Pre Match - Spurs (A) - Sat 17:30
- Thread starter Brizzle
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Agreed. There is no way that the VAR room thought a goal had been given. Every fan in the country watching the game saw the flag go up, no celebrations and a referral to VAR. There was only one game going on at the time, so every eye in that room was on this game.
Changes need to be made - someone said above that they need to give a declaration of the outcome of every VAR review. The lines normally say "onside" or "offside" and that is what was required here. I wonder if they have retrospectively drawn the lines to show that it was onside too, and why those haven't been shared.
Honestly, their explanation makes zero sense. Because anyone watching could see Diaz had stopped celebrating and the flag had gone up. Even in the VAR graphic it said "Checking - Disallowed goal." So they knew it was disallowed.
For me, it's either flagrant corruption (which I don't think it is, but now we must consider this because of the BS excuses), or they did not follow process and draw line and were only looking at the FB who Diaz was ahead of (although PGMOL claim they followed process), or they simply were not watching the game at all, and in the interest of speed just panicked and said "check complete" hoping they were right.
Also, what if after they've made the howler, the ref in the room said "who cares, Liverpool get enough decisions for them, anyway. Fuck Klopp."
Which is why I want to hear the entire audio, from minute 1 to 96.
We need complete transparency that every decision made in that game, was not made with any sort of bias.
😀😀
Pointless appealing (the Jones' red), I don't see how we can use an accidental follow through to override what could've been a leg breaking tackle. Keep hearing how "his foot rolled off the top of the ball", so? Holds 0 weight.
Intent, is part of it, no?
It's asking for common sense and descretion to be used, as it should have been, instead of using a contextless screenshot. It holds no weight because of stupid fucking attitudes like this.
I mean I've no idea how the appeal process works, I'd assume the FA would want us to collate a whole bunch of overriding evidence bullet pointing why it wasn't deemed worthy of a red & from the images I can't see how it's overturned. Whereas the Mac one every man and his dog could see from any image any angle, it was never a red.
I actually think the Virgil red was less worthy than Jones' because he's attempting to play the ball and it's in no way a dangerous tackle.
Right.......except I'm consistent in what I feel is a red or not.
I was calling for Skipp to get red carded on Diaz in that 4-3 despite Skipp getting the ball first.....it was late and he went studs up half on Diaz ankle and half on his leg. Nothing to do with attitudes.
We've moved on from the 80s where this was perfectly acceptable.
If the grounds of appeal are that it wasn't intentional, was an accident, and shouldn't be a red, it would confirm my suspicions that our legal representation are thick woke morons.
However, if the grounds of appeal are that it was a yellow, VAR intervened, and by inexplicably displaying the freeze frame for an inordinate amount of time, this was an improper act of decision making by the VAR official, and rendered the process unsafe, biased the perception of the referee, and should not stand as a matter of procedure, then, then I will retract my opinion and replace it with the henry gif.
However, if the grounds of appeal are that it was a yellow, VAR intervened, and by inexplicably displaying the freeze frame for an inordinate amount of time, this was an improper act of decision making by the VAR official, and rendered the process unsafe, biased the perception of the referee, and should not stand as a matter of procedure, then, then I will retract my opinion and replace it with the henry gif.
There are rules on whether incidents should be looked at in normal speed as opposed to slow motion/fixed image so the appeal is probably based on that.
It will come as no surprise at all that those rules are not very clear, so the Premier League will probably say it was fine in these circumstances and dismiss the appeal. They won’t want to be in the position where they have to admit that they robbed us of a perfectly good goal AND wrongly sent off one of our players.
It will come as no surprise at all that those rules are not very clear, so the Premier League will probably say it was fine in these circumstances and dismiss the appeal. They won’t want to be in the position where they have to admit that they robbed us of a perfectly good goal AND wrongly sent off one of our players.
Absolutely no issue at all with refs looking at slow motion or even a fixed image.....if you're looking at it in normal speed there's so much opportunity to miss key details.
Looking at the Jones incident, looking at that in slow motion would also help the ref spot the contact on the ball first......you might not see that in normal speed.
All this bollocks about "it always makes it look worst in slow motion", so? If there's nothing to see then it won't matter if it's viewed in slow motion or not.
Looking at the Jones incident, looking at that in slow motion would also help the ref spot the contact on the ball first......you might not see that in normal speed.
All this bollocks about "it always makes it look worst in slow motion", so? If there's nothing to see then it won't matter if it's viewed in slow motion or not.
Granted, but if there are rules (which there are) for types of incidents that should be checked in normal speed and types of incidents that should be checked in slow motion, and you can convince the powers that be that the incident you are appealing over was checked in the wrong speed then you win your appeal, don’t you?
As I said though, I’d be very surprised if we can convince the Premier League that this was the case.
We should refuse to pay.
Very difficult for them to reject that request.
Yeah, no shit Alan.
There are? So there are incidents where the ref isn't allowed to view in slow motion? Never known this to be a thing and it seems a silly rule if I'm honest, I automatically think they'll look at an incident in both before being left with a final freezed screenshot.
What examples have there been where the ref couldn't be checked in slow motion?
For some reason I thought the score was 1-1 and the Diaz goal would've put us 2-1 up.....well that was wrong.OK I'm just going to put this here - screen shot from the match, was it also shown on TV ? If it was ...
First question is : who was responsible for posting that graphic in the stadium?
That could well be legit but no I didn't see it live. From that angle it looks like it may've been taken from an away fan at the game?
Anyway that just shows a check is underway doesn't it? It doesn't say "check complete, decision: offside"
See below.
As I said, it is unclear, as you'd expect it to be.
I'm sure that the club would argue that dangerous play is an intensity question, and having a foot in that position isn't in itself dangerous, depending on the speed, power and circumstance.
I'm sure the referees will argue that it is a point of contact issue, and having a foot in that position is dangerous play regardless of speed, power and circumstance.
I'm sure the referees will win.
But my guess is that this is the basis of the appeal, that's all.
My issue is it says slow motion "should only be used" and then goes on to list about 6 fucking different examples all of which you see in everyday football.
You're missing the point.
If that image, and the one they showed on TV, is from a feed directly from VAR in Stockley Park, it tells you that they are checking for a "disallowed goal". I.e. They know the goal has been disallowed.
Otherwise, it would have read in that graphic... "Checking goal, possible offside."
They put up 2 different graphics, depending on what the onfield decision is.
So it's a very good question as to where/how those graphics, both on TV and in the stadium are produced.
Yes. But look at what it says ... checking for disallowed goal (offside) and then comes 'Check Over' meaning offside is confirmed. How can VAR have not seen that and in fact who put that up on the screen? In-house or Stockley Park?
- Status
Similar threads
