Match Thread Coventry City - Plymouth Argyle Match Thread - Tuesday 28th Nov (2 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

It’s definitely doable with modern CV techniques. A decent computer model could take that image and give you a 3D representation you could use. The problem with vision is it gets blocked. Notnsure what the update frequency/accuracy on radar/gps is. Isn’t Hawkeye some combo of cameras and chips being tracked from multiple angles in a small area? Much easier task.

 

---

[Ian1779]

Think it was Hull?

Yes you are right apologies.

 

[Otis]

In this video, the ball looks clearly to be in play.

Nowt for Plymouth to whinge about.


Watch this video on Facebook

 

[David O'Day]

It needs two sensors put either end of the line. For goalposts this is fine, for the touchline it would need to be corner flags at opposite ends of the pitch unless I’m mistaken.

would you just need to put them on the outside of the post and on the corner flag to scan along that line?

 

[Macca]

Let's just say, it's far more inconclusive than many of the decisions that have gone against us.

View attachment 32575

To be fair if the rules mean that isn’t conclusive then the rule book is a c**t. Inanimate object or not

 

[The Philosopher]

In this video, the ball looks clearly to be in play.

Nowt for Plymouth to whinge about.


Watch this video on Facebook

Ref does walk straight to Lino on the side so probably needed to ask the question.

Looking at the highlights, the Lino does get in line and gets down on his haunches to view the play. No twitch of his flag and ran, flag down, straight towards the restart.

I guess the question the Ref would have asked is “did you see the ball clearly leave play?” Evidently he didn’t.

I think we’ve done this to death. It’s not 100% clear and the goal stands. Happy SBA.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

He’s not going to sign though, that’s clear. And we’ve moved on from him as a side with no obvious place in the team for him.

Huge risk for him

 

[David O'Day]

Huge risk for him

Not really, if he is available at the end of the season someone will take a punt on him on past reputation alone

He does also look like he may have done a Dabo and hit the weights too much in his rehab

 

[Macca]

Huge risk for him

I know it’s unlucky circumstances but he’s not featured properly for nearly a season and a half and doesn’t see his future here. Use him as an impact sub no more

 

[skyblu3sk]

Boosh.

Thanks! Saves me some time.

 

[skyblu3sk]

That was out but there was no clear view from the Lino and the ref wasn’t sure.

My take:

There was a clear clear handball in the first half which the ref and Lino missed and possibly the 4th official saw.

During their half time chat this might have come up and human nature suggests they may have thought “if there’s a chance of balance” or whatever then they’d have that in mind.

With it not being 100% clear in real time if the ball has crossed, they balanced it in our favour.

I think had they had not missed the pen in the first half, they might have given the goal ball as out.

The foul on Sims when through after the goal that was not given was also a strange one. Balance?

I would feel angry if I was a Plymouth fan but anyway.

It's possible I guess, looking at all the angles you wouldn't be 100% sure and obviously we have the luxury of replay that they don't have.

 

[skyblu3sk]

Let's be honest, for decades that was universally accepted as out of play, then we had that silly arc of the ball bollocks at the world cup and now people are debating incidents like this!

I suppose if you change it for all lines does that mean only part of the ball needs to be over the line for it to be a goal or are they treated differently.

 

[clint van damme]

I suppose if you change it for all lines does that mean only part of the ball needs to be over the line for it to be a goal or are they treated differently.

Christ knows!!

 

[Nuskyblue]

Anyone with a decent view tell me if wright was offside first half?

I think so, whoever was feeding the ball through took to long to release him.

 

[Skyblue Bangkok]

T

It needs two sensors put either end of the line. For goalposts this is fine, for the touchline it would need to be corner flags at opposite ends of the pitch unless I’m mistaken.

That incident was against Hull when the ball was clearly over the goal line but the technology didn't work.

 

[Ricketts]

There is no debate it was over the line and oddly various camera angles aren’t the view the official has. The same official gave them a throw earlier when Bidwell had the ball and it was far closer to the line than that

The Bidwell one looked well in, and we would of scored from that move.
The officials were absolutely useless yesterday, for both sides.
however, as atrocious as they were, that’s football and I will take that over VAR any day of the week.

