Space-Creating versus Dead Possession: An Off-Ball Possession-Quality Index for Broadcast Football

Seongjin Choi

cs.CVAug 10, 2026

Space-Creating versus Dead Possession: An Off-Ball Possession-Quality Index for Broadcast Football

Authors: Seongjin Choi

Organizations: Independent researcher.

Abstract

Ball possession is the most-cited and most-misleading number in football: 60% recycled in one's own half is not 60% spent pinning the opponent back. Existing event-based possession-value frameworks (expected threat, VAEP, on-ball value) price on-ball actions but ignore the off-ball question a sterile possession poses: did holding the ball create space, or was the circulation dead? We answer this in two layers. First, an event-side junk-possession index prices each possession sequence by its peak threat gain under an expected-threat grid and -- after reconstructing the live scoreline to exclude lead-protecting circulation -- flags low-threat sequences in tied-or-losing states. On the 2026 FIFA World Cup (103 matches, 206 team-matches) the flag correlates negatively with points (r=-0.37) and xG difference (r=-0.51, partly index-coupled). It is not a repackaging of on-ball value: with team offensive VAEP and field tilt held fixed, the junk flag stays strongly negatively associated with points (p<0.0001, also match-clustered) while VAEP is not significant -- in this same-match (descriptive) regression it adds information beyond this on-ball action-value model. Second, for a flagged window we resolve whether it was spatially dead or space-creating by projecting broadcast video to pitch coordinates and measuring a Space-Creation Index (SCI): a net pitch-control change capturing whether the possession seized space or pushed the opponent's block back. Across 31 of 35 flagged windows from nine World Cup matches (a purposive sample), 74% are spatially non-space-creating, 19% weak progression, and 6% space-creating windows the event flag alone would score as failure -- including a side with 73% of the ball that exited on penalties (two non-creating windows). The two layers separate space-creating-but-unconverted from sterile possession, a distinction event-only on-ball value cannot make.

Explore similar work

Jul 13, 2026cs.CV

Training-Free Off-Screen Player Imputation for Broadcast-Based Spatial Football Analytics

Spatial football metrics such as pitch control assume access to the positions of all 22 players, yet the most widely available source of positional data -- the broadcast main camera -- shows only 10-16 of them at any moment. We quantify the resulting distortion with an open, reproducible benchmark: a simulated broadcast viewport applied to open full-pitch tracking data (Metrica Sports; three matches, one held out from method development). Ignoring off-screen players -- the visible-only baseline implied whenever a video-based game-state-reconstruction (GSR) pipeline adds no imputation layer -- inflates hidden-zone pitch-control error to 25.1-26.9 percentage points and a mean absolute control-share error of 11.1-13.4 points across the three matches. We then evaluate a ladder of training-free, online imputation baselines that use only observations from the match being analysed. The best overall on these decision-relevant metrics, role-anchored centroid voting (each visible player votes for the full-team centroid by subtracting its running role offset, attenuating the viewport-induced subset bias), roughly halves hidden-zone error (to 12.2-13.8 points) and cuts control-share error to 28-48% of the ignore policy at every viewport width from 36 m to 60 m in all three matches. For occlusions <=9.6 s -- the regime of the closest learned prior work -- it reaches binwise median position errors of 3.3-8.9 m; but 50-57% of hidden-player observations lie beyond that regime. Integrated end-to-end into a broadcast-video GSR pipeline, imputation moves a downstream possession-quality score (Space-Creation Index) by 15.6 and 17.2 points on two real World Cup broadcast windows, flipping the verdict class in one.

Seongjin Choi

Imputation

Ask PDF

Sep 9, 2026cs.CV

How Much Velocity Does Off-Ball Space Value Need? A Broadcast-Viewport Benchmark

Velocity-aware pitch control is standard, but under a broadcast viewport half the players are off screen and on-screen velocities come from a drifting calibration. We ask at which layer of broadcast off-ball analysis velocity changes the answer. Inheriting our off-screen imputation protocol (three Metrica matches, 44 m viewport, block-bootstrap CIs), we score four velocity regimes -- none, viewport-legal observed, true-for-visible, true-for-all -- against a velocity-aware ground truth at three layers: imputation, the control surface, and team verdicts. Velocity is nearly useless for imputation (-0.2 pp against a 12--14 pp velocity-free surface MAE), first-order for the surface (-1.5 to -1.8 pp, 11--15% of that MAE), and ten times smaller for verdicts (-0.12 to -0.19 pp). The velocity that matters is the visible channel: perfect occluded-player velocity adds 2--6% of the visible gain, and no last-seen decay policy we tested exceeds that. Omitting velocity blurs the surface (per-frame |e| 2.2--2.6 pp) with small time-averaged bias (per cell <=0.4 pp), whereas imputation error is a structured bias against the defending team's deep zone (5--9 pp). At a fixed velocity window, a noise ladder of eleven jitter settings, including sigma_v-matched pairs, is ordered to first order by one velocity-noise axis sigma_v with break-even ~1 m/s; eleven SoccerNet-GSR clips from one match through our pipeline measure sigma_v=1.65 m/s yet recover 24--36% of the benefit: 43% of the variance is frame-common, which the surface tolerates, and the residual is heavy-tailed and clustered, which Gaussian controls matched on component RMS do not reproduce (+0.03 vs. +0.36). The share of velocity-free error that velocity removes grows with viewport width (7% at 36 m, 21% at 60 m): fix imputation on tight shots, velocity on wide ones. Code and logs are released.

Seongjin Choi

Conditional Velocity Visibility Multivariate Time Series Imputation

Ask PDF

Jun 18, 2026cs.MA

Blame is easier than praise: Measuring off-ball defensive performance in football

The defensive performance of football players is commonly measured through a limited number of actions like tackles and interceptions while their continuous impact through positional behaviour has hardly been studied before. We formulate this problem as an attribution over multi-agent spatiotemporal trajectories without player-level ground truth labels, where event-level changes of expected threat are distributed among individuals. We propose a framework that performs this attribution using player involvement scores calculated from defensive pressure areas (DPAs). By computing role-conditioned baselines within automatically detected team structures, we can determine each defender's expected responsibility for threat created through arbitrary passes. The validity and robustness of this approach are evaluated on a uniquely extensive cross-gender and cross-competition data set, including positional and event data from 64 matches of the men's World Cup, 116 matches of the women's German Bundesliga and 336 matches of the men's German 3. Liga. In the absence of a ground truth, we propose an evaluation protocol that combines multiple relatively weak proxies into robust summary scores. We find a validity score that is improved by around 1 standard deviation compared to the best action-based metric and demonstrate that many popular measures show limited validity. The "blame" for conceding high-value actions shows especially strong correlations with external ratings and market values, making it the first published metric in football to reliably measure positioning errors. All code underlying this work is publicly available to support reproducibility and further research.

Jonas Bischofberger, Runqing Ma, Pascal Bauer +2

Private Pate-Style Defense Ground Truth

Ask PDF