Dogawful Officiating - Dave Coote suspended

[AyeDubbleYoo]

25 minutes ago, ohmelads said:

 

If you let the first defender off, the focus then goes on to the second defender who also deliberately played the ball, so he certainly matters. The ball travels 10 yards to him at a slow speed. He should do far better.

I don’t think so, if you let the first defender off then it’s offside, because the presence of Longstaff is clearly interfering in the next action (the second attempted clearance). 
 

I’m not saying it’s right but I can only assume it’s the instinctive nature of Felipe’s action that they’ve focused on. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

2 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

Clear and obvious is quite a useful principle though. E.g. if only one out of five angles supports the potential error theory, it certainly wasn’t clear and obvious. It was introduced to correct obvious things the referee may have missed, not for this level of nitpicking and finding an angle to suit the preferred outcome.

 

just how did we get here, really. As gbandit suggests, no ordinary football fan would look at that passage of play yesterday and suggest it was a clear and obvious case of offside that the referee and linesman somehow missed.

But the point is someone still has to judge what is ‘obvious’, which is another subjective call. 

[Unbelievable]

2 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

But the point is someone still has to judge what is ‘obvious’, which is another subjective call. 

Not really. There are three refs in the VAR boot, right? Let them all make that call and if one says it’s not obvious to them, drop the VAR case before looking into the actual rules.

[madras]

32 minutes ago, joeyt said:

 

But the touch from Felipe went towards Longstaff. Stifler is suggesting if the ball went straight into the net from Felipe it would have been siallowed because Longstaff was offside, which it obviously wouldn't have

 

It was the wrong decision but let's not make stuff up either

I wouldn't be sure given the refereeing performance yesterday.

[ohmelads]

33 minutes ago, madras said:

1. I'd have thought it would have been from the attacker playing the ball (Isak) and the defender playing it (Felipe). If so, as Neville pointed out, he had plenty of time, it wasn't driven at him and he had time to try and play it not just block it. If it's Niakhate then the ball has already been deliberately played by Felipe.

 

2. Again I don't think it was and neither did the pundits or most neutral fans.

3. N/A

 

4. Again no one seems to see Felipes or Niakhates movement as being instinctive but pretty obvious deliberate playing of the ball except you, the ref,the VAR ref and some but not all Forest fans.

 

Agreed.

 

Do we need a legal team in the VAR room next to pore over the meaning of every word in the rulebook? Common sense says 'instinctive' refers to situations where a ball is blasted and someone has a split second to respond, or it's pinball in the box and someone has reacted based on instinct and not made a conscious attempt to play or in this case clear the ball. There will be borderline cases but this isn't one. It's someone making a mess of a clearance after the ball has travelled 10 yards at a relatively slow speed.

[Superior Acuña]

I don't think it's possible to fix VAR. It'd be nice to have it just for egregious things like off ball violent conduct or someone punching the ball into the next, but once it's introduced at all it becomes impossible to draw a line anywhere that seems sensible and doesn't stain the game with the doubt it introduces. I think the only way is no VAR, and introduce automated offside calls when/if that's possible. Everything else leave to post-match review.

[Bimpy474]

5 hours ago, Hanshithispantz said:

Why though?

 

The purpose of the rule is to prevent goals like the (apparently legal) Salah one. Where a deflection or 'unfair clearance' goes through to an attacker in an advantageous position. It's not meant to bail out sloppy defending. Felipe had more than enough of an opportunity to clear the ball properly, the fact he played it towards a teammate under pressure is his own fault.

 

Similarly Niahkate could have poked it out for a corner instead of playing a low ball across his own box, he had plenty of time.

 

 

 

 

For me Longstaff gains the advantage being beyond the defence. I find it weird that if it's deflected to he's OK and not ruled as active, but if a players blocks (plays at) a shot or pass then he's active.

 

What's the point of a line if a player can just stand yards off, and if a defender plays at a pass he's onside, for me that's just ridiculous.

