Couldn't think - June 2025 onwards

1…89101113

Comments

  • Ravel49Ravel49


  • IronHerbIronHerb
    Wimbledon 1 up after 3 minutes. 🤷‍♂️
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    It’s 3-0 currently. They’ve had 11 attempts and we’ve had 1. Completely outplayed as you’d expect at this level.
  • CleverTrevorCleverTrevor
    Just brought it back to 3-2 with 5 mins or so to go!
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    Ended 4-2
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    This article documents VAR mistakes so far this season yet no mention of the overhead kick that bought the players boot up to head height, with both feet off the ground and the player having no sight of their feet or opponent whilst attempting the kick.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cvgrx8ml7m0o
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    So you want to ban the most spectacular type of goal that can be scored?
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    edited January 13
    What I don't want is a rule that gets overlooked because it looks spectacular when someone breaks it.

    There would be no ban as it wouldn't be made illegal but the player would run the risk if trying it in a crowded environment where opposing players could compete for the ball. The attempt used against us effectively prevented Kilman competing for the ball without getting his head kicked off. I think had they applied the high boot rule it gets ruled out, but I think they allowed it because it looked good and that's not something you can base rules on.

    Nothing wrong with this one

  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    My guess is they thought Kilman rarely gets his head to the ball so the kick had no bearing on anything.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    claretndbluesky said:

    This article documents VAR mistakes so far this season yet no mention of the overhead kick that bought the players boot up to head height, with both feet off the ground and the player having no sight of their feet or opponent whilst attempting the kick.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cvgrx8ml7m0o

    It's not mentioned because they didn't see it as a VAR mistake.
    The article refers to the panel reviewing EVERY key incident, and the list they've produced is where VAR was in the wrong.

    I must say, I spend a pleasant 20 minutes reading that article this morning - very interesting.

  • alderzalderz
    Freddie Potts did an interview where he named his ideal 5 dinner party guests and he went for Donald Trump, Ricky Gervais, Elon Musk, Cristiano Ronaldo and Ed Sheeran. Maybe we should drop him.
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    Oh dear.
  • BubblesNeverDiesBubblesNeverDies
    alderz said:

    Freddie Potts did an interview where he named his ideal 5 dinner party guests and he went for Donald Trump, Ricky Gervais, Elon Musk, Cristiano Ronaldo and Ed Sheeran. Maybe we should drop him.

    Ed Sheeran 😱!! Just NO. =)
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    alderz said:

    Freddie Potts did an interview where he named his ideal 5 dinner party guests and he went for Donald Trump, Ricky Gervais, Elon Musk, Cristiano Ronaldo and Ed Sheeran. Maybe we should drop him.

    Dear oh dear..... however maybe he has a cunning plan to save the world which involves all those people being in the same room at the same time!
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    Ridiculous forensic offside decision in the Newcastle/city game thanks to VAR who spent 4 minutes looking at 0.001mm to give offside.
    How much better was the FA Cup without VAR.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    Your issue then is the definition of offside.

    Not VAR.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    Bernardo Silva is actually quite a dirty player, isn't he.
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    The choice is always very simple in we either want offside to be when it looks like offside to the officials or when it actually is offside using VAR.

    The trade in getting to that correct decision is the flow of play after a goal. I am always in favour of getting to the correct decision. I feel disappointed when we score and it's offside but I feel aggrieved when someone scores against us and it's offside but not given, prior to VAR.
  • FortuneseekerFortuneseeker
    Was it a clear & obvious error by Mr Kavanagh that needed VAR?
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    MrsGrey said:

    Bernardo Silva is actually quite a dirty player, isn't he.

    Always has been.
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    Fortuneseeker said:

    Was it a clear & obvious error by Mr Kavanagh that needed VAR?

