By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
The offside could have been in the first half and they would still have scrolled back to it and chalked the goal off. The cup isn't for the clubs as it should be; it is now a cash cow for the FA, so called because that's what they do for football.
1
Manchester United given a helping hand to the final, now there’s a surprise. on 07:56 - Apr 22 with 1302 views
Manchester United given a helping hand to the final, now there’s a surprise. on 07:23 - Apr 22 by mushinexile
The offside could have been in the first half and they would still have scrolled back to it and chalked the goal off. The cup isn't for the clubs as it should be; it is now a cash cow for the FA, so called because that's what they do for football.
It looked a ridiculously tight call. Feel really for Coventry as that was some come back
Underdogs never get the benefit of the doubt. I wonder why?. I really felt for Coventry yesterday. How many times have the so called big clubs been given game changing decisions late in the game. How can you be offside by a "toenail" it's corrupt. I've always believed that when you combine sport with gambling you'll get corruption.
1
Manchester United given a helping hand to the final, now there’s a surprise. on 09:04 - Apr 22 with 1214 views
Manchester United given a helping hand to the final, now there’s a surprise. on 08:52 - Apr 22 by GRIM
Underdogs never get the benefit of the doubt. I wonder why?. I really felt for Coventry yesterday. How many times have the so called big clubs been given game changing decisions late in the game. How can you be offside by a "toenail" it's corrupt. I've always believed that when you combine sport with gambling you'll get corruption.
The angle was wrong and the ball hadnt left the passers foot so in my opinion they to the still too early . 0.1 of a second after he was on side .
So by that reckoning ,it looks like they found the end of his toe nail offside to cancel the goal . Its just corrupt
No team outside the big lot will ever be allowed to win anything especially in this var era .
Please eff off to the superleague and take var with you .
keep the faith coyr
1
Manchester United given a helping hand to the final, now there’s a surprise. on 11:02 - Apr 22 with 1111 views
VAR-Clear and Obvious, when everyone knows it is applied to decisions that are so tight that milliseconds before or after, the outcome would be different. Someone has to decide when the ball is kicked, and that is down to the VAR team.
0
Manchester United given a helping hand to the final, now there’s a surprise. on 11:02 - Apr 22 with 1111 views
Is VAR accurate to an inch? I've never seen any proof that it is and I doubt that it has ever been done. But that is what it would have to be to over rule a decision in the way that happened here.
I don't see how it can be accurate to that level anyway. When a player makes a pass, his boot is connected to the ball for a fraction of a second, but that fraction of a second will probably translate to 20 different pictures that you could select for VAR. In that time, the players will have moved more than an inch. So how can it be accurate to an inch?
There's no corruption, but the blind faith in the technology is misplaced. VAR should only be for "clear and obvious errors" not drawing lines on the screen with spurious accuracy. It's a farce and football is being taken for a ride.
0
Manchester United given a helping hand to the final, now there’s a surprise. on 12:56 - Apr 22 with 1032 views
Agree with just about all the sentiments expressed above - I was absolutely gutted for Coventry City and all their supporters for what was essentially a ridiculous decision which for the umpteenth time since this tech was introduced has ruined a great game of football and proves the lunatics really are running the asylum when it suits them.
According to the Laws Of The Game, a player who is level with the second last opponent is onside with arms and hands excluded from consideration. I have copied and pasted the relevant extract from LOTG below
Law 11.1 Offside position It is not an offence to be in an offside position.
A player is in an offside position if: any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. A player is not in an offside position if level with the: second-last opponent or last two opponents
So, if, as was the case yesterday, 99.95% of the player’s body is level with the second last opponent and 0.05% is offside - a toenail in this instance then the player is offside?? Utter b/s, this was NEVER, EVER the way the rule was meant to be interpreted and the bed wetters in the VAR booths damned well know it. If you really want to be pedantic - and don’t they just LOVE being pedants - the rule states body not boot, I would therefore contend that the space in front of the end of the big toe and the outer edge of the boot is sufficient for all parts of the Coventry player’s BODY to have been onside but the front one third of an inch of the boot being offside - the law says body…. Yes, that is sooo pedantic, but that’s what it has come to.
