You are aware that the line you're talking about was just the indicative one sent for presentation on the TV?Do you think it was offside? As in our winner vs United to be clear?
Also, take into account the line over Wan-Bisakkas boot?
You are aware that the line you're talking about was just the indicative one sent for presentation on the TV?
The VAR guys got it absolutely right, and Haji was offside regardless of whether you take the moment COH touches the ball, or the moments just before and after. On another thread a few days after the game, I drew lines myself on images from the opposite side of the pitch, and it's crystal clear.
No need for batshit conspiracy theories or even accusations of incompetence. The only argument is whether VAR should be so pernickety. Personally I think there should be more leeway for the attacker, but under the current rules they did their job right.
Anyway feel free to believe we actually won the game, and let it keep chewing you up for the rest of your days. It's strangely popular on here.
Don't worry - We dodged it.Not sure what you mean sorry?
You are aware that the line you're talking about was just the indicative one sent for presentation on the TV?
The VAR guys got it absolutely right, and Haji was offside regardless of whether you take the moment COH touches the ball, or the moments just before and after. On another thread a few days after the game, I drew lines myself on images from the opposite side of the pitch, and it's crystal clear.
No need for batshit conspiracy theories or even accusations of incompetence. The only argument is whether VAR should be so pernickety. Personally I think there should be more leeway for the attacker, but under the current rules they did their job right.
Anyway feel free to believe we actually won the game, and let it keep chewing you up for the rest of your days. It's strangely popular on here.
OK, the pics are numbered in order. Each set of parallel lines go to a common point, which is the effect of perspective. Unfortunately under the current (over-fussy) rules it's pretty clear to me, so I don't feel aggrieved. It was bad timing and very bad luck.Upload your lines then?
OK, the pics are numbered in order. Each set of parallel lines go to a common point, which is the effect of perspective. Unfortunately under the current (over-fussy) rules it's pretty clear to me, so I don't feel aggrieved. It was bad timing and very bad luck.
Draw some different lines (= alternative facts) if you want, to make him onside at the crucial moment.
View attachment 35824
I posted the pics a few weeks ago and it made no difference to people who believe we were robbed. I am sure in 50 years' time there will still be those who say we won the match.
If you think Haji is onside in pics 3 and 4, fair enough.
That’s because they are far from conclusive. The margins are too fine and could easily have gone our way but them in charge didn’t want that at all….we were done over !I posted the pics a few weeks ago and it made no difference to people who believe we were robbed. I am sure in 50 years' time there will still be those who say we won the match.
If you think Haji is onside in pics 3 and 4, fair enough.
All very good apart from the fact that your lines are based on the turf stripes.OK, the pics are numbered in order. Each set of parallel lines go to a common point, which is the effect of perspective. Unfortunately under the current (over-fussy) rules it's pretty clear to me, so I don't feel aggrieved. It was bad timing and very bad luck.
Draw some different lines (= alternative facts) if you want, to make him onside at the crucial moment.
View attachment 35824
Those are brilliantOK, the pics are numbered in order. Each set of parallel lines go to a common point, which is the effect of perspective. Unfortunately under the current (over-fussy) rules it's pretty clear to me, so I don't feel aggrieved. It was bad timing and very bad luck.
Draw some different lines (= alternative facts) if you want, to make him onside at the crucial moment.
View attachment 35824
Was it more than 10cm offside? That is supposedly the "margin of error" they allow knowing that the technology isn't fit for purpose.I posted the pics a few weeks ago and it made no difference to people who believe we were robbed. I am sure in 50 years' time there will still be those who say we won the match.
If you think Haji is onside in pics 3 and 4, fair enough.
It’s understandable, I doubt anyone on here wasn’t but for your own sanity you need to let it go. Just be glad we got away with some dubious decisions away at Notts County.Upload your lines then?
Sorry, was genuinely heartbroken and couldn't even over analyse the decision til recently.
…this is why it needs binning off with only goal line technology used.Was it more than 10cm offside? That is supposedly the "margin of error" they allow knowing that the technology isn't fit for purpose.
Thinking overturning the decision was stupid because it didn't allow for a margin of error is fine.That’s because they are far from conclusive. The margins are too fine and could easily have gone our way but them in charge didn’t want that at all….we were done over !
I’d like to bet if that was in the 10th minute of the game the goal would have stood. At 120th plus 1 there was no way back for the super rich. It had to be stopped!
Exactly, it's a nonsense.…this is why it needs binning off with only goal line technology used.
