Dogawful Officiating - Dave Coote suspended

[Thomson Mouse]

After watching our game I’d happily get rid of VAR altogether, take incorrect decisions on the chin, keep touch/bye/goal line technology and introduce the semi-auto offside from the WC. Job done.

[ChrisMcQuillan]

3 hours ago, Tisd09 said:

The inconsistency with dissent is really irritating, everyone could see what Jorginho says to the ref, the ref even calls him over for a chat and yet gets nothing and of course a perfect example was the Liverpool v Man Utd game and Dalot gets sent off yet Nunez gets sod all ?

Watching it like that, it's outrageous.

[Pokerprince2004]

With regards to the Isak foul, I know I'm in the minority but I still think it was just about ok. You can see he is leaning in with his shoulder and there's 1 replay where both have arms locked around each other. Anyway if the ref had sent Bollard off it would have given them the perfect excuse - we were down to 10 men, it was 0-0 before that blah blah. Him staying on and then scoring an own goal and giving a penalty away is way funnier

 

 

Edited January 8 by Pokerprince2004

[El Prontonise]

8 minutes ago, Pokerprince2004 said:

With regards to the Isak foul, I know I'm in the minority but I still think it was just about ok. You can see he is leaning in with his shoulder and there's 1 replay where both have arms locked around each other. Anyway if the ref had sent Bollard off it would have given them the perfect excuse - we were down to 10 men, it was 0-0 before that blah blah. Him staying on and then scoring an own goal and giving a penalty away is way funnier

 

 

 

 

I thought it wasn't a foul after a few more looks at it.

[Elma]

43 minutes ago, Thomson Mouse said:

After watching our game I’d happily get rid of VAR altogether, take incorrect decisions on the chin, keep touch/bye/goal line technology and introduce the semi-auto offside from the WC. Job done.

Agree with that but I'd probably go one step further. For me VAR was brought in for clear and obvious errors like mistaken identity etc so along with goal line tech and automated offsides, I'd give each team one VAR call a game which would be lost if not upheld.

 

Call would be made via the 4th official and the onfield ref would go straight to the screen for a second look so no time lost while a remote VAR team assess it. No remote VAR team would also mean no influencing of the ref and showing him their preferred angles - just one tech person on the other end who can show any angles requested. Onfield ref's call is uninfluenced and final.

 

The biggest problem with VAR is definitely offsides though, so automating them would be the simplest change and the Premier League were stupid for not going down that route.

[Yorkie]

I don't know why anyone would be in favour of significantly reducing VAR but at the same time happy to introduce alternative offside technology. 

 

The main issue with VAR and offsides is not the dubious accuracy of the current methods; it's that our capacity to fully celebrate and feel the rush of a goal is involuntarily restrained by the fear that it will be chalked-off after significant delay. Of course, VAR might identify infringements other than invisible offsides, but that issue is easily the most common boner-killer. 

 

Genuinely unfair goals - that have only been scored because the attacker is well beyond the last man - are few and far between. On that note: changing the law (i.e. daylight) to accommodate the use of technology and reduce its pedantry is absolutely pointless. We're basically just integrating the allowable margin for error we always had with the good old linesman and "giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt."

 

It's ironic that we crow about VAR being unsuitable due to the subjectivity of incidents... offside is an objective issue, and yet it's the aspect for which VAR is easily the least appropriate. IMO.

[Guest]

I'm not sure with the offside rule, like. 

 

If you're going to have an offside law as anal as it is, the only way to tell is with the technology. Lower league refs aren't going to be able to tell if someone's armpit hair is in front of someone's toenail so what is that point of it?

 

Go back to the old interpretation of "daylight" and even with VAR, you're going to get the decisions pretty quickly when there's only one line needs drawn.

 

Offsides were meant to stop goal hanging so it's not as if this law would just to be a convenience to help VAR, it should be across the board.

[DahnSahf]

The thing is, the 'daylight' thing wasn't an application of the law, it was an instruction to linesmen because so many players were being flagged offside who were not. When a ball was played from deep there were occasions when a player was flagged who was a full 2 yards onside when the ball was played! We don't want to go back to that.

 

Of course there were offside goals that were allowed to stand, but the opposite was far more common, hence the 'daylight' instruction.

 

I favour the retention of VAR for offside, but just let the VAR have a very brief look and if the attacker looks more or less level then call him level. If he's actually a few inches beyond the defender so fucking what?

 

 

Edit. I mean if the bulk of his body is level with the defender's body, he's level.

 

 

 

Edited January 8 by DahnSahf
Clarification

[Guest]

11 hours ago, DahnSahf said:

The thing is, the 'daylight' thing wasn't an application of the law, it was an instruction to linesmen because so many players were being flagged offside who were not. When a ball was played from deep there were occasions when a player was flagged who was a full 2 yards onside when the ball was played! We don't want to go back to that.

 

 

 

 

That's sort of my point though? Why have a law that is almost impossible to get correct with the naked eye? 

 

Daylight was more a "guideline" and is much easier to distinguish and can be the same from grassroots to the top level. 

 

If there's still a tight call with the "Wenger" law then I think a quick review is fine. I'm assuming for VAR it'd just need a look at when the pass was played and if there's a gap between the defender and attacker. No daft lines trying to determine which body part is leaning slightly off.

 

If you're still barely millimetres off with the new law then that's completely fine. 

 

 

Edited January 9 by Optimistic Nut

[DahnSahf]

7 hours ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

That's sort of my point though? Why have a law that is almost impossible to get correct with the naked eye? 

 

Exactly right. Checks were being called for because a significant number of decisions were wildly wrong, not because the telly revealed that someone's knee was slightly beyond the defender's heel.

 

What we have now is a classic example of technology being used because it's available, rather than needed or wanted. It's like when instant replays were first introduced, the BBC used to waste about 30 seconds of GP highlights showing a Renault turbo cruising past a Cosworth on the straight in slo-mo! But at least that didn't affect the actual racing.

 

Personally I'm not too bothered what the actual law is, although I would very much favour a simplification as you say. We still need checks to cut out egregious errors, but they must be really quick. That would inevitably reintroduce an element of doubt, which is absolutely fine with me as long as the benefit of it is given to the attacker.

[The College Dropout]

The problem with the offside law is the law itself. It was brought in to prevent "goal hanging" and it has done that well. But it's nearly impossible to write a law for goal hanging that isn't pedantic. We have to accept a minimal level of pedantry and time taken to arrive at a decision. I favour an automated solution that arrives at a decision within 3 seconds. That might not be available now but it will come.

8 hours ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

That's sort of my point though? Why have a law that is almost impossible to get correct with the naked eye? 

 

Daylight was