[Stifler]

1 minute ago, Bimpy474 said:

 

For me Longstaff gains the advantage being beyond the defence. I find it weird that if it's deflected to he's OK and not ruled as active, but if a players blocks (plays at) a shot or pass then he's active.

 

What's the point of a line if a player can just stand yards off, and if a defender plays at a pass he's onside, for me that's just ridiculous.

Because when the ball was played he wasn’t active and the defender playing the ball enters a new phase of play.

[Bimpy474]

28 minutes ago, Stifler said:

Because when the ball was played he wasn’t active and the defender playing the ball enters a new phase of play.

 

I know the law mate but the active/non active is daft in the area like that. That's my opinion of offside, i think it's a step too far in trying to eradicate daft offside decisions, as it turns out that was a daft offside decision according the law now

 

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by Bimpy474

[wyn davies]

29 minutes ago, Stifler said:

Because when the ball was played he wasn’t active and the defender playing the ball enters a new phase of play.

Need to go back to how it used to be nice and simple

[joeyt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngcm1N_CTds

 

Watch the first goal. Watkins is offside but is deemed onside because Schar played the ball

 

Whole rule is a mess

 

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by joeyt

[McDog]

Just now, joeyt said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngcm1N_CTds

 

Watch the first goal. Watkins is offside but is deemed onside because Schar played the ball

 

 

That video is blocked in the USA but I'm pretty sure I know the exact sequence it references and that's why I thought for sure the goal would stand this time.

[geordiesteve710]

As much as I despise VAR, it's not at fault for last night, other than its mere existence gave Tierney and whoever was on video the opportunity to showcase their unbelievable incompetence. 

[Unbelievable]

43 minutes ago, geordiesteve710 said:

As much as I despise VAR, it's not at fault for last night, other than its mere existence gave Tierney and whoever was on video the opportunity to showcase their unbelievable incompetence. 

The goal would have stood had the VAR referee not called Tierney to watch the sequence. Tierney accidentally got it right on the pitch, and was tempted to reconsider. Before we had VAR no such thing as a VAR referee existed, hence VAR is at fault. VAR is not just some screen, it’s technology being used by people to inform their decision making. It’s not lead to better, or more consistent, decision making though.

[80]

It's like saying electricity isn't responsible for light pollution, it's the inept electricity users.

[TheBrownBottle]

5 hours ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I don’t think so, if you let the first defender off then it’s offside, because the presence of Longstaff is clearly interfering in the next action (the second attempted clearance). 
 

I’m not saying it’s right but I can only assume it’s the instinctive nature of Felipe’s action that they’ve focused on. 

It’s not the instinctive nature of the action - the VAR panel didn’t think there was an action at all.  They thought that the ball basically bounced off him when moving at speed.  It’s onside if he instinctively hits the ball. 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by TheBrownBottle

[LFEE]

Wait till you all see the Southampton penalty tonight ?

[Kaizero]

6 hours ago, gbandit said:

If it’s not a goal the rules need changing. What the fuck is the point of competitive sport if people who know fuck all about the game are the ones deciding how it runs. Continually we see decisions from referees and VAR that defy belief to almost all football fans. Of course there are really grey areas but I’m sure almost all football fans would see the goal Anderson scored yesterday as legit for their own team and if they were watching a neutral game they’d be scratching their heads at the decision. The amount of impact refs are having on games has only increased since the introduction of VAR. It’s absurd

 

This misconception is what really bothers me about all this, I think. It's just not the fact. VAR has led to a decreased impact. VAR is continually informing the refs on matters as the game goes on, it's just when they call an official VAR review that it gets "in your face" and people take notice. It's just something new, bright and shiny to blame for decisions not going "your" way.

  

10 hours ago, duo said:

VAR is just ruining the game in it's current form and refs need to be re-educated as to how it needs to be applied.  Because atm they are deciding who wins the league and who gets relegated not the 11 players on the pitch.

