Quote: cod'ead "Not so, a pass is demed forward in relation to the player making the pass and not the flight of the ball and please don't even mention Stevo's (non)momentum rule.
A decision can be made on offside simply because the field and players' feet are on the same plane, something that doesn't happen with the flight of a ball in motion. The only reason that technologies like "Hawkeye" can be used in sports like cricket, tennis and potentially soccer is because the "targets" (goal, wicket or tramline) are a constant and fixed entity. I suppose there might be a case made for such decision to be considered when games are in 3D but would still doubt we have the technology available to ensure little better than the lottery that currently exists.
It was a terrible decision, I have never defended it and nor would I ever attempt to but the available technologies we currently enjoy would bring little, if any benefit for the cost involved. It was a bad decision that is ultimately down to Ganson and Ganson alone, it's not something he can hide from and nor should either he or Stuart Cummings. As I said before, I don't think it will go unquestioned and would expect serious answers to those questions. One reason the Oz refs make the phone call that Gentle spoke of, is to draw a line under the incident and then everyone can move on without fear of future repercussions or any subliminal attempt to "even things up"'"
Agree offside is completely different to the balls kinetic energy when passed from an advancing attacker however the technology would not be that complicated. The same kind of maths plonks the team logos on the pitch as if the were painted there.
If you track the balls speed forward for the few seconds before the pass then track the catch distance over the time lapsed it's basic maths to tell if it has travelled faster than when carried.