Yes it looks it, perhaps twice that amount. In truth I can't tell to that degree of accuracy, but unless you subscribe to the idea that a whole bunch of officials conspired to break the rules, I think it the simplest explanation is that they got it right.Was it more than 10cm offside? That is supposedly the "margin of error" they allow knowing that the technology isn't fit for purpose.
OKThat’s because they are far from conclusive. The margins are too fine and could easily have gone our way but them in charge didn’t want that at all….we were done over !
I’d like to bet if that was in the 10th minute of the game the goal would have stood. At 120th plus 1 there was no way back for the super rich. It had to be stopped!
This.Thinking overturning the decision was stupid because it didn't allow for a margin of error is fine.
Thinking it's fucking stupid to take decisions down to such finite levels and to think that players are functionally level is fine.
Thinking it's abysmal planning to have a competition with different metrics depending on which ground a game is played at is fine.
Thinking it would have been a different decision at the other end or against different opposition is batshit fucking mental.
This is making our fanbase look silly now. Yes, it was a shit decision, but shit because the tech is applied badly, not because game officials are corrupt.
"Corrupt" is so much more salivating though isn't it.Thinking overturning the decision was stupid because it didn't allow for a margin of error is fine.
Thinking it's fucking stupid to take decisions down to such finite levels and to think that players are functionally level is fine.
Thinking it's abysmal planning to have a competition with different metrics depending on which ground a game is played at is fine.
Thinking it would have been a different decision at the other end or against different opposition is batshit fucking mental.
This is making our fanbase look silly now. Yes, it was a shit decision, but shit because the tech is applied badly, not because game officials are corrupt.
Seen that said a few times but it isn't true. The protocol is they are told to keep the flag down until the passage of play ends & then give their decision. The linesman thought it was onside (and the 4th official agreed after he viewed it).VAR didn’t overrule the initial decision either. If it’s close - linesmen are told to keep their flag down and use VAR. it’s easier to disallow than the alternative. See Bayern v Real Madrid.
Wright was offside - millimetres, if he’d have hung back 0.5 of a second we’d be in the final. Just unfortunate.
If there was any conspiracy - we wouldn’t have got the penalty at the end of the 90 mins. That was harsh in itself
No, I don't prescribe to any corruption claims, just competence, human error & a technology that they know isn't accurate being used to make millimetre precise decisions.Yes it looks it, perhaps twice that amount. In truth I can't tell to that degree of accuracy, but unless you subscribe to the idea that a whole bunch of officials conspired to break the rules, I think it the simplest explanation is that they got it right.
As I've said a few times, I agree about 'clear and obvious', and they should give more leeway to the attacker. But we are talking about whether they applied the existing rules correctly, and they did. The timing of Haji sticking his left foot out was desperately unlucky.All very good apart from the fact that your lines are based on the turf stripes.
An argument that relies on how straight Alf Higgins can drive his mower over 7,000 sqm of grass doesn't convince me.
Given that the onfield officials were happy, I'll always believe that the 'clear and obvious error' rule should have applied here.
I agree that's strange, and that's actually why I bothered to do my own lines using the mobile pictures from the opposite angle. People can dispute them if they want, but it seems crystal clear to me. There's a website called 'football offsides' which looks at decisions, again drawing perspective lines, and they quickly confirmed the Haji decision was correct (they don't always).The thing that has never been explained is why the line goes through Wan-Bissaka's boot?
If there truly was a conspiracy, VAR would have overturned the penalty after it was checked.That’s because they are far from conclusive. The margins are too fine and could easily have gone our way but them in charge didn’t want that at all….we were done over !
I’d like to bet if that was in the 10th minute of the game the goal would have stood. At 120th plus 1 there was no way back for the super rich. It had to be stopped!
Isn't it the blue bit ends with his toe, and then Wright's big toe extends into the red; which is how they say it was off.The thing that has never been explained is why the line goes through Wan-Bissaka's boot?
i think that's it in a nutshell.I agree that's strange, and that's actually why I bothered to do my own lines using the mobile pictures from the opposite angle. People can dispute them if they want, but it seems crystal clear to me. There's a website called 'football offsides' which looks at decisions, again drawing perspective lines, and they quickly confirmed the Haji decision was correct (they don't always).
The lines they show on TV are just indicative, and in this case they have caused a lot of unnecessary confusion IMO.
And are the grass stripes at right angles to the touchline?All very good apart from the fact that your lines are based on the turf stripes.
An argument that relies on how straight Alf Higgins can drive his mower over 7,000 sqm of grass doesn't convince me.
Given that the onfield officials were happy, I'll always believe that the 'clear and obvious error' rule should have applied here.
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?