 

[Skyblue Bangkok]

The ref was shite though, if anyone else was that bad at their jobs they'd be in trouble

Also was it an obvious mistake? I don't know, the Japan one in the WC looked equally out but was shown not to be.

Most refs give last nights out but so far there are no angles that show it to e 100% out.

Being a ref is not easy and they get more decisions right than wrong. How many fans and players even know the rules. Try being an official and see how good or crap you are.

 

[David O'Day]

Being a ref is not easy and they get more decisions right than wrong. How many fans and players even know the rules. Try being an official and see how good or crap you are.

another account? sad, bye

 

[Samo]

Where are the usual array of greggs threads this week I wonder?

 

[Calista]

Let's be honest, for decades that was universally accepted as out of play, then we had that silly arc of the ball bollocks at the world cup and now people are debating incidents like this!

It's not new - surely the rule has always been "whole of the ball over the whole of the line"? We've just got lots of cameras and technology now to judge it.

(I think that was probably out of play last night though!)

 

[Calista]

Did the EFL systems CGI that image for illustrative purposes, mind? Looks an awfully perfect image?

It's not a photo. It's the system's graphical representation of where it calculates the ball to have been.

 

[The Philosopher]

The Bidwell one looked well in, and we would of scored from that move.
The officials were absolutely useless yesterday, for both sides.
however, as atrocious as they were, that’s football and I will take that over VAR any day of the week.

I think some kind of VAR is here to stay and it’s inevitable that more and more technology will creep into the game as technology advances and the financial implications of a mistake become more massive.

Look at Newcastle PSG last night. How much will it impact Newcastle if they don’t progress. Tens on millions? (I’ve no idea but it wouldn’t surprise me).

We had VAR in the playoff final, what was that game worth? It even helped with their disallowed goal against us.

I would not be shocked if some Saudi type owners end up trying to sue the governing bodies or raise formal complaints at some point. (And I use the word try, I’ve no idea if they have to sign some kind of disclaimer upon competition entry but with so much money in the game now the stakes are ridiculously high)

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Managed to watch most of the game last night and thought the following:

* The goal did look like it came from the ball being out. That said, it's hard to definitely say without a 'down the line' view. Although the linos were pretty poor all game, it's hard to blame them for that one as his obstruction would've been be blocked by the players. Not sure how the refs view was though.

* The 3 lads we've got from Barnsley (well, one from Burnley but you know what I mean), all seem to be developing into a strong and impressive unit at the back. Kitchings presence and range of passing is great.

* I thought Bidwell was quietly excellent last night. Some great deliveries into the box - he's definitely preferable to Da Silva.

* Really pleased for Wright. Yes he makes some what look like simple errors but he's still very early on in his Cov career and Gyo took ages to get proper firing for us. If you'd have said at the start of the season that he'd have 5 goals from his first 10 games, we would've taken it.

* Gooden was quiet and ineffective last night. But he's still a goal threat when he's got a chance. Just an off night from him last night. I'd keep the same starting line up on Saturday as Ipswich. We've got two wins with that line up so assuming Tats is ok, I'd go with the same again.

* I don't get the 'happy for CO'H to go in January' malarkey. I get the contract situation but that aside, he was quite clearly and important part of our team before he got injured. He's not going to be up to speed for a couple of months (at least). He's a quality player and one we should most definitely be looking to tie down on a new contract.

I agree with every one of your points until the last one.

We saw last year how having some better end product in midfield kicked us on a level, I really don't think he's up to that and despite some people saying we would be relegated, we did better without him in the team and almost got promoted.

This season it is unfair to judge him as he has been out a long time, but I cannot really see at the moment where he fits in. If someone does want to throw a few million at him, at this second it doesn't seem like such a stupid decision. Whilst he is a really good player who adds something different, and I also like him in general, his lack of end product is a massive issue and I've banged that drum for a while. We've got some money now, no reason why we cannot put some towards some more lethal attacking midfields/wingers.

 

[Skyblueweeman]

I agree with every one of your points until the last one.

We saw last year how having some better end product in midfield kicked us on a level, I really don't think he's up to that and despite some people saying we would be relegated, we did better without him in the team and almost got promoted.

