I think it can be interpreted fairly straightforwardly. If you regressed only on height, you'd get a positive coefficient, but weight is an omitted variable that's correlated with both tackling ability and height. So after including weight in the equation, i.e. controlling for weight, you get that height is actually a disadvantage, if you compare players who weight the same. My interpretation is that if you weigh the same as another player but you are shorter, then you have a higher body mass index and your mass centre is lower and you have better control over the momentum your body - easier to tackle.
On min 11:00 there is a slight misconception: The distance to minimise is NOT the sum of *closest* distances from the red points to the plane, but the sum of their *vertical* distances to it. Is an important distinction.
Never answered the question about the height of the football player.. is that in a different video?
I think it can be interpreted fairly straightforwardly. If you regressed only on height, you'd get a positive coefficient, but weight is an omitted variable that's correlated with both tackling ability and height. So after including weight in the equation, i.e. controlling for weight, you get that height is actually a disadvantage, if you compare players who weight the same.
My interpretation is that if you weigh the same as another player but you are shorter, then you have a higher body mass index and your mass centre is lower and you have better control over the momentum your body - easier to tackle.
On min 11:00 there is a slight misconception: The distance to minimise is NOT the sum of *closest* distances from the red points to the plane, but the sum of their *vertical* distances to it. Is an important distinction.
it's an ORTHOGONAL PROJECTION he's talking about, so he's right