Other games, 17/18/19 October

Liverpool 1-0 up after 2 minutes but Van Dijk is coming off after a horrible challenge from Pickford
«13

Comments

  • Reckless challenge by Pickford but gets away with it scot free as VVVD was offside. Why should the offside matter? Reckless is reckless.
  • edited October 2020
    1-1, Adrian doesn't look confident.


    The collar on the Liverpool shirt makes it look like they've put it on back-to-front
  • We all know Adrian will play a blinder against us
  • MIAHammer said:

    Reckless challenge by Pickford but gets away with it scot free as VVVD was offside. Why should the offside matter? Reckless is reckless.

    Commentators have just said the same thing.
  • A lot of bbc contributors are (in some cases) labelling Adrian as one of the Worst ever in the PL

    Wow.
  • Did the BBC not see any of our games last season With him who shell remain nameless =)
  • Liverpool needed a CB and didn't get one. Sound familiar?
  • And also do people forget how Adrian started when he first arrived at Liverpool?
  • A lot of bbc contributors are (in some cases) labelling Adrian as one of the Worst ever in the PL

    Wow.

    Did they not watch Roberto?
  • He wasn't at fault today so not sure what they're on about. I'd be nervous behind that defence. 😂
  • I mean....Adrian is a legend....

    but the fact that he was rotated with Jussi, Hart, Randolph as our #1 and then clearly replaced by Fabianski shows that he wasn't probably good enough (for the level Liverpool compete at)
  • I don't get that VAR decision ruling out the 3rd Liverpool goal, but I'll take it.
  • Yea its Liverpool....they've had their fair share of luck with VAR
  • So can you know elbow the ball over the line because that's been measured from his elbow. They don't know........
  • And Tomori is not good enough to get into that Chelsea line up?....
  • https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11669/12106875/liverpool-ask-premier-league-to-investigate-var-decisions-during-draw-at-everton

    Really beginning to hate Liverpool..... don't get me wrong I thought the VAR decisions were wrong....but they are so entitled that they are going to complain when they probably benefit more from VAR than any team since its introductions

    Imagine if every team did this after every bad VAR call

    And you just know that they are the only team that will likely be listened to, whereas if we'd complain they would just chuck our complaint in the bin

    Between that and the recent power play with United (another of VARs biggest benefactors).....getting sick of them

    Don't wish injury on anyone....but is be very very happy if VVD isn't fit for our game, Antonio would bully Gomez
  • I think they are entitled to ask the question, because I have yet to see any definitive proof that the goal yesterday was offside. So they are entitled to seek an explanation to why it was offside. The only part of Mane I could see that was offside was his hand, & that doesn’t count anyway.
  • I think the thing that triggered their asking the PL to look into it was that because VVD was deemed to be offside the Pickford assault wasn’t even looked at. He could have been really seriously injured and no action would have been taken.
  • It’s also being reported he is out for months.
  • I don't like Liverpool but to be fair VAR was harsh and I'm amazed that Pickford didn't get a red card
  • I think decisions like the offside and the Pickford tackle should be questioned. VAR for the offside showed no evidence that was clear. Pickford tackle was shocking, and anywhere else on the pitch it would be a sending off.
    For me it is irrelevant which teams are involved, except for the fact that the likes of Liverpool/Man Utd are voices that are more likely to be heard and listened to.
  • For those with a technical curiosity, this may be of interest https://football-technology.fifa.com/media/172168/handbook-of-test-methods-for-var-systems.pdf .

    The Premier League show this on their web-site; https://www.premierleague.com/news/1488423 . So they use 5 cameras for VAR running at 50 Frames per second. This is double the speed BT Sport is currently broadcast at and the same as Sky Sports main event.

    So VAR gives the referee double the number of frames seen by any viewer on BT Sport.

    If you are viewing on a mobile device, the BT App streams in 720p resolution - that makes it 44% of the size seen on a 1080p TV - bear in mind the cameras used are 1080p, so 4K TV will not give a more accurate result as their images are scaled up by the TV.

