Peter Bankes needs investigating (4 Viewers)

[ajsccfc]

This forum was better when one person didn't operate about a dozen troll accounts.

 

---

[napolimp]

I think we all know that any frozen frame is a going to cause some errors, the frame before or the frame after will given different conclusions and that is also allowing for you to judge when the ball has left the boot to get those two precise frames.
People cite cricket, look at how hard it is to see the ball being caught in the slips with the distortion and deception of angle so that's the same for picking the exact frame when the ball leaves the foot, that could be one of about 5-6 frames that creates a real potential inaccuracy on such tight decisions.
You cannot create a system that says, its ok, its so close that its fine, its about defining the right tolerances for percentage accuracy and the frames before and after the selected one - but then people want an answer in 30 seconds and that's not possible.

Semi automated next year will be interesting, I am assuming it picks up the easy ones and these types have an intervention of human review.

I thought one things which was interesting, maybe in contrast to other offside incidents, is that Wan-Bissaka was running back towards goal - not stepping up - whilst Wright appeared to be taking a step back towards his own half. So it's possible that in a frame-by frame analysis Wright was actually offside when the ball was still touching the boot, but then onside when it had just left the boot - which would be the opposite of what you would expect. Whilst most of the time as the attacking team you would likely want the offside decision made at the earliest possible moment, in this case we would have benefitted from the rule being - once the ball has left the body.

I noticed Simms didn't celebrate straight away, he stopped and looked round to the linesman. I think he was watching the play and thought it was offside.

 

[Otis]

This forum was better when one person didn't operate about a dozen troll accounts.

Only a dozen?

 

[Mild-Mannered Janitor]

I thought one things which was interesting, maybe in contrast to other offside incidents, is that Wan-Bissaka was running back towards goal - not stepping up - whilst Wright appeared to be taking a step back towards his own half. So it's possible that in a frame-by frame analysis Wright was actually offside when the ball was still touching the boot, but then onside when it had just left the boot - which would be the opposite of what you would expect. Whilst most of the time as the attacking team you would likely want the offside decision made at the earliest possible moment, in this case we would have benefitted from the rule being - once the ball has left the body.

I noticed Simms didn't celebrate straight away, he stopped and looked round to the linesman. I think he was watching the play and thought it was offside.

agree with you, thats my point on the two/three frames they could choose from and the difficulty faced. Its why the video from the fans in the stands makes Wright look massively onside as they were running in weirdly opposite directions and takes a second to follow the ball post O'Hare pass

 

[messiahrobins]

I guess whatever the losing finalist gets? £1m.

If we've lost money as a 'conspiracy', we should complain.

But as we've lost to potential ineptitude, there's nothing we can do.

Look, 99% of fans think we've been robbed. It is what it is - nothings going to charge. They might release the audio or might issue some sort of 'we're sorry' (they won't) but nothing is going to change.

Let it go, move on.

The only positive is it saved us from a hammering by Man City, as if we had played like the first half against man City in the final we would have been 6-0 down at HT as giving the ball away as often as were doing against man City is suicide.

 

[shmmeee]

Have never understood why if you’re onside when you collect the ball that doesn’t count as onside TBH. Where’s the advantage gained?

 

[SIR ERNIE]

Let’s go through this very slowly…..

The red lines are drawn parallel to the grass mowing lines. The assumption here is that the groundsman has mowed close to parallel to the goal lines or perpendicular to the sidelines. Not too much a stretch given it’s the national stadium and the ground staff are very good at their job.

These two red lines intersect at the vanishing point for the photo. They will grow wider as you approach closer to the location of the camera. That’s called perspective


You can now draw a line from the vanishing point to each of the players feet.

Blue for Wight. Yellow for Bassako.

This eliminates any error for parallax etc.

The only minor error here is that bassako’s shoulder is ever so slightly forward of his foot. I did a quick check and it’s about halfway between the yellow and blue.

So still offside…..

Now don’t get me wrong. I wished it was onside but it technically isn’t.

Now we get into the debate of margins of error, use of VAR and the offside rule itself. And in that point according the spirit of the game this goal should have stood.
View attachment 35307

with respect you prove nothing by arguing a case for a VAR decision which is reliant on some groundsman's grass mowing.

 

[Jim]

with respect you prove nothing by arguing a case for a VAR decision which is reliant on some groundsman's grass mowing.

The point was to show that the earlier claim of Wright being a foot onside was clearly nonsense. The mow lines would have to be way out for that to be true.

