VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

TheMagicFoolBus said:
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...anchester-united-varane-goal-burnley-23031921

Yeah sorry but you are entirely incorrect
Click to expand...

I'd need to see the video. Will look for it online.

Edit: if Maguire held his ground then he wouldn't have blocked Jay. It would be up to Jay to go around him. Maguire steps into Jay throwing him off. Endo held his ground, arms down, no movement left or right. Colville should have gone around him.

But I can see the decision was based on similar grounds so I stand corrected there. I'd like to see numerous Man City and Arsenal goals ruled out from now on. This is their primary set pieces tactic.
 
Last edited:
Withnail said:
How does it look onside?

Did you see how they determined that or were you looking at a standard replay, which to your eye can make a player look further ahead or behind than they actually are due to perspective distortion?
Click to expand...



Sequence in question starts at 1:40 in the clip. Apparently there was an offside 10 seconds earlier according to some comments on the youtube but nothing in the clip was offside.
 
The Maguire one was far more tenuous. It was more a case of him distracting the defender. Endo literally steps into him to obstruct him all the while only ever looking at the player rather than the ball.
 
Dumbstar said:
I'd need to see the video. Will look for it online.

Edit: if Maguire held his ground then he wouldn't have blocked Jay. It would be up to Jay to go around him. Maguire steps into Jay throwing him off. Endo held his ground, arms down, no movement left or right. Colville should have gone around him.

But I can see the decision was based on similar grounds so I stand corrected there. I'd like to see numerous Man City and Arsenal goals ruled out from now on. This is their primary set pieces tactic.
Click to expand...

I think if Endo had made any sort of effort to even look at the ball you'd have a better case - he was pretty obviously focused on getting in Colwill's way.

Agree fully with the bolded.
 
Jippy said:
Two questions about the goals disallowed yesterday.

Did they show the lines for the call on Chelsea's goal being offside? I didn't see them and it looked very tight.

Why didn't they just give the Enzo block as a foul rather than offside, which seemed way more complicated rules-wise?
Click to expand...

I saw this from twitter. The problem with this screenshot is you can clearly see the ball is in already leaving Palmer's foot by the motion blur. So this still doesn't make it offside when the ball was first hit.



On the other side you get shown this angle with lines, but cannot see the point of contact with the ball and he really doesn't look off from that angle.

resize


Then on TV they showed the wider /higher angle that later at some point. They included that angle on ref watch with everyone's favourite former referee today, he looks off from that point of view.
 
Oranges038 said:
I saw this from twitter. The problem with this screenshot is you can clearly see the ball is in already leaving Palmer's foot by the motion blur. So this still doesn't make it offside when the ball was first hit.



On the other side you get shown this angle with lines, but cannot see the point of contact with the ball and he really doesn't look off from that angle.

resize


Then on TV they showed the wider /higher angle that later at some point. They included that angle on ref watch with everyone's favourite former referee today, he looks off from that point of view.
Click to expand...

Thanks- didn't say ref watch cos I had to go to bed when ET started. Still looks damn close in that bottom right pic.
 
Dumbstar said:
I'd need to see the video. Will look for it online.

Edit: if Maguire held his ground then he wouldn't have blocked Jay. It would be up to Jay to go around him. Maguire steps into Jay throwing him off. Endo held his ground, arms down, no movement left or right. Colville should have gone around him.

But I can see the decision was based on similar grounds so I stand corrected there. I'd like to see numerous Man City and Arsenal goals ruled out from now on. This is their primary set pieces tactic.
Click to expand...

Many teams do this but the whole point is that you start from an offside position so that you have freedom of movement and the defenders don't know where you're going to end up but then you jump back onside prior to the actual kick.

Endo just screwed up the timing. Its really that simple.
 
Desert Eagle said:


Sequence in question starts at 1:40 in the clip. Apparently there was an offside 10 seconds earlier according to some comments on the youtube but nothing in the clip was offside.
Click to expand...


Bit weird they don't show the proof.

One of the top comments said it was Carasquilla earlier on in the move who was offside but that section isn't shown in the highlights.
 
Oranges038 said:
I saw this from twitter. The problem with this screenshot is you can clearly see the ball is in already leaving Palmer's foot by the motion blur. So this still doesn't make it offside when the ball was first hit.



On the other side you get shown this angle with lines, but cannot see the point of contact with the ball and he really doesn't look off from that angle.

resize


Then on TV they showed the wider /higher angle that later at some point. They included that angle on ref watch with everyone's favourite former referee today, he looks off from that point of view.
Click to expand...

The top one is disingenuous because not only is it behind the player but it’s also the last frame when the ball is leaving the players foot rather than the first frame when contact is made which makes a big difference
 
Pexbo said:
The top one is disingenuous because not only is it behind the player but it’s also the last frame when the ball is leaving the players foot rather than the first frame when contact is made which makes a big difference
Click to expand...

It also looks really tight to being off in that top one, so I don't know how folk with any understanding of perspective can say that's clearly on.
 
Pexbo said:
The top one is disingenuous because not only is it behind the player but it’s also the last frame when the ball is leaving the players foot rather than the first frame when contact is made which makes a big difference
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you see this a lot with these calls, once you can see the motion blur on the ball then the ball is already in motion, players can move a a couple of feet either way in a fraction of a second, add in an angle like that and it's easy to pick and choose a still image to make it look more offside.