This is all so unnecessary as a solution to all of this was offered up after the first season of VAR in the PL. The solution offered would have almost ended the need to draw the pathetic lines and was a tweak to how offside was judged, the tweak being using a percentage of the attacking player’s body mass needing to be level with the second last opponent - or in front of the second last opponent if you prefer to determine level/onside or in front/offside. Hands & arms were still excluded and the percentages talked about ranged from 10/90 to 20/80. Even 10/90 (in front/level) would negate the ridiculous decision yesterday where a fraction of a percentage of the players boot was offside. Decisions like this are ruining the game. When suggested the Refs / Refs bodies had a hissy fit so we are where we are. They all know damned well that pre-VAR none of the decisions that need lines drawn would ever have been given as offside and level was level - and for the avoidance of doubt, when 99.9% of the attacking player’s body is level then onside is the ONLY sensible and right minded decision to be made. Won’t bother watching the Manc-fest in May…..
Manchester United given a helping hand to the final, now there’s a surprise. on 12:56 - Apr 22 by LondonSaint76
Agree with just about all the sentiments expressed above - I was absolutely gutted for Coventry City and all their supporters for what was essentially a ridiculous decision which for the umpteenth time since this tech was introduced has ruined a great game of football and proves the lunatics really are running the asylum when it suits them.
According to the Laws Of The Game, a player who is level with the second last opponent is onside with arms and hands excluded from consideration. I have copied and pasted the relevant extract from LOTG below
Law 11.1 Offside position It is not an offence to be in an offside position.
A player is in an offside position if: any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. A player is not in an offside position if level with the: second-last opponent or last two opponents
So, if, as was the case yesterday, 99.95% of the player’s body is level with the second last opponent and 0.05% is offside - a toenail in this instance then the player is offside?? Utter b/s, this was NEVER, EVER the way the rule was meant to be interpreted and the bed wetters in the VAR booths damned well know it. If you really want to be pedantic - and don’t they just LOVE being pedants - the rule states body not boot, I would therefore contend that the space in front of the end of the big toe and the outer edge of the boot is sufficient for all parts of the Coventry player’s BODY to have been onside but the front one third of an inch of the boot being offside - the law says body…. Yes, that is sooo pedantic, but that’s what it has come to.
This is all so unnecessary as a solution to all of this was offered up after the first season of VAR in the PL. The solution offered would have almost ended the need to draw the pathetic lines and was a tweak to how offside was judged, the tweak being using a percentage of the attacking player’s body mass needing to be level with the second last opponent - or in front of the second last opponent if you prefer to determine level/onside or in front/offside. Hands & arms were still excluded and the percentages talked about ranged from 10/90 to 20/80. Even 10/90 (in front/level) would negate the ridiculous decision yesterday where a fraction of a percentage of the players boot was offside. Decisions like this are ruining the game. When suggested the Refs / Refs bodies had a hissy fit so we are where we are. They all know damned well that pre-VAR none of the decisions that need lines drawn would ever have been given as offside and level was level - and for the avoidance of doubt, when 99.9% of the attacking player’s body is level then onside is the ONLY sensible and right minded decision to be made. Won’t bother watching the Manc-fest in May…..
[Post edited 22 Apr 14:27]
Thanks for the explanation LondonSaint76.
Throughout life I’ve always born in mind the expression “ follow the money” and this weekend’s football has done nothing to suggest the expression is without substance.
Nottingham Forest have three appeals for a penalty and as far as I’m aware none were looked at by V A R. Any coincidence that they are playing against one of the established supposedly big clubs who are in the process of building a new ground ? Relegation for Everton would almost certainly put them into administration and possibly even out of business.
Later in the day Coventry have the deciding “ goal” disallowed with seconds remaining. Much more profitable for the F A and T V companies to sell an all Manchester Cup Final to places like Asia is it not ? After all, I doubt most people there have ever heard of Coventry or that they even have a football team.
The types of incidents mentioned above happen ever more readily nowadays hence it’s my opinion that the possibility of corruption has become evermore likely.
1
Manchester United given a helping hand to the final, now there’s a surprise. on 14:33 - Apr 22 with 925 views
Manchester United given a helping hand to the final, now there’s a surprise. on 13:31 - Apr 22 by saintmark1976
Thanks for the explanation LondonSaint76.
Throughout life I’ve always born in mind the expression “ follow the money” and this weekend’s football has done nothing to suggest the expression is without substance.
Nottingham Forest have three appeals for a penalty and as far as I’m aware none were looked at by V A R. Any coincidence that they are playing against one of the established supposedly big clubs who are in the process of building a new ground ? Relegation for Everton would almost certainly put them into administration and possibly even out of business.
Later in the day Coventry have the deciding “ goal” disallowed with seconds remaining. Much more profitable for the F A and T V companies to sell an all Manchester Cup Final to places like Asia is it not ? After all, I doubt most people there have ever heard of Coventry or that they even have a football team.
