The CableGuy
Well-Known Member
W-what??????? Seriously????
W-what??????? Seriously????Aren’t we getting it in the Champ too?
W-what??????? Seriously????
I thought someone said that but can find no evidence online. Stand down
Onana did (i think, but he was waving his arms around for anything)Yup Not a single man united player even appealed for off side.
I definitely want to see an explanation for thiswhere you can clearly see the line has been drawn over the boot..
I think that’s a really good point - the only player appealing was Onana and he is the least likely of all of the players to know/suspect an offside.Onana did (i think, but he was waving his arms around for anything)
What a total c*nt that guy is!
I definitely want to see an explanation for this
Did they show multiple angles and slow motion on the TV coverage to see if it was?
They hardly have a "not very good cameras" excuse in Wembley.
Not seen TV coverage so wouldn't know but from the stills and social media clips I've seen it looks very dodgy.
The thing is if they came out a explained maybe it would clear it up.
There's no accountability.
I have literally only seen that one still image with a line on.
Seen plenty of other angles and views where it looks clearly onside but were they even looked at?
This just doesn't work and at whatever level you think is 'clear and obvious' the ambiguity just moves there. If you say 'daylight' or 'its done on feet' the ambiguity over tiny millimeters will still be exactly the same, just at a different line. What is the definition of clear and obvious? The issue is, football has so many grey areas. There can be a tackle that 60% of fans would agree is a foul and 40% disagree. The 40% will just moan that VAR is still bad etc etc. It works for if the ball has crossed a goal line because that is factual and scientific. 90% of football decisions aren't factual and scientific. Offside, ironically is one of the few that could be if they used more advanced cameras and technology than they currently use.Nope.
It's been utilised incorrectly.
Use it for obvious errors. We can now tell if a ball crossed the line or not. We can use it to see if a foul was made in the area, or whether it occurred outside. We can see if a bad tackle was actually worse than it first appeared, or whether a player actually made a good tackle. We can now see if a goalkeeper steps off his line for a penalty. It can work well for many things
If someone is clearly offside and it's missed, use it for that, but when you look at a still and players look like they are almost side by side, it should immediately go back to the on-field decision and not palmed all over for 2-3 mins.
VAR could be very useful.
It's the fact O'Hare scoops the ball rather than kicks it that muddies the water for me. At what point do you draw the lines? The foot is in contact with the ball longer.
So if O'Hare scooped the ball onto his foot, stood on one leg controlling the ball for 5 seconds, then flicked it on it would count from the start of the 5 seconds when he is static with the ball on his foot?It's supposed to be when the foot first touches the ball I believe.
It's supposed to be when the foot first touches the ball I believe.
It’s when the ball is releasedIt's the fact O'Hare scoops the ball rather than kicks it that muddies the water for me. At what point do you draw the lines? The foot is in contact with the ball longer.
NahIt's supposed to be when the foot first touches the ball I believe.
Ifab laws of the game refers to playing the ball but not what this constitutes
I read that it can’t mean what it says. Which touch. What deems it’s been played and when?
Or the foul on Ohare leading up to our disallowed goalHas anyone looked at /analysed the potential offside leading to the corner Mcguire scored from?
True that’s when you come to the Otis manual umpires call.The issue is not VAR. It's about human interpretation of the rules, and that will always be subject to dispute. As long as we believe that the officials and adjudicators are not corrupt (and I don't think they are), we need to accept the decisions.
People say that offside by the length of a toenail shouldn't matter, so do we go to the length of a toe, or a foot, or 50 centimeters or whatever? And then what happens if it's judged to be 51cm or 49cm?
There will always be arguments, VAR or not
I'd love them to admit to a mistake offer us a replay and we say get fuckedTrue that’s when you come to the Otis manual umpires call.
Would like to hear the audio too and definitely clarify what constitutes the ball being played to see if the correct frame was used
And if they messed up an apology and a separate claim should be paid for lost revenue
The issue is not VAR. It's about human interpretation of the rules, and that will always be subject to dispute. As long as we believe that the officials and adjudicators are not corrupt (and I don't think they are), we need to accept the decisions.
People say that offside by the length of a toenail shouldn't matter, so do we go to the length of a toe, or a foot, or 50 centimeters or whatever? And then what happens if it's judged to be 51cm or 49cm?
There will always be arguments, VAR or not
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?