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.
Only a dozen?This forum was better when one person didn't operate about a dozen troll accounts.
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 passI 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.
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.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.
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
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.with respect you prove nothing by arguing a case for a VAR decision which is reliant on some groundsman's grass mowing.
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.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
The same operation that marks out the pitch….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.
no, it picks them all upI 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.
Hard not believe a conspiracy when there was a replica incident between Fulham and Liverpool on the same day and the goal was given.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.
you would get your life on the grass pattern being at a perfect 90 degrees from the touchlines?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.
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.The same operation that marks out the pitch….
Or do we think the lines are all out of kilter too?
I’m not betting my life though.you would get your life on the grass pattern being at a perfect 90 degrees from the touchlines?
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.
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.
I was saying the same to rob9872 only the other dayThis 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 isntThis 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
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
Personally I think we all need to calm down a bit. It's done now and nothing will change.
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.Okay, but it helps to let off Steam to vent one's feelings, speak one's mind, sound off and then move on
£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.How much money have we lost as a result of the conspiracy?
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.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.
Yeah - corruption in sport? Whatever next?I don't think there was any corruption, just incompetence.
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?