The types of incidents mentioned above happen ever more readily nowadays hence it’s my opinion that the possibility of corruption has become evermore likely.
If that had been a Man U player adjudged to have his toenail offside in the last minute I would have put a lump of my pension on it being given "Not" Offside. VAR has killed the wonderful game of football, just hope it's not expanded out to the Championship & lower leagues. The game without VAR is much more fun to watch.
2
Manchester United given a helping hand to the final, now there’s a surprise. on 17:08 - Apr 22 with 829 views
Manchester United given a helping hand to the final, now there’s a surprise. on 12:56 - Apr 22 by LondonSaint76
Agree with just about all the sentiments expressed above - I was absolutely gutted for Coventry City and all their supporters for what was essentially a ridiculous decision which for the umpteenth time since this tech was introduced has ruined a great game of football and proves the lunatics really are running the asylum when it suits them.
According to the Laws Of The Game, a player who is level with the second last opponent is onside with arms and hands excluded from consideration. I have copied and pasted the relevant extract from LOTG below
Law 11.1 Offside position It is not an offence to be in an offside position.
A player is in an offside position if: any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. A player is not in an offside position if level with the: second-last opponent or last two opponents
So, if, as was the case yesterday, 99.95% of the player’s body is level with the second last opponent and 0.05% is offside - a toenail in this instance then the player is offside?? Utter b/s, this was NEVER, EVER the way the rule was meant to be interpreted and the bed wetters in the VAR booths damned well know it. If you really want to be pedantic - and don’t they just LOVE being pedants - the rule states body not boot, I would therefore contend that the space in front of the end of the big toe and the outer edge of the boot is sufficient for all parts of the Coventry player’s BODY to have been onside but the front one third of an inch of the boot being offside - the law says body…. Yes, that is sooo pedantic, but that’s what it has come to.
This is all so unnecessary as a solution to all of this was offered up after the first season of VAR in the PL. The solution offered would have almost ended the need to draw the pathetic lines and was a tweak to how offside was judged, the tweak being using a percentage of the attacking player’s body mass needing to be level with the second last opponent - or in front of the second last opponent if you prefer to determine level/onside or in front/offside. Hands & arms were still excluded and the percentages talked about ranged from 10/90 to 20/80. Even 10/90 (in front/level) would negate the ridiculous decision yesterday where a fraction of a percentage of the players boot was offside. Decisions like this are ruining the game. When suggested the Refs / Refs bodies had a hissy fit so we are where we are. They all know damned well that pre-VAR none of the decisions that need lines drawn would ever have been given as offside and level was level - and for the avoidance of doubt, when 99.9% of the attacking player’s body is level then onside is the ONLY sensible and right minded decision to be made. Won’t bother watching the Manc-fest in May…..
[Post edited 22 Apr 14:27]
Brilliant . Agreed
One thing tho , you spelt Manc-fest wrong .. turn the Emm upsidedown
keep the faith coyr
0
Manchester United given a helping hand to the final, now there’s a surprise. on 18:13 - Apr 22 with 781 views
Manchester United given a helping hand to the final, now there’s a surprise. on 13:31 - Apr 22 by saintmark1976
Thanks for the explanation LondonSaint76.
Throughout life I’ve always born in mind the expression “ follow the money” and this weekend’s football has done nothing to suggest the expression is without substance.
Nottingham Forest have three appeals for a penalty and as far as I’m aware none were looked at by V A R. Any coincidence that they are playing against one of the established supposedly big clubs who are in the process of building a new ground ? Relegation for Everton would almost certainly put them into administration and possibly even out of business.
Later in the day Coventry have the deciding “ goal” disallowed with seconds remaining. Much more profitable for the F A and T V companies to sell an all Manchester Cup Final to places like Asia is it not ? After all, I doubt most people there have ever heard of Coventry or that they even have a football team.
The types of incidents mentioned above happen ever more readily nowadays hence it’s my opinion that the possibility of corruption has become evermore likely.
And in the case of the Everton game not one but two of the three penalty shouts definitely pens one of those two not so much nailed on as superglued on! As Forest have pointed out, a known Luton fan was in charge of VAR for that game - why??? Has anyone at PGMOL got a brain? As they said on MOTD2 last night, the use of a bit more intelligence on making the appointment would have gone a long way.