    No. It was an offside call.
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    Mrs G. My issue is mainly with the law itself but also with the interpretation of the law as with our disallowed goal against Brighton.
    I also have an issue with VAR in that every time a goal is scored VAR gets involved looking for a way to disallow it no matter how long it takes. If it can’t be seen within say 30 seconds that it’s offside then the goal should stand. In the issue tonight it was clear that Harlaand was in an offside position, even though nobody appealed, because he was behind Pope with the only defender. VAR though spent minutes checking his heel with the defender’s heel frame by frame which was unnecessary
    It seems that the so called automatic offside technology is only of any use when everybody is running around.

    They use the clear and obvious error excuse in other circumstances so why not offside.

  • IronHerbIronHerb
    thornburyiron said:

    Ridiculous forensic offside decision in the Newcastle/city game thanks to VAR who spent 4 minutes looking at 0.001mm to give offside.
    How much better was the FA Cup without VAR.

    • The 5cm tolerance: The Premier League‘s 5cm tolerance level, which gives the benefit of the doubt to the attacker if the semi-automated lines overlap.
  • BubblesNeverDiesBubblesNeverDies
    edited January 14
    I think that the offside law needs some tweaking that takes into account the direction of movement of the player adjudged to be offside.
    Take for example Summerville's goal, disallowed because Taty was offside. At the moment the ball was passed/deflected to Taty, he was moving away from goal so would not have been gaining an advantage. If the video had been run on for a few more frames, I think it would have shown that Taty had run himself onside.
    I also found this which addresses the offside decision from a different the point of view.
    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTL9u6LiUne/

    Still angry over this.
  • FortuneseekerFortuneseeker
    It was micro managing a game of football.
  • CleverTrevorCleverTrevor
    So am I Bubbles! I’m not even sure the ball was played forward in which case it doesn’t matter if he was standing in an offside position!
  • alderzalderz
    CleverTrevor said:

    So am I Bubbles! I’m not even sure the ball was played forward in which case it doesn’t matter if he was standing in an offside position!

    I don't think that's accurate. The direction of the pass doesn't matter - if you pass it backwards and the player is offside they are still offside. The confusion there comes from where the offside player is. If the player is behind the ball when it's played, they can't be offside.
  • FortuneseekerFortuneseeker
    edited January 14
    Yes, a player in an offside position can be "played onside" if a defender makes a deliberate play on the ball, even if it's a failed attempt to intercept or clear it, effectively bringing the attacker back onside. This happens when a defender controls or attempts to control the ball, making a new phase of play, rather than just deflecting it. A player is also naturally onside if they are behind the ball when it's played, in their own half, or receive it directly from a throw-in, goal kick, or corner kick, according to The FA's Law 11.

    This is why Summervilles goal being disallowed was debatable?
    For what it's worth former top referees say the goal should have stood but Mr Harrington had a mare on the night and has continued to do so in more recent games he has officiated.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited January 14
    thornburyiron said:

    In the issue tonight it was clear that Harlaand was in an offside position, even though nobody appealed, because he was behind Pope with the only defender. VAR though spent minutes checking his heel with the defender’s heel frame by frame which was unnecessary
    It seems that the so called automatic offside technology is only of any use when everybody is running around.


    Just to add a bit more information (in case anyone hasn't read the coverage elsewhere).

    Normally the semi-automated offside equipment would have immediately have spotted the offside (as you say, thorn, it wasn't really in doubt). BUT the equipment wasn't working properly so they had to draw the lines in the old way - that's what took a lot of time.

    The actual contentious bit (and that's a judgement call) was whether the offside play was actively affecting the play (her, was he engaging with the defender to stop the defender attempting to defend...) And then that bit was an on-field review which added to the time.

    It seems to me that's fair enough. I don't think it would be fair to say that if the automated system isn't useable (for whatever reason) then they just won't bother checking offsides - that creates an un-level playing field within or between matches.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    Also, this made me laugh. And also O.o
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/14/west-midlands-police-chief-apologises-ai-error-maccabi-tel-aviv-ban

    West Ham v Maccabi Tel Aviv
Sign In or Register to comment.