And let’s not forget these same ground men are also marking out the pitch lines.

The result I gained is virtually identical to the images from the VAR and therefore is a sound conclusion and I stated the assumption I had made.

Is there a small margin for error? Yes.

Does it nullify my point? No

 

[steve cooper]

Let’s go through this very slowly…..

The red lines are drawn parallel to the grass mowing lines. The assumption here is that the groundsman has mowed close to parallel to the goal lines or perpendicular to the sidelines. Not too much a stretch given it’s the national stadium and the ground staff are very good at their job.

These two red lines intersect at the vanishing point for the photo. They will grow wider as you approach closer to the location of the camera. That’s called perspective


You can now draw a line from the vanishing point to each of the players feet.

Blue for Wight. Yellow for Bassako.

This eliminates any error for parallax etc.

The only minor error here is that bassako’s shoulder is ever so slightly forward of his foot. I did a quick check and it’s about halfway between the yellow and blue.

So still offside…..

Now don’t get me wrong. I wished it was onside but it technically isn’t.

Now we get into the debate of margins of error, use of VAR and the offside rule itself. And in that point according the spirit of the game this goal should have stood.
View attachment 35307

I don't believe it was a conspiracy, but unless I'm mistaken your argument relies heavily on the accuracy of a grass cutting operation.

 

[Jim]

I don't believe it was a conspiracy, but unless I'm mistaken your argument relies heavily on the accuracy of a grass cutting operation.

The same operation that marks out the pitch….

Or do we think the lines are all out of kilter too?

 

[Jim]

I’ll also add - take a look at any photo of the Wembley pitch over the years.

The accuracy of the grass pattern is spot on.

 

[David O'Day]

I think we all know that any frozen frame is a going to cause some errors, the frame before or the frame after will given different conclusions and that is also allowing for you to judge when the ball has left the boot to get those two precise frames.
People cite cricket, look at how hard it is to see the ball being caught in the slips with the distortion and deception of angle so that's the same for picking the exact frame when the ball leaves the foot, that could be one of about 5-6 frames that creates a real potential inaccuracy on such tight decisions.
You cannot create a system that says, its ok, its so close that its fine, its about defining the right tolerances for percentage accuracy and the frames before and after the selected one - but then people want an answer in 30 seconds and that's not possible.

Semi automated next year will be interesting, I am assuming it picks up the easy ones and these types have an intervention of human review.

no, it picks them all up

the lines on a picture human interventions will only be used if and when the semi automated tech fails

 

[messiahrobins]

I don't believe it was a conspiracy, but unless I'm mistaken your argument relies heavily on the accuracy of a grass cutting operation.

Hard not believe a conspiracy when there was a replica incident between Fulham and Liverpool on the same day and the goal was given.

 

[David O'Day]

I’ll also add - take a look at any photo of the Wembley pitch over the years.

The accuracy of the grass pattern is spot on.

you would get your life on the grass pattern being at a perfect 90 degrees from the touchlines?

 

[steve cooper]

The same operation that marks out the pitch….

Or do we think the lines are all out of kilter too?

No, and I have no argument that the decision stands. However coming from a measurement & control engineering background I have a big problem with measurement which uses unsubstantiated data.

 

[Jim]

you would get your life on the grass pattern being at a perfect 90 degrees from the touchlines?

I’m not betting my life though.

I’m proving that messiahs claim of a foot onside is nonsense.

For that to not be true the pitch would have to look like it was mowed by a child on a sugar high.

 

[napolimp]

No, and I have no argument that the decision stands. However coming from a measurement & control engineering background I have a big problem with measurement which uses unsubstantiated data.

Clear the room, the measurement & control engineering background card has been played.

 

[Jim]

No, and I have no argument that the decision stands. However coming from a measurement & control engineering background I have a big problem with measurement which uses unsubstantiated data.

Now if I were trying to generate an accurate measure to the nearest centimetre that would be a perfect point.

I’m not though. I’m trying to show that messiahs claim of a foot onside is clearly incorrect and therefore the assumption and the margin of error created by that assumption is perfectly acceptable in this case.

 

[steve cooper]

Personally I think we all need to calm down a bit. It's done now and nothing will change.

 

[SIR ERNIE]

no one will ever convince me that if that was Man U scoring that last minute goal, some twat looking at a monitor would have disallowed it.

