 where it's bloody obvious that nope they were chance-less. In american football one would-be touchdown intercepted and dash down the field can swing the game 14 points.

Re:

[unimacs]

That's one way to look at it, but another is that one team can dominate the entire match but still lose on a fluke goal that came in the first 10 minutes. I don't know, that just seems wrong. ;)

Further a team could go up 2-nil in the 2nd half with plenty of time left. But with the rules as they are the lead will seem almost insurmountable, - so you still end up with dreariness.

Re:

[Weekend Triathlete]

The troll attempt was pretty good, but then you added this:

Snooze. I tried to get into soccer so many times and it's just frustrating how little there is in the way of action. Basketball has too much scoring, soccer too little, baseball football and hockey have it about right.

Soccer has 90+ minutes of action. Hockey has 60+ minutes of action. Basketball has 48+ minutes of action. Baseball has a grand total of 15 minutes of action, tops (~150 pitches thrown by each pitcher with a generous average of 3 s

Re:

[timeOday]

I will debate that point. In American Football there are 22 players on the field at any time, and because they are executing scripted plays, more than one or two of them are doing something interesting at any given time. I'm not going to claim 15 minutes * 22 players = 330 minutes of action, but the replays are necessary to fully appreciate what happened in those few seconds, much moreso than in most other sports.

Re:

[Lonng_Time_Lurker]

The point about soccer is moronic to begin with. To claim that soccer has "90+ minutes of action" - is obviously false. And I am someone who appreciates nuance to a degree that a great trap, followed by a bunch of triangle passes to get ball control in the middle of the field, that only results in a back pass, is a sequence of play that I find intriguing and exciting.

But come on, there are plenty of back passes and times where there is *not* that much happening, even though the clock is running.

You genera

Re:

[DNS-and-BIND]

I'm not a troll. I've tried several times to get into soccer. Just can't. Too much meaningless play, too many Prima Donna players, too many ties, too many turnovers, too many meaningless passes around the field. Teams are afraid to lose. 90 minutes of action my ass. Soccer makes a great video game though.

Re:

[Lonng_Time_Lurker]

So you think teams are too conservative AND there are too many turnovers? Those things seem diametrically opposed.

Certainly more aggression would lead to more turnovers.

Re:

[Dan East]

I have played both Soccer and Football, and of course have watched both sports as well. From the perspective of playing the game, soccer is better. You can do a "pick up" game much, much easier. In a "back yard" type game, besides the keeper, pretty much all positions are equal - they just have different physical areas of the field they are responsible for. There aren't many predesigned plays, everyone can run around and have fun, etc. Football is more complicated, so it is harder to throw together a ga

Re:

[Dorianny]

At a soccer game the human's eye ability to focus on the ball while simultaneously being able keep track of the struggle for positions using peripheral vision completes the drama which is unfortunately largely lost on TV. In American football the frequent breaks allow for replays which complete the picture and have the added bonus of filling in the pauses in play which can be quite boring to watch in the stadium. Personally I like to watch American football on TV and soccer at the Stadium.

Re:

[unimacs]

The troll attempt was pretty good, but then you added this:

Snooze. I tried to get into soccer so many times and it's just frustrating how little there is in the way of action. Basketball has too much scoring, soccer too little, baseball football and hockey have it about right.

Soccer has 90+ minutes of action. Hockey has 60+ minutes of action. Basketball has 48+ minutes of action. Baseball has a grand total of 15 minutes of action, tops (~150 pitches thrown by each pitcher with a generous average of 3 seconds of action per pitch.) Football has a total of 15 minutes of action as well (7 seconds per play * 60-80 offensive plays per team * 2 teams). Broadcast TV tries to paper over just how stupidly boring football and baseball are by showing slow-motion replays at four different angles of each play. Now, if you had said "it's just frustrating how little there is in the way of scoring" your troll would have been top notch.

To be fair, there's stuff going on before the ball is actually snapped in American football that's interesting to watch if you have an understanding of what's going on. And a lot of the "action" in soccer, basketball, and hockey is people moving at a 1/4 speed or not at all while passing the ball (puck) back and forth which might be interesting... or might not depending on context. Plus there's a good amount "action" whose sole purpose is to run time off the clock which is not terribly exciting from a spec

Re:

[nospam007]

"Soccer games used to have scores like 5-3. Today, most games are 0-0 or 1-0. "

That's because it's no longer passionate amateurs, now it's millionaires playing it safe so that they don't get hurt and lose their income.

Re:

[Potor]

I have the easiest solution. Just make the truth equal to the referee's call, like it used to be. The more technology, the less sport.

Re:

[Anubis IV]

It's actually relatively easy to referee, which I can say based on my experience as a once-upon-a-time-in-my-past certified FIFA (Grade 8, IIRC) referee.

----
A quick explanation of the rule, since it's frequently misunderstood:
Pretend that there's an invisible line drawn across the field. That invisible line moves forward and backward as the second-to-last player on defense (i.e. usually the furthest back, non-goalie player) moves. If, at the time that the ball is kicked, an attacking player is closer to the

FIFA? LOL.

[SvnLyrBrto]

Forget AI. FIFA is possibly the most corrupt and scummy outfit in all of sports; with only the IOC and Russia's various doping teams as their competition. And if they were outside of sports, they would give orgs like Halliburton, Blackwater, the Teamsters, EADS/Airbus, Chicago's City Hall, and Arthur Anderson (Sorry... Accenture.) a good run for their money. Just have on-site auctions for the results of every potential foul or offside call. Whoever offers the referee the most cash wins the card or call.

Re:

[timeOday]

How does that add up to an argument against automation? This will make it more objective.

Time out

[Noobclear]

What's next players? Let me pull a crystal ball out my ass.

Corporate sports will over time. Placate its way into team player HUD's. Streaming augmented field plays to coach AI. Providing play by play team choreography for the sale of ditsy cola. The ultimate extension of FIFA drone tech.

Welcome to the future.

peace.

FIFA is state-of-the-art

[kwelch007]

You would think that if FIFA can have this, and the WTA has things like Cyclops (started at Wimbledon,) the NFL could at least have a fucking camera at both goal-lines and both sidelines.

What if we fans don't want that?

[WillAffleckUW]

In tests in the UK and EU, fans preferred humans review it, and disliked AI making the calls.

Need to get rid of offiside

[filesiteguy]

Worst rule in football/soccer.

"oh, this magnificent goal cannot be scored because the scoring team had a toe in offside position"

idiotic.

Re:

[demonlapin]

Or just declare offside to be a human decision, with maybe some chance for review and penalties for calling for review if the ref got it right. The NFL rules on video review are pretty good: the call on the field stands unless there is clear and convincing evidence that it was incorrect, and while challenges to calls are allowed, the team loses a time-out (which is a major strategic tool) if the decision goes against them. I know that major league baseball teams expect some variation per umpire on what's co