This season it is unfair to judge him as he has been out a long time, but I cannot really see at the moment where he fits in. If someone does want to throw a few million at him, at this second it doesn't seem like such a stupid decision. Whilst he is a really good player who adds something different, and I also like him in general, his lack of end product is a massive issue and I've banged that drum for a while. We've got some money now, no reason why we cannot put some towards some more lethal attacking midfields/wingers.

But after such an injury, I don't think someone is going throw a few million at him. Not in January anyway. I think our results improved more because of Gyo/Hamer stepping up - less so the team just doing better generically with O'Hare out of the team.

When he was fully fit, he was a key player for us. Given our injury record of the years (including that of his apparent replacement, Palmer), I definitely keep him on - if he signs a contract. He's going to be a couple of months away from performing at that level again - IMO anyway. 'If' he can perform like he did pre-injury, he's most definitely an asset to have.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

But after such an injury, I don't think someone is going throw a few million at him. Not in January anyway. I think our results improved more because of Gyo/Hamer stepping up - less so the team just doing better generically with O'Hare out of the team.

When he was fully fit, he was a key player for us. Given our injury record of the years (including that of his apparent replacement, Palmer), I definitely keep him on - if he signs a contract. He's going to be a couple of months away from performing at that level again - IMO anyway. 'If' he can perform like he did pre-injury, he's most definitely an asset to have.

Yeah, I do wonder if anyone would throw a few million at him too. If it is going to be a nominal fee there is certainly an argument to keep him and give him some time to get back up to speed properly. I do stand by my other points in general though.

 

[SBbucks]

2bf we won last time we went there

And won the league there, even if we didn’t know it at the time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[letsallsingtogether]

Tbf if that was all he did I'd agree with a poor rating, but he was our main goal threat all game regardless.

And proved it

 

[Johhny Blue]

T

That incident was against Hull when the ball was clearly over the goal line but the technology didn't work.

The ball didn’t cross the line in either incident

 

[Johhny Blue]

It's not new - surely the rule has always been "whole of the ball over the whole of the line"? We've just got lots of cameras and technology now to judge it.

(I think that was probably out of play last night though!)

Here’s a good still from our very own unseen video. Ball was definitely not out. It shows Lino had a good view too.

 

[Skyblueweeman]

Here’s a good still from our very own unseen video. Ball was definitely not out. It shows Lino had a good view too.

I normally like your posts JB but not sure if this one is tongue in cheek or not?!

It's a worse view of the situation and shows that the lino had a dreadful view as he appears directly behind the players - who would therefore have been obstructing his view!

 

[robbiethemole]

In the grand scheme of things, look in the record books to see if it was a goal or not.

 

[Johhny Blue]

Here’s a good still from our very own unseen video. Ball was definitely not out. It shows Lino had a good view too.

Ok I’ll concede that. I was looking at his positioning and maybe missed line of sight. Also see now that the video was posted earlier. I’m still convinced it was in play.

 

[Otis]

Former Premier league referee Chris Foy re that goal on Tuesday.

Foy said: "From the replays, we're able to see, the ball looks to have fully crossed the goal line. However, the judgement for the assistant referee, who is well-positioned, is made more difficult because the attacker and defender are in between him and the ball, undoubtedly obscuring his view.

We also know that cameras that are not directly in line can provide a misleading image in this type of situation; just because grass can be viewed between the line and the bottom of the ball does not necessarily mean the ball is fully out because the curvature of the ball means that the edge of it can be overhanging the line and therefore not fully out."

He does go on though to say he believes the goal shouldn't have stood.

 

[covcity4life]

I was in line with it - it was over the line and everyone was assuming it wouldn’t be allowed

The linesman was hopelessly poor all game

I don’t understand why fans desperately try and justify clearly awful decisions when they go for us and try and justify the other way round when they go against us - we’d be very angry if that was the other way round

Yup was just thinking this. Same fans that are ayIng it's in would be saying the refs hate us if other way round

They will just say football passion as their excuse for not being adults.

 

[Greggs]

Where are the usual array of greggs threads this week I wonder?

Mocking celebrities to enhance your post/like ratio is a bit pathetic.