To be honest, I not so much bothered by the offside call. This will be swings and roundabouts just like offside calls in the pre-VAR days (although there will a lot less controversial cases). The true travesty is missing the assault on VvD. Which most definitely is not a case of swings and roundabouts.
This insinuates that a nasty player wishing to break a leg, or whatever, merely has to wait for an offside moment involving the player he is targeeting and launch himself like a missile??? We all know that if Pickford had launched himself much more blatantly even - let's say anywhere from a bit more blatantly right up to a Bruce Lee flying kick (but the ref hadn't seen it - let's say Michael Oliver had slipped and fallen at the exact moment, and not seen it) that the VAR refs would have told him of such dangerously violent conduct and Pickford would (most likely) have been off. If they could tell him that, then they could have told him in the reality of yesterday also. It's perfectly reasonable for them to assume that Oliver didn't see the true dangerousness of Pickford's move. And since they are supposed to be keeping an eye out for violent conduct, it's hard to imagine that they wouldn;t have felt the need to look at what they had just seen, given that aplayer was down injured. Therefore perfectly reasonable for them to suggest the ref should look at it on video again. The commentators didn;t catch it fully first either, but as soon as they replayed it Lee Dixon was already relaying it as bad enough for a red card.
I'd be willing to enter that line of thinking if they would provide us with the frame they used as definitive. I thought that was what we were watching on the screen with all the lines?? Isn't that coming from the same technology as VAR? Or put another way - what would be the point of throwing that line drawn picture onto the TV screens if that's not an exact mirror representation of what the VAR refs are deciding on? Assuming that is the case (and again, why are these graphics being shown if it's not) they are looking at the same thing as you and I, and it is not too close to call. His shoulder is quite simply not where they claim it to be.
Let me help you with that... It's the difference between a reasonably attempted tackle and a dangerous flying leap into another player FFS - A player doesn't have to be trying to start a classic fight (punching or kicking) to be playing dangerously.... A scissors motion flying tackle that results in you having to use the other person as a stopping tool for your motion is by definition dangerous.
2 point blank headers inside the penalty spot, and another even closer which very fortunately rebounded off the post instead of inside, yeah... scintillatingly shitty defending, maybe. The defensive core has been bad for months, midfield looks at times lost, fullbacks and Gomez have also at times looked like amateurs in terms of defensive awareness and positioning. When they improve in those ways, they won't be in a position for calls like this -- unfortunate though they are -- to affect results. And additionally, go ******** yourself, I'm sick of your and Sam's personal attacks, I've given each of you every opportunity to have a real discussion. You can barely read and comprehend, comparing a game to the nazis all the time... and you're calling me stupid? Goodbye forever, dumbass.
I still say firmly that a daylight measurement between the players' scoring parts of body is the only way to stop people getting worked up to insanity levels. If they measure a millimetre of daylight but you already have the whole body advantage it's much easier for the process as not being really hard done by. It's also really offside by that point. Not just that you may happen to be a slightly bulkier individual that the guy you are playing against....
Curiously enough, that is the same game I was watching .... kind of like when the czech's beat the dutch 2-3 after going two down due to a couple of errors ... It used to just take some brilliance to get it back ... Ahh - those were the days - football before millimetre-rulers ....
Here's another referee that disagrees. In fact a whole body saying it's subjective, questioning the intent or inherent danger by Pickford, suggesting it's going to be up to who is in charge. So here we are again on the merry go round, weeeeee! What fun. https://talksport.com/football/7751...d-tackle-van-dijk-liverpool-merseyside-derby/ Easy, what? This doesn't answer my question. Frames, plural? Which frames? How many? They already look at a particular frame with regard to offsides, I think it's when the player makes contact with the ball on the initial pass under review. But that's beside the point, as it's purely subjective to say "incident A is too close to call" and "incident B isn't too close, that's offside" when you haven't clearly defined what "too close" objectively means. Are you saying take the frames between when it's best determined contact was made and when it's best determined the ball leaves the foot? Those frames? What do you do with them? How do they relate to the on/offside attacker's position? Yeah, this is a huge fail. They should get better cameras. This would seem to be pretty straight forward, if it weren't the FA/PGMOL/IFAB overseeing it. However this does nothing to address the issue with the proposal of "too close to call".
Yeah - right - you bloody clown. You have been persistently engaging in ad hominem asides with regard to my posts for a long time here; this, on wayy more occasions on this board than anything that can be called an insulting remark from me to you. Note* - chuckling about, or re-referencing any specific instance of where a person is fundamentally incorrect is not a personal attack. Particularly when the person has such a preposterously high opinion of himself, and can't psssychologically seem to let go of an argument when it is already a deep dug hole. Barely read an comprehend ... sure ... I'm sure everyone on here agrees ... Incidentally, I've made a living from time to time writing in large chunks of my working life, so that really was a hell of an achievement more than I thought at the time......
Yes - I referenced this phenomenon a few months back. An abdication of responsibility, I believe I called it. I've no idea why they do this, but it's happening again and again.
Incorrect. I watched the segment where they asked Gallagher. In context, he was trying to find an explanation for why they didn’t give a red. He certainly didn’t sound like he particularly endorsed it.
Also, it’s come to light VAR didn’t even look at the challenge, so the argument that it was subjective as to whether it is a red is bogus. Two footed, high speed, very late, out of control scissor tackle. There is no subjectivity at all. I haven’t seen anyone (ex player, ex ref or pundit) claim it was not worthy of a red. The only argument has been that it was after an offside call so doesn’t matter. Which is: A. Not the case for serious foul play; and B. Not even true as no whistle had been blown so play was still active!!!
I agree that no part of him looked offside, so if the "offside" wasn't because his ass was closer to the goal what part if him could it be??
FFS, I already told you. Forward and backward from point of ball leaving boot. How many? The one before and the one after. It’s a maximum of three if there is one that seems v v close to actual.
As for the rest can’t be bothered to answer any more as it doesn’t seem like you actually thought about what I wrote.
The line seems to line up with his elbow. But I believe they’re saying the bottom of his sleeve. Which doesn’t look offside. So all very confusing. Unless either: A. There is a perspective issue we can’t see but the software corrects for; or B. They have addition camera views we don’t get to see. ???
There have been 22 red cards in our derby matches since the Prem began. More than any other fixture by far. 7 given to Liverpool players. 15 to those dirty bastards in blue. Fukkers.
C. He wasn't offside at all but the VAR decided to call it anyway, hoping he'd get away with it. My money is on C.
A doctor on an indoor team did that to me once after i collided with a goalkeeper. It didn't move - but it bloody hurt. Even if it could conceivably be a yellow card offence to some subjective refereeing mind, I think it would most likely in this instance have resulted in a red card - given that the ref (after talking to the other refs and looking at the incident again) is making his decision on how bad a tackle it was while a player is still down on the floor with a twisted knee and about to be substituted.
THERE IS NO CONCEIVABLE WAY THAT IS NOT A RED CARD TACKLE! High? Check Late? Check High speed? Check Off the ground? Check Two footed? Check Scissor tackle? Check Out of control? Check Without regard for a players safety? Check FFS just one of those can be a red. Pickford got the full card bingo. Cannot conceivably be a yellow to anybody .........