 

This is  just a straight up lie. Correct decisions are up 12% on average across a season, that means VAR is ensuring that the players on the pitch and what they do are what decide who wins the league and who gets relegatated and not a shit referee.

 

10 hours ago, 80 said:

I don't accept the validity of the statistics being quoted in the slightest. 

 

"The election was stolen", "Jet fuel can't melt steel beams" ad infinitum.

 

11 hours ago, madras said:

Some of that may be that they think it will overcome bias from the officials when it just seems to make it more stark.

 

The "top six" have fewer ref decisions go their way after the introduction of VAR, it clearly does the opposite and is removing "top club" bias (unless the "top club" is named Liverpool).

 

12 hours ago, The Prophet said:

It's almost like if you give incompetent officials VAR, they're still incompetent.

 

Now this post here, this post is the truth of the matter. Give VAR to a better standard of referees and you won't have these issues. VAR is still run by ordinary humans who are absolutely shit at their job. This complaint I can 100% get behind. Our shit league in Norway that nobody cares about have spent three years training all league approved referees on how to use VAR. How much training does the PL referee staff have? I checked the PL's official VAR FAQ...

 

What qualifies as a “clear and obvious error”? 

There was no unanimity among the referees. Different VARs came up with different outcomes.

 

 

I concede  I mean, what the fuck? There's actually no set rules for how the PL VARs intervene? Alright, fuck PL's version of VAR  I'm onboard the hate train now.

 

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by Kaizero

[joeyt]

3 minutes ago, Kaizero said:

 

This is  just a straight up lie. Correct decisions are up 12% on average across a season, that means VAR is ensuring that the players on the pitch and what they do are what decide who wins the league and who gets relegatated and not a shit referee.

 

 

Was last night's decision a correct decision?

 

Will it count towards the correct decision percentage you've got there?

[Kaizero]

2 minutes ago, joeyt said:

Was last night's decision a correct decision?

 

Will it count towards the correct decision percentage you've got there?

 

In my opinion, reading through the rules quoted by @NUFC, it was correct. I'd go as far as saying the examples of goals that have stood in similar cirumstances were the incorrect decisions. 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by Kaizero

[madras]

Just now, Kaizero said:

 

In my opinion reading through the rules quoted by @NUFC it was correct. I'd go as far as saying the examples of goals that have stood in similar cirumstances were the incorrect decisions. 

But wouldn't that have to mean that both defenders made no direct attempt at playing the ball but merely reacted ?

 

Na! That's not what I saw.

[joeyt]

So 'correct decisions' are just another opinion then rather than a fact

 

Pretty much everyone thinks last nights decision was the wrong one

[joeyt]

5 minutes ago, Kaizero said:

 

In my opinion, reading through the rules quoted by @NUFC, it was correct. I'd go as far as saying the examples of goals that have stood in similar cirumstances were the incorrect decisions.

 

 

 

 

So presumably they are not included in the 12% increase in correct decisions?

 

Because if they do count towards the 12% it makes the particular statistic pretty meaningless?

 

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by joeyt

[madras]

Just now, joeyt said:

 

So presumably they are not included in the 12% increase in correct decisions?

And do those correct decisions include non-decisions when the ref takes no action and they aren't viewed as serious enough  for VAR ?

[Hanshithispantz]

3 hours ago, Bimpy474 said:

 

For me Longstaff gains the advantage being beyond the defence. I find it weird that if it's deflected to he's OK and not ruled as active, but if a players blocks (plays at) a shot or pass then he's active.

 

What's the point of a line if a player can just stand yards off, and if a defender plays at a pass he's onside, for me that's just ridiculous.

He isn’t gaining an advantage though as he’d be offside if Isak played it to him. He’s onside because Felipe intentionally played the ball in his direction. The fact it was a stupid decision is irrelevant.

 

It’s no different to Botman playing the ball back to Dennis.

 

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by Hanshithispantz