Anäis Nin, an american author, is quoted as: "We don't see things as they are; we see them as we are." This thread is inspired by the "The things we hear returns," and a recent sending off by a premier league referee (see discussion reference below) threads. Without going too much beyond the scope of this forum, our brains perceive things, especially when things are not seen continuously. Allow me to submit this non-moving picture: Q: Are areas labelled 'A' and 'B' similar in colour/shade? In this stationary object, these areas are close to each other in physical space, and therefore are within view, right? One can see both of these areas without too much head movement, just the eye(s). And to be bluntly honest, these two areas have different shades. This is what I see. When change occurs in-between glances, our visual processing unit (a-k-a, the brain), has evolved to provide continuity, it fills in gaps. In other words, the human visual perception is serially dependent, using both, prior and present input to inform perception at the present moment. This is not the same as making things up. The footy pitch, a very dynamic place to begin with, provides additional challenges to perception with the ball in active view. The visual system will merge information (images viewed) over time to preserve continuity. In practice, the referee who believes s/he has seen the offense, will sacrifice accuracy, in the strictest definition of the term, for continuity. There is a lighter version read about continuity fields, blindness, here - http://bit.ly/1GUHCwI In spite of all this, here is something to be excited about: "Good things happen to those who hustle." -- Anäis Nin And if you are curious about if the two areas depicted above are similar colour/shade, the answer is provided here - http://bit.ly/1BTdDa1 I doubt however, if a "serially challenged visual perception system processing" will be adequate defense by a referee.