    What I'm getting at here, is that the images we see on the TV screen are not the same as those seen by the Referees, who have more detail than is sent to the broadcasters. So whilst we may not see why the offside is given, we are not seeing what the referee sees.

    This clearly does not explain the ridiculous decision made on Pickford's assault on VVD, but hopefully helps a bit regarding offsides.

  • Fair enough Dodger but I think it it requires that amount of detail then a player can’t adjust for it in play. We shouldn’t be forcing players to change how they play, which is the direction we’re going in, where they will end up holding runs far more to ensure they’re not off by an armpit hair.

    I also think that 50fps relates to the moving image. Once he the frame is frozen, we’re all seeing the same thing.
  • Outcast for offside you either are or are not, so if they are using VAR they have to give it if offside. I don’t like it, but it is what the football authorities decided to do.

    The 50 FPS v 25 FPS means that the Referees see twice as many frames than we see on the TV. We are not seeing the same image as they see. Dependent on what service we subscribe to we are seeing half the frames at half the resolution- so a quarter of the information.

    I know for Cricket the broadcasters also do not have access to the full Hawkeye information, whether the Football broadcasters do or not, I don’t know, but suspect they don’t.
  • I’m not sure the FPS is relevant because what they’re showing when they show us the paused image is what the VAR team is seeing, not the image we were seeing. That’s why we see all those lines they’re drawing. It’s the same frame. I’m pretty sure broadcasters have access to 50 FPS otherwise they wouldn’t be able to do slow-motion, I think. 25fps doesn’t slow down well. Happy to be corrected but I’m pretty sure it’s not relevant.

    And even then it still shows a terrible misuse of this technology. It is clear interference with the game. The point of offside is not about an absolute “you are offside or not” but whether advantages are gained. Once it becomes impossible for players to know whether they’re gaining advantages, for not just the human eye but ordinary broadcasting tech to capture it, then it has gone too far.
  • I agree about the misuse, but surely Mane was 'gaining an advantage', deliberately or not, if he was offside at the instant the ball was passed to him. Offside is one of the few things that technology can prove, even if it is only millimetres as you either are or you are not. It is down to the officials to determine whether the player was 'interfering with play', clearly Mane had to be in this instance.

    The frame rate issue is actually not so much for the TV or viewer we have, but very relevant for the cameras capturing the action. Technology exists to allow you to smooth the images shown on TV, whether normal speed or slow motion, the higher the camera frame rate the more accurate the image.

    Whilst the VAR officials are drawing their lines on the images they see, these are then reformatted and provided to the broadcasters who adjust the size (and frame rate) to the service (and viewer) they are providing. It is in this reformatting that the real difference between what we see and the VAR official sees comes in.
  • edited October 2020
    Yes my point about frame rates is they are about what is captured, not so much what we see. The reformatting of images might be relevant.

    So Mane wouldn’t have had an advantage if he stood 1cm further back? That’s not the spirit of the rule for me. The technicalities of the rule always change but the spirit of it, the purpose for it existing, is meant to be preserved. This is soul-sucking.
  • I quite liked Wenger’s suggestion where if any part of the body is inside you should be considered onside rather than the other way around.
  • Yes my point about frame rates is they are about what is captured, not so much what we see. The reformatting of images might be relevant.

    So Mane wouldn’t have had an advantage if he stood 1cm further back? That’s not the spirit of the rule for me. The technicalities of the rule always change but the spirit of it, the purpose for it existing, is meant to be preserved. This is soul-sucking.

    I don’t see how Mane had a greater advantage than Gabriel Jesus has had for the majority of his City goals, standing yards offside and then being free in the second phase
  • alderz said:

    I quite liked Wenger’s suggestion where if any part of the body is inside you should be considered onside rather than the other way around.

    Don't personally agree

    Imo it should be indicative of the foot position, especially as footballer often have chips in their boots

    If an attacker is making a run they are leaning forward so their upper body can be offside despite the fact their run started in an onside position

    Gives an advantage to the attacker but not too much that defender will be exposed too badly which i think Wengers suggestion would result in and would be exploited by attackers
Sign In or Register to comment.