Ref Watch

[Colin Bells Boots]

Coming back from the match on Saturday zl felt even as a long term paying customer that l was very much down the pecking order.
I was unsure of the red card it seemed from the half way line to be too far out with too many defenders close to whatever happened. My reaction was that Foden was brought down at the edge of the area. But I couldn't see the fine detail if the defender nicked it or whatever.
It seemed a good thing to me as time ticked by after City put the ball in the net but it was for VAR to find something, anything to write it off. Even when it was shown on the scoreboard l couldn't tell the small margins. But my main reaction was it was a bit far out when Foden passed it, the liner thought it was OK and there was more play before it it went in.
So l was a KFA whilst fans on here were know alls emphatically stating their
TV aided or influenced opinions.
Too fed up to watch MOTD on Saturday it was Sunday morning before l got a chance to have a good look at what l saw the previous day. Even then l couldn't be sure but there was little comment on the way a match had nearly 90 minutes of time wasted. So that seems OK. In the BBC's commentary the simpleton on the mike said it was rare that City kick off at 3pm on on a Saturday home match. Thinking of the Brighton and Southampton matches made me ponder why so many people know sweet FA about what goes on

Mis-information is rife regarding City , and it's not accidental .

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

I would argue that when Bernardo was in an offside position he wasn't interfering with play. After Mings had played the ball Bernardo was in front of him and the ball, so wasn't offside. IIRC he only 'interfered' from an onside position, so bollocks to PiGMOL.

think it was Rodri that was stood offside from a punt upfield (not interfering), Mings controlled the punt but then turned back to go back to goal and into Rodri. Rodri blocked/tackled him, fed Silva, GOAL!

I agree entirely with the rest of what you said and especially the last 3/4 words.

 

[richardtheref]

Lets not forget that we were told that this season the VAR off side lines would be thicker and therefore more accurate. The lines don't look any different to my eyes. Also on Saturday I'm not sure they were even straight, more diagonal.

With regards to our champs lge official. Wasn't he crying last season as he had retired or am I thinking of another incompetent fool. In any case, all those calling for foreign refs in the PL should look at him, rated one of the best in Europe.

 

[Gray]

All the different interpretations of the rules by the VAR officials is because they are constantly changed. Also they are the same buffoons who also referee the actual games.

We need an independent body in charge of VAR with the same people doing all the games.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

So much for benefit of the doubt to the attacker, both Foden and Hwang should have stood.

 

[meltonblue]

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

Both look offside to me, although it’s much closer, looking at the line on the floor and taking into account the perspective.

 

[Bonzo Nododo]

Mis-information is rife regarding City , and it's not accidental .

Of course. But quite what he wanted to achieve with getting kick off info wrong I don't know.

 

[Franny 1234]

Of course. But quite what he wanted to achieve with getting kick off info wrong I don't know.

Lazy journalists who do none or very little research. CTID

 

[Cassandra]

I tried to have a look at these pictures using some perspective lines and it seems to me he is offside in both, by a foot in the first and by a few inches in the second. It's the knee that gets him. A line drawn perpendicular to the ground from his knee, it seems to me, taking into the perspective across the pitch and the position of the camera, puts him offside. I can't speak for the use of the different frames, but who can? It's all so subjective for something that is supposed to be so factual.

Both look offside to me, although it’s much closer, looking at the line on the floor and taking into account the perspective.

You may both be right. I think the (horizontal) perspective error is pretty small as Foden and the Palace player are not too far apart. The bigger problem is parallax, because the camera is in front of and above the play it is hard to judge where a perpendicular from Foden's knee touches the ground - the longer you make the perpendicular line the further forward he seems. I tried drawing a line at right angles to the cut of the grass and which touched his standing foot, then dropping the perpendicular from his knee onto that line and I felt the lines then overlapped to some extent (with the second frame). But it is a bit of guesswork from the images we have.

The real problem is that not enough investment both of thought and equipment has been made into this aspect of VAR. Didn't City, Liverpool and Arsenal install 36 cameras to give 3D replays? With that number of cameras it should be possible to assess offsides much more transparently. When you think how much a point "costs" the investment wouldn't seem too great.

 

[halfcenturyup]

You may both be right. I think the (horizontal) perspective error is pretty small as Foden and the Palace player are not too far apart. The bigger problem is parallax, because the camera is in front of and above the play it is hard to judge where a perpendicular from Foden's knee touches the ground - the longer you make the perpendicular line the further forward he seems. I tried drawing a line at right angles to the cut of the grass and which touched his standing foot, then dropping the perpendicular from his knee onto that line and I felt the lines then overlapped to some extent (with the second frame). But it is a bit of guesswork from the images we have.

The real problem is that not enough investment both of thought and equipment has been made into this aspect of VAR. Didn't City, Liverpool and Arsenal install 36 cameras to give 3D replays? With that number of cameras it should be possible to assess offsides much more transparently. When you think how much a point "costs" the investment wouldn't seem too great.

Yes, it was fun to do, but almost impossible.

As I said, the skill from the attacker is to look along the line and time his run. It's stupid to penalise a guy for having a knee, or a foot, extended in a normal running movement. It's impossible for him to judge. Use the position of the attackers head, which is the way the game is played, or at least the torso.