itsabuzzard
Well-Known Member
Yes. Torp will need counselling. Just sharpening the prongs on my pitchfork.
Maybe I can help. I am sure that Haji was marginally (and very briefly) offside. The screenshots below are taken from the YouTube video from the reverse angle - .
On a PC (not a mobile) you can use shmmeee’s nice tip to pause the video at 17:38, then press full stop to advance frame by frame, or comma to go back one frame at a time.
Sadly Haji was offside ONLY for the tiny fractions of a second that they actually analyse, and only because he momentarily stuck his left leg out. I now feel happier knowing the decision was technically correct, even though I still think the excessively precise VAR procedures need to give forwards a bit more leeway.
But if you’d rather believe forever that we were robbed by a cockup or a conspiracy, feel free to present alternative facts. I am after all an agent of the deep state
View attachment 35400
Also why wasn't Onana sent off for his two yellow cards!!!!
I couldn't say for sure, but in all honesty it does look more than that. Maybe 4 or 6 inches rather than 2 inches in old money. The margin of error should be more.is it more than 5cm off, as that is the margin of error they use
Now voted, although if I was being pedantic it still requires a question markYour vote is important, I've changed it just for you
Yellow cards are reset at the end of injury time if you didn't know. If you did know and just think it is a stupid rule... well that's a fair point. Also I would question why the second yellow didn't come sooner.Also why wasn't Onana sent off for his two yellow cards!!!!
Someone (a neutral) said to me yesterday that the Keeper for Sheafs pen was off the line so should of been retaked? Not sure how true, but I've not rewatched the game n it wouldn't surprise me.
The not explaining their working out is what gives the room for the conspiracy theory, and understand ably so. Rugby is way ahead of the round ball game in some ways, and this is one of them.Technically no. But VAR is ruining the game, no need to forensically search through for marginal infractions. The current system isn't clear enough, there are far too many moving parts for it to be truly accurate.I don't think it helps public opinion that they don't explain their working out.
Just make it clear light between the last man and attacker. Yes there will be marginal calls but at least there will be a degree of advantage to the attacker at that point and it will be easier to take if a goal gets ruled out.
Just seen Man Utd v Burnley on MOTD. Casemiro was given onside at the end (they didnt score) whn he was much further off than Wright was claimed to be (Wright was clearly onside).Just a simple YES or NO, who still thinks we were cheated out of our victory last Sunday.
I'm still fuming, so that's a big fat YES from me.
Oh fuck it, it ain't going to make a difference.
Absolutely spot onYES!
All about global interests/TV money.
That’s where the ‘game’ has gone.
Anybody who believes otherwise should look around…..at every single walk of life.
Why would footy be any different?
Yes I did know that.. and yes I'm suggesting it's another stupid loose end which needs to be addressed!Yellow cards are reset at the end of injury time if you didn't know. If you did know and just think it is a stupid rule... well that's a fair point. Also I would question why the second yellow didn't come sooner.
Ah... my apologies!Yes I did know that.. and yes I'm suggesting it's another stupid loose end which needs to be addressed!
Well if you multiply 21 x 4 and add 3 you get 87. So thats 4 -3. If that's not conclusive then I don't know what is!The yes votes just happen to equal 87, the year we won the FA Cup.
And the no votes equal 21, the day in April we lost the FA Cup semi final.
Coincidence?