Manchester United given a helping hand to the final, now there’s a surprise. on 14:33 - Apr 22 by GRIM
If that had been a Man U player adjudged to have his toenail offside in the last minute I would have put a lump of my pension on it being given "Not" Offside. VAR has killed the wonderful game of football, just hope it's not expanded out to the Championship & lower leagues. The game without VAR is much more fun to watch.
Spot on - and your pension staked on the bet would have been safe for sure…
Manchester United given a helping hand to the final, now there’s a surprise. on 18:13 - Apr 22 by grumpy
Remember this
Someone tell me why Gabbiadinis goal was disallowed.
Because it was against Manchester United. Just like yesterday and Coventry City, you can't have a 'lesser' team beat the likes of mighty Man United - not in the modern era. The media & the money men demand an all-Manchester final.
Old School is Cool
0
Manchester United given a helping hand to the final, now there’s a surprise. on 18:50 - Apr 22 with 742 views
Manchester United given a helping hand to the final, now there’s a surprise. on 17:08 - Apr 22 by DorsetIan
The players were level. It wasn’t offside.
This problem with VAR has been ruling out perfectly good goals since the very start.
Why no one has sorted it out is beyond me.
Denied Cov one of the great Wembley victories.
As I said in my first post, a good solution has been offered but the Refs had a hissy fit so this is where we are at as a result. I honestly believe they enjoy being pedants and ruining occasions like yesterday at Wembley as they get some kind of perverse enjoyment out of it. Several solutions are available, apparently the tech is available to chip the kits but I have not seen the detailed explanation of how that tech works so I don’t know how good it would be in terms of proposing it as an alternative to the current farce we all have to endure. Other solutions were suggested at the same time as the BM proposal but anything put forward is just shouted down. I honestly think it will take some form of direct action to improve the current situation.
Manchester United given a helping hand to the final, now there’s a surprise. on 17:43 - Apr 22 by saintmark1976
V A R is a machine DorestIan so one would assume it can’t be corrupted. The people who operate it however?
Spot on - look how well goal line tech works as there are no Refs involved in the decision, it is the tech that makes the decision. I don’t think it is always corrupt decision making, although I would not rule it out, especially in instances like yesterday at Wembley, in other cases I think it is just rank stupidity and incompetence. I suspect VAR won’t ever be scrapped and sadly I think the Championship will be plagued with it at some stage in the future, it is clear and obvious changes need to be made and I suspect within the next decade the solution will come (perhaps partially) in the form of AI. If that happens the key battle will be to factor in common sense to the AI learning process and then what happens if there are any significant changes to LOTG between seasons - will AI have time to fully adapt? Be careful what we wish for might be a good phrase to keep in mind…
Offside is offside. The VAR check would have been made in any event no matter what clubs were involved. Nothing to do with the FA, PL, referees union or anything else. Offside is offside, and it is one of the things that VAR CAN be relied to get right. Everything else would be waffle or bias. Tough on Coventry though.
-6
Manchester United given a helping hand to the final, now there’s a surprise. on 08:59 - Apr 23 with 512 views
Manchester United given a helping hand to the final, now there’s a surprise. on 08:21 - Apr 23 by Berber
Offside is offside. The VAR check would have been made in any event no matter what clubs were involved. Nothing to do with the FA, PL, referees union or anything else. Offside is offside, and it is one of the things that VAR CAN be relied to get right. Everything else would be waffle or bias. Tough on Coventry though.
How do you know it can be relied on to get it right? What testing has been done? It is a bloke drawing a line on a screen. How do you know he draws exactly the right line? They can probably only get it right to about a foot.
As I said, the positions of players on the pitch will change by more than inches while the ball is still in contact with the foot of the player making the pass. The technology can't tell the exact moment when foot and ball are no longer in contact. So the technology can't be used to make a call of an inch here or an inch there. It's not that accurate.
Every machine is only accurate to a certain degree. Throw in a human operator and you're kidding yourself if you think it always gets it right.
0
Manchester United given a helping hand to the final, now there’s a surprise. on 09:45 - Apr 23 with 475 views
Manchester United given a helping hand to the final, now there’s a surprise. on 17:08 - Apr 22 by DorsetIan
The players were level. It wasn’t offside.
This problem with VAR has been ruling out perfectly good goals since the very start.
Why no one has sorted it out is beyond me.
Denied Cov one of the great Wembley victories.