Jippy said:
Thanks- didn't say ref watch cos I had to go to bed when ET started. Still looks damn close in that bottom right pic.
Click to expand...


The wider angle on this clip shows that he is just about offside without the need for lines.

https://www.skysports.com/football/...m-premier-league?postid=7291380#liveblog-body
 
Jippy said:
That makes sense, but kind of makes it weirder that he was deemed active but his actions were not significant enough to be a foul and you hardly ever get done for being active unless you're right in the keeper's face and even then, hardly ever. He took the defender's attention granted, but seems like they were levelling up the really tight offside goal, which they didn't show the lines for dodgily.

I hate complex or stupid rules that need explaining, eg when that Middlesbrough player in the FA cup did a blatant handball but wasn't penalised cos he crossed it for the goal, rather than scored himself.
Click to expand...
We got this decision against Aston villa a year or 2 ago when maguire was blocked.

Offside was given then as well.
 
Oranges038 said:
Yeah, but you see this a lot with these calls, once you can see the motion blur on the ball then the ball is already in motion, players can move a a couple of feet either way in a fraction of a second, add in an angle like that and it's easy to pick and choose a still image to make it look more offside.





The wider angle on this clip shows that he is just about offside without the need for lines.

https://www.skysports.com/football/...m-premier-league?postid=7291380#liveblog-body
Click to expand...
Urgh, link not working for me but fair enough.
arnie_ni said:
We got this decision against Aston villa a year or 2 ago when maguire was blocked.

Offside was given then as well.
Click to expand...
Yeah I need to dig that clip out cos it's been referenced a few times but is only a hazy blur in my sieve memory.
 
How on earth did the Sky presenter look at this challenge from Harry Maguire and feel the ball was long gone? There is litterally only a split second between the Fulhsm player playing the ball and Harry making contact



Here is Dermot's view of the Sheff Utd incident

 
RedRocket9908 said:
How on earth did the Sky presenter look at this challenge from Harry Maguire and feel the ball was long gone? There is litterally only a split second between the Fulhsm player playing the ball and Harry making contact



Here is Dermot's view of the Sheff Utd incident

Click to expand...


Because "Manchester United getting away with murder" is always a story.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
How on earth did the Sky presenter look at this challenge from Harry Maguire and feel the ball was long gone? There is litterally only a split second between the Fulhsm player playing the ball and Harry making contact



Here is Dermot's view of the Sheff Utd incident

Click to expand...


You can just tell the presenter was hoping Warnock thought the Maguire challenge was a red. Instead they were all in agreement it was a yellow and left him looking like a right mug.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
Dermott on VVD's goal being ruled out
Click to expand...

It's Dermot Gallagher. If the ref had given Chelsea a penalty for what Endo did in Chelsea's box, Gallagher would find a way to explain it. If Maguire received a red against Fulham, you can bet your life that you'll be watching the same person confidently explain why it was a textbook red.
 
Can someone explain that one to me?
 
Pexbo said:
Can someone explain that one to me?
Click to expand...

Mark Clattenburg: Ex-Premier League official's referee analyst role at Nottingham Forest explained
Nottingham Forest have appointed Mark Clattenburg as a referee analyst; the 48-year-old will be available for advice should Forest boss Nuno Espirito Santo want to consult him on specific issues

GHc96PjWoAACnE2
 
Samid said:
Mark Clattenburg: Ex-Premier League official's referee analyst role at Nottingham Forest explained
Nottingham Forest have appointed Mark Clattenburg as a referee analyst; the 48-year-old will be available for advice should Forest boss Nuno Espirito Santo want to consult him on specific issues

GHc96PjWoAACnE2
Click to expand...
Thanks mate. Nice he’s in his official role with Forest sitting with the head of PGMOL.
 
Berbaclass said:
It's shoulder to shoulder when they make contact, no push from the forest player he's just stronger and Rashford went down.

Nothing challenge, happens 10-20 times a game.

oqT9TTf.png
Click to expand...

Still frame doesn’t show momentum. A bullet looks like it’s rubbing someone if you take the photo at the right time..
 
El Zoido said:
Still frame doesn’t show momentum. A bullet looks like it’s rubbing someone if you take the photo at the right time..
Click to expand...
That's showing it's direct shoulder on shoulder contact. Clean challenge. You don't really need to see anything else..
 
Berbaclass said:
That's showing it's direct shoulder on shoulder contact. Clean challenge. You don't really need to see anything else..
Click to expand...

Of course you do, this is a shoulder barge, and shoulder barges are fouls. Every shoulder barge looks like shoulder to shoulder if you pause it at the right time. This is a foul anywhere else on the pitch, there’s no attempt to play the ball whatsoever.
 
El Zoido said:
Of course you do, this is a shoulder barge, and shoulder barges are fouls. Every shoulder barge looks like shoulder to shoulder if you pause it at the right time. This is a foul anywhere else on the pitch, there’s no attempt to play the ball whatsoever.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a shoulder barge at all. It was a simple coming together. It's a contact sport mate, not every bit of contact is a foul.
 
Didn't it become clear and obvious it wasn't offside about 2 minutes ago? Looking for a reason to not give it I felt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.