Too late-- he ought to have been sent off during the match. Retrospective punishment simply makes Everton stronger.
agreed. he thinks VAR is good for the game - fine that's his call. what pisses me off is his repeated dismissals of opposing viewpoints as being based on ignorance.
a medic weighs in .... not encouraging https://www.givemesport.com/1609086...al-expert-provides-early-analysis?autoplay=on
I tore my ACL in the Marines and walked close to a mile the next day. It was swollen as hell though. It was several hours after I was injured before the navy doc thought to give me some motrin. I bet the FA won't even look at it though. Absolute bollocks all around.
I tore my ACL in a game in 1978, the worst pain I've ever felt . This kind of an injury is always a risk for a player but this is one which should not have happened. All down to an idiotic , reckless challenge by Pickford made even more frustrating since it's gone unpunished. The standard of officiating in England is horrendous.
The Guardian reporting that VVD has damaged his ACL and is due to have surgery ASAP. The Club has issued a statement hoping for a good recovery, etc., but the full extent of the injury and the length of the recovery period won’t be known until post-surgery. Damaged, not necessarily torn (though it still might be), is the succor we can take here.
The thing that really pisses me off is shots of the incident that show Pickford clearly looking at Virgils knee and upper leg, and clearly not at the ball which is a foot or more away from the tip of Virgils boot. He clearly was looking to bring down VvD and not trying to get to the ball.
A lot of people here don't have a great track record with unbiased takes on calls which strongly impact Liverpool Football Club. I could go through them, but I'm sure I'd just get accused of pontificating or some other such horseshit. Either way, Pickford is a bad challenge. I was just trying to say I've seen keepers get given the benefit of the doubt in these situations. Keepers get leeway, sometimes, that others might not... unlike an obvious studs up tackle, like the one by Richarlison.
glass half-full .... - we are still 3rd in the league, though Leeds can jup above us if they don't lose tomorrow vs Wolves. - still very early days - comparing same-fixtures, we are only 3 points behind last season's results. IIRC we had more than a 3 point lead at the end. (I'm still pissed off though)
I haven't looked at replays of the Mane offside, but I think it is an example of what I bitched about in the VAR thread -- an attacker with back to goal, whose ass is closer to the goal than the last defender (by a fraction of a fukken millimetre in this case) getting called offside. the club have asked the league for an explanation, none has arrived yet AFAIK.
It's nothing to do with his ass? However, based on the stills we have seen, no part of his scoring body looks offside to me. As previously posted, if the margin is so small that sequential frames show onside/offside it should just be called "level".
not much to look at - even the announcers, the post game shows and the papers that reported on the game can’t figure it out. In other words he wasn’t offside - but the dick VAR asshole that got yelled at by Klopp and Robertson last year after the Burnley game decided to get us back.
It's probably the worst example we have of one of these millimeter offside calls... but the problem remains, and I know you already know this, how do you define "level"? Do not get me wrong, if there was a good definition for this I'd want them to implement it ASAP. I think them working on this for years and sticking by "any bit offside means player is offside" is because there might not be a good definition of "too close to actually take a goal away". What does too close mean? Mane's arm is barely flagging him offside, according to the tech, and it looks to me is similar with VVD... but VVD might be just like a tiny bit more "ahead" of the defender's heel. So, what if both those occur in the same game to two opposing teams? Is Mane's TOO close to take away? Is Virgil's further out ENOUGH to take away the inevitable pen? Maybe you'd argue they're both too close... ok, then once we decide on that just move each one forward another millimeter, then another, then another. Problem still exists. With this in mind, "any bit that's off is off" is actually the easiest thing to do.
I just did. If the selection of the frame (which is somewhat subjective) is crucial to the decision, then it's "level". Just be brave enough to say it's too close to call.
VvD's is very small, but actually noticeably offside. Mane's actually looks onside. As I said, play the two consecutive frames (where subjectively either could be used). If one is onside and one is offside, then it's level. If both frames show the same thing, it is a clear decision.
I don't want to get into another endless debate about VAR. That's for another place (and time). My concern is that the lines and the point where the ball leaves the foot of the passer are determined by fallible human beings. Just with PK and card decisions, it's a best guess and not absolutely perfect. It reminds me of the premise of the Terminator movies: humans let the machines decide for them. Yes, I'm comparing VAR to Skynet. One other thought: I was taught in anatomy and osteology classes that the top of the arm was the most proximal aspect of the humerus You won't be able to determine that without an autopsy. So, if you want to be accurate . . . asitis
Mark Clattenburg gives his views on Saturday's talking points https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...fside-crucial-derby-decision-law-changed.html
BTW, can anyone give me a reason for the change to the "shirt sleeve" rule was made? I can't think of any advantage for making the change??? Surely all it does is give players licence to manipulate the ball with part of their arm? What happens when players all start wearing long sleeve shirts??? Or everyone's kit next year has two inches more sleeve???
Well you can do it this way I suppose -- you also need to define what crucial frame selection is, since that seems to apply to many close offside calls -- but either way I'm just saying I don't know how well that works in general with regard to a rule that is specifically about a binary state, on/offside. I think what you're actually proposing is more VAR subjectivity, which IMO means more variation in these incidents and what is on and offside, and inevitably and inherently you'll have more unfair offside calls which everyone will still complain about. I'm curious what they do, because in spite of their seeming comfort with where the rules are at they certainly must be listening to all the people upset by these kinds of decisions.
Because their eyes are incapable of pursuing the non-curvature of a straight line, even when it is drawn for them on a screen clearly, by a computer. Fvcking idiots. Two games in a row now where a supposedly clear eyed official has gotten an offside call wrong - the hat-trick goal in the Villa game, and this nonsense with Mane's elbow yesterday. It's pathetic and inexplicable stupidity....
Former Premier League referee Hackett insists Michael Oliver missed the “worst and easiest” decision of the season after failing to send off Jordan Pickford https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/jordan-pickfords-tackle-virgil-van-22866903 Easy. The frames closest to the moment the ball leaves the passing players boot. Which doesn't introduce subjectivity ....... it shows when there IS subjectivity and therefore "too close to call". Interesting comment from the above article: Hackett added: “To get the accuracy of a ball crossing a goal line camera takes seven cameras around each goal and cameras operating at 500 frames per second. With the VAR cameras on most offsides you have cameras operating on 50 frames a second. So the cameras being used are not capable of providing the degree of accuracy for which they are being used. So just acknowledge this limitation and the fact there will be a grey area where the perfect frame may not be available. In other words ......... too close to call!
Absolutely flat out fvking wrong (not to mention stupid) - Liverpool were exceptionally good in this game (playing some scintillating football, which is usually enough to compensate for defensive mistakes made and defenders getting injured) and drew because someone looking at a drawn line made a mistaken conclusion. Now, it's not a mistake to him and anyone who sees it exactly like him because he/they may (due to eye-mind wonkiness) may actually see it that way. It's only a mistake to everyone else (99% of people) who can more correctly see that the line did not have a Liverpool player offside and that this VAR mistake therefore caused a legitimate goal to be disallowed, just as it caused an illigitimate goal to be allowed in our previous game.. Whoever the official is should be fired. End of....
Maybe he has a partly invisible shoulder? That would explain it, I suppose. Or the curvature of the VAR official's eyesight is bending in Space-time? Yeah - could be either of those. It's no this normal human shoulder though. That much is clear enough.