Exactly, seems obvious doesn't it? Level means he was onside because it wasn't 'clear and obvious' even with dubious tech generated lines. Why do we allow the game to be controlled with technological micro precision? It's nonsense because it isn't a reliable system , or all pervasive system, anyway. Get rid of VAR and bring the game back to 'human error' ie the ref and assistants doing their job. Technological dependency is ruining and killing; 'Smart' Motorways, a myriad of weapons, certain medical substances and procedures, pollution, poisonous foodstuffs etc. If we demanded non-tech or parallel manual 'old style' systems the world would be a much safer and better place. Whether it's designed as such or not, it seems the technology is just another way to assist the money-makers and Big Clubs; the Elite, and allow that Elite to have further greater control hence preposterous wealth accumulation. Great for them but useless and damaging, or worse, for the 99%. Yes, an example can be seen in the Everton, Forest game. The decisions, or lack of them, by applying their 'wonderful technology', going against Forest, were an absolute disgrace. Now, for what reasons was VAR not applied there? If all was fair and just, Forest would have a very good case in court were they to be relegated because of losing a point or points here although of course it would be almost impossible to rectify by then.
0
Manchester United given a helping hand to the final, now there’s a surprise. on 10:35 - Apr 23 with 455 views
Manchester United given a helping hand to the final, now there’s a surprise. on 12:56 - Apr 22 by LondonSaint76
Agree with just about all the sentiments expressed above - I was absolutely gutted for Coventry City and all their supporters for what was essentially a ridiculous decision which for the umpteenth time since this tech was introduced has ruined a great game of football and proves the lunatics really are running the asylum when it suits them.
According to the Laws Of The Game, a player who is level with the second last opponent is onside with arms and hands excluded from consideration. I have copied and pasted the relevant extract from LOTG below
Law 11.1 Offside position It is not an offence to be in an offside position.
A player is in an offside position if: any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. A player is not in an offside position if level with the: second-last opponent or last two opponents
So, if, as was the case yesterday, 99.95% of the player’s body is level with the second last opponent and 0.05% is offside - a toenail in this instance then the player is offside?? Utter b/s, this was NEVER, EVER the way the rule was meant to be interpreted and the bed wetters in the VAR booths damned well know it. If you really want to be pedantic - and don’t they just LOVE being pedants - the rule states body not boot, I would therefore contend that the space in front of the end of the big toe and the outer edge of the boot is sufficient for all parts of the Coventry player’s BODY to have been onside but the front one third of an inch of the boot being offside - the law says body…. Yes, that is sooo pedantic, but that’s what it has come to.
This is all so unnecessary as a solution to all of this was offered up after the first season of VAR in the PL. The solution offered would have almost ended the need to draw the pathetic lines and was a tweak to how offside was judged, the tweak being using a percentage of the attacking player’s body mass needing to be level with the second last opponent - or in front of the second last opponent if you prefer to determine level/onside or in front/offside. Hands & arms were still excluded and the percentages talked about ranged from 10/90 to 20/80. Even 10/90 (in front/level) would negate the ridiculous decision yesterday where a fraction of a percentage of the players boot was offside. Decisions like this are ruining the game. When suggested the Refs / Refs bodies had a hissy fit so we are where we are. They all know damned well that pre-VAR none of the decisions that need lines drawn would ever have been given as offside and level was level - and for the avoidance of doubt, when 99.9% of the attacking player’s body is level then onside is the ONLY sensible and right minded decision to be made. Won’t bother watching the Manc-fest in May…..
[Post edited 22 Apr 14:27]
"A player is not in an offside position if level with the: second-last opponent or last two opponents"
The 'players' were level. In every football game on earth without VAR and for every competent official with a perfect view, they were level.
It has been happening since the beginning of VAR. Attacking players in a VAR game cannot get the benefit of this rule because VAR does not ask whether the players are level (as happens in every other game). It simply measures body parts. VAR changes the rule and the game - and definitely for the worse AND nobody ever asked for this !!
Manchester United given a helping hand to the final, now there’s a surprise. on 08:21 - Apr 23 by Berber
Offside is offside. The VAR check would have been made in any event no matter what clubs were involved. Nothing to do with the FA, PL, referees union or anything else. Offside is offside, and it is one of the things that VAR CAN be relied to get right. Everything else would be waffle or bias. Tough on Coventry though.
You say Offside is offside, and it is one of the things that VAR CAN be relied to get right.
Really?
Presenting the case for the prosecution - this is the one we know about, how many more examples are there that we don't know about? I'd love to think this is a one-off but I very seriously doubt it, to be honest, I would not trust them as far as I could bench press an elephant...
The one thing you can rely on is goalline tech = no humans involved.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
