M
M
mat
Guest
Is it tomorrow when confirmed GPC is reffing the derby?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ref Watch
- Thread starter Chi-town blues
- Start date
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
Broadcasters seem to have an element of control over the controversial moments. You have to ask yourself why the VAR match commander got involved in the decision making process NOT to award Foden a penalty against Southampton back in March?I take your point, but since when was football about allowing broadcasters plenty of controversial moments? The first considerations should be for paying, match going fans.
When Moss initially didn't give the BLATANT penalty (a CLEAR and OBVIOUS mistake) the match commander (not a qualified match official) told Andy Madly (VAR ref) that it wasn't a penalty and therefore not to tell the on field ref to review his decision with a view to overturning it.
Where did you get this footage from. Wonder who decides which frame to use but as we all know the law is about first point of contact not when the ball has left the foot. Quite clearly, assuming these frames are correct, this shows how VAR can be manipulated. Club needs to bring this up as we all know the technology isn't good enough so why is it still being used.View attachment 29059
I have couple of issues with the offside decision by VAR, firstly I'm struggling to see what part of Foden's anatomy lines up with the red line, there seems to me to be a gap netween a perpendicular from Foden's knee and the line. Surely the goal side of the line should be level with Foden's knee. Equally if you take a perpendicular from the outside of the Palace player's shoulder it looks to be ahead of the blue line. It is still probably just offside but as others have said this frame is just after the ball has been kicked. The camera angle doesn't allow you to see when the ball is first touched. From the camera used to broadcast the game I'd say the ball is maybe a few inches away from the foot.View attachment 29060
If we look at the previous frame where the foot is probably still in contact with the ball Foden's knee is not so far advanced and I'd say he is level at worst. Law 11 states that the first point of contact with the ball should be used and that doesn't seem to be the case here. Certainly within the margin of errors for the technology.View attachment 29061
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
It's been brought up numerous times and the PiGMOL just shrug their shoulders and carry on f*cking teams over.Where did you get this footage from. Wonder who decides which frame to use but as we all know the law is about first point of contact not when the ball has left the foot. Quite clearly, assuming these frames are correct, this shows how VAR can be manipulated. Club needs to bring this up as we all know the technology isn't good enough so why is it still being used.
creditunionhero
Well-Known Member
True, this is why it took so long to make the decision. They had to keep finding a frame that might seem to be offside and the only one they could come up with is the one that shows the ball as it leaves the foot, not the one that shows first contact.The footage was rolled forward to make it look like offside but they could have EASILY chosen a frame wich made it look onside and nobody would have questioned it.
It is 100% BENT.
creditunionhero
Well-Known Member
The frame they used clearly shows the ball has left Stones boot so should not be used.View attachment 29059
I have couple of issues with the offside decision by VAR, firstly I'm struggling to see what part of Foden's anatomy lines up with the red line, there seems to me to be a gap netween a perpendicular from Foden's knee and the line. Surely the goal side of the line should be level with Foden's knee. Equally if you take a perpendicular from the outside of the Palace player's shoulder it looks to be ahead of the blue line. It is still probably just offside but as others have said this frame is just after the ball has been kicked. The camera angle doesn't allow you to see when the ball is first touched. From the camera used to broadcast the game I'd say the ball is maybe a few inches away from the foot.View attachment 29060
If we look at the previous frame where the foot is probably still in contact with the ball Foden's knee is not so far advanced and I'd say he is level at worst. Law 11 states that the first point of contact with the ball should be used and that doesn't seem to be the case here. Certainly within the margin of errors for the technology.View attachment 29061
Chi-town blues
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 May 2012
- Messages
- 31,363
This is the main problem with those **** line and can be easily manipulated. I want to see perpendicular lines to show the height as well to get a clear view of perspective.View attachment 29059
I have couple of issues with the offside decision by VAR, firstly I'm struggling to see what part of Foden's anatomy lines up with the red line, there seems to me to be a gap netween a perpendicular from Foden's knee and the line. Surely the goal side of the line should be level with Foden's knee. Equally if you take a perpendicular from the outside of the Palace player's shoulder it looks to be ahead of the blue line. It is still probably just offside but as others have said this frame is just after the ball has been kicked. The camera angle doesn't allow you to see when the ball is first touched. From the camera used to broadcast the game I'd say the ball is maybe a few inches away from the foot.View attachment 29060
If we look at the previous frame where the foot is probably still in contact with the ball Foden's knee is not so far advanced and I'd say he is level at worst. Law 11 states that the first point of contact with the ball should be used and that doesn't seem to be the case here. Certainly within the margin of errors for the technology.View attachment 29061
We are talking about nano of pixels here and clearly you can see the fraction of second when the ball left stones boot which proves foden was on side .
Last edited:
the-ecstacy-of-eight
Well-Known Member
...or so we were told.Broadcasters seem to have an element of control over the controversial moments. You have to ask yourself why the VAR match commander got involved in the decision making process NOT to award Foden a penalty against Southampton back in March?
When Moss initially didn't give the BLATANT penalty (a CLEAR and OBVIOUS mistake) the match commander (not a qualified match official) told Andy Madly (VAR ref) that it wasn't a penalty and therefore not to tell the on field ref to review his decision with a view to overturning it.
Simply a case (IMO) of it being all over the news the next day and PiGMOL deciding to make a statement to take the heat off a referee.
How many "special statements" have they had to make after "weird" decisions in our matches?
deano ou812
Well-Known Member
Hahahahaha and about 50,000 others Mat..And red card for Dias...
The Spanish Graham Poll is gonna get booed to fuck by me.
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
Yup....or so we were told.
Simply a case (IMO) of it being all over the news the next day and PiGMOL deciding to make a statement to take the heat off a referee.
How many "special statements" have they had to make after "weird" decisions in our matches?
Also, how many 'clarification' or 'changes' of the rules have we had following bizarre decisions in our games???