Fulham (H) | PL | Post Match Thread

[Inca Roads Bert]

What is the boiling point of piss ?

varies with the atmospheric pressure.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

I have just been watching the full match again on City+ and I was fascinated BY Alistair's comments. He could hear the VAR discussions and his comment was that once the on field officials had decided that Akanji had not affected the goal the only question VAR had to consider was whether he had touched the ball, which he clearly had not. Opinions will differ and there is no absolutely uncontroversial answer ....

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

You two arguing again? :)

I agree with you that, with the way the law is interpreted, Akanji wasn't offside. But it's a stupid interpretation that someone in an offside position doesn't affect the goalkeeper's ability to play the ball if the player in the offside position jumps over the damn thing. The presence of the attacker surely affects the ability of the goalkeeper to make a save. At the very least, he has to delay it.

Law is fine, interpretation isn't. All imho.

Not anymore. I don’t want to devote my time to people that argue in bad faith, so our mutual equine knight acquaintance is on ignore for evermore.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I have just been watching the full match again on City+ and I was fascinated BY Alistair's comments. He could hear the VAR discussions and his comment was that once the on field officials had decided that Akanji had not affected the goal the only question VAR had to consider was whether he had touched the ball, which he clearly had not. Opinions will differ and there is no absolutely uncontroversial answer ....

That's interesting.

Not sure its particularly clarifying, though. Firstly, it doesn't change the nonsense about preventing the ability of an opponent to play the ball, when that opponent is a goalkeeper. Secondly, I assume he means that VAR didn't see a clear and obvious error in the "interference" decision, not that they just didn't check it? Otherwise that's a lot of expensive equipment for a few "factual" calls a week and hundreds of celebration-pooping 1mm offside decisions.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Not anymore. I don’t want to devote my time to people that argue in bad faith

Oh yes you do!

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Oh yes you do!

I don’t engage with your posts either, for similar reasons.

Have a nice life x

 

[halfcenturyup]

I don’t engage with your posts either, for similar reasons.

Have a nice life x

:)

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

That's interesting.

Not sure its particularly clarifying, though. Firstly, it doesn't change the nonsense about preventing the ability of an opponent to play the ball, when that opponent is a goalkeeper. Secondly, I assume he means that VAR didn't see a clear and obvious error in the "interference" decision, not that they just didn't check it? Otherwise that's a lot of expensive equipment for a few "factual" calls a week and hundreds of celebration-pooping 1mm offside decisions.

Yes, I think what comes out of this and the programme last night (?) in which Howard Webb pronounced his verdict that City's second was offside, as though he was Moses coming down from Mount Sinai with the ten commandments, is that VAR is not "factual" at all in all but a few cases when lines need to be drawn. On Saturday the VAR operators decided the ref had made a judgement and that it is not their brief to re-referee the game and simply verified that his assumption that Akanji had not touched the ball was accurate. It was Howard Webb who seemed to contradict the on field decision and re-referee the game! Perhaps our authorities need to get a clear view of what VAR is supposed to achieve because at the moment its achieving none of the things they said it would.