 

[rob9872]

This forum was better when one person didn't operate about a dozen troll accounts.

I was saying the same to rob9872 only the other day

 

[covcity4life]

This forum was better when one person didn't operate about a dozen troll accounts.

Sure it could be clamped down upon . Not sure why it isnt

 

[Legia Sky Blue]

I find it hard to believe the VAR guys were wilfully biased, but I can definitely see them being subconsciously biased in favour of the 'big' team and that if Man U had scored the same goal it wouldn't have been overturned.

Also seen a lot of justification for the neutrality of the officials by them not overturning the penalty decision, but for me their players arm was outstretched beyond his body and was therefore correctly given. I also think a penalty should have been given against Grealish in the other semi for handball.

 

[Liquid Gold]

Sure it could be clamped down upon . Not sure why it isnt

There must be an increase in traffic along with the fanbase increasing. Should increase the number of moderators alongside it.

 

[COVKIDSNEVERQUIT]

The penalty was a little iffy let’s be honest but my fucking god did we get it levelled back out. Time to move on and hold our heads high - this isn’t the soul crushing defeat Luton was. That game will attract us to many new players and maybe even investors who knows

The difference is, the referee gives the penalty and VAR doesn't over turn it, meaning MU are not OUT of the FA Cup.

Referee and linesman GIVES the TORP goal but gets overruled as offside by VAR, meaning MU would have been OUT of the FA Cup.

 

[COVKIDSNEVERQUIT]

Personally I think we all need to calm down a bit. It's done now and nothing will change.

Okay, but it helps to let off Steam to vent one's feelings, speak one's mind, sound off and then move on

 

[blunted]

Top clubs have been getting all the major decisions for years. VAR just reinforces that same trend. Fergie time and the old joke that Liverpool had added time until they scored. Occasionally it works the other way when small clubs seem to get decisions in the cup.
The Prem have now closed another avenue of revenue for small clubs by stopping replays.
European competitions keep expanding whilst national involvement shrinks.
Revenue from fans become less significant and TV money is king. Rich owners distort the game as good players from lower teams are cherry picked.
Fans of winning clubs become diluted by the plastics and you end up with Man U. When they used to come to Highfield Rd, they were some of the loudest and engaged fans. Not anymore.
The media need to take a hard look at themselves. The same saddos who are only interested in the top clubs. In the press before the semi final, endless pages about Man U and an odd article about MR being the best manager who played for Fergie.

 

[steve cooper]

Okay, but it helps to let off Steam to vent one's feelings, speak one's mind, sound off and then move on

I agree with that but you have to choose your battles, we won the public opinion, but we don't want to be seen as a bunch of bitter poor losers. Cue Forest. Our time will come.

 

[blunted]

How much money have we lost as a result of the conspiracy?

£500k for winning the semi, £1 million for losing the final or £2 million if we won ( I think). Add TV money and merchandise and massive gates until the end of season. A few bob then. A lot for us, Sweet FA for the Manc clubs.

 

[blunted]

Shit, can somebody tell me which pill to take to see the truth.

 

[David O'Day]

the major is the tech used isn't good enough for the job required

only way around it would of been to have a "referees decision" margin like they have with "umpires call" in cricket

 

[oscillatewildly]

Don't do this to yourself. In my opinion the decision was wrong but this guy was just doing his job. In my view it is the offside rule itself that is to blame. He has applied it and come up with an answer that is not in the spirit of the game but... it is what it is. Rough justice is part of football.

End of the day winning the cup was a big ask. What is important here is what we take from it. We've gone out with our heads held high. If we smash hull and sneak playoffs, or if we go up next season, we will look back at this as just another step on our journey that showed where we belong.

Winning the cup's an even bigger ask from the position we find ourselves in as a result but that's OK, I'm sure everybody is laughing about the incident now.
'Just doing his job'

 

[oscillatewildly]

I don't think there was any corruption, just incompetence.

Yeah - corruption in sport? Whatever next?

 

[shepardo01]

Not sure if it has been mentioned, but Banks was the man in the middle for our home game Vs West Brom this season.... Which prompted a letter of apology about his performance!....

 

[robbiethemole]

The difference with cricket is the camera is facing directly down the pitch, enabling a true line of flight of the ball, the only way to be sure if Haji was onside would be to have a camera directly at 90 degrees to the pitch. Obviously that will never be the case, but maybe a 'flying eye' style one might have kept up with pace with the game, and given a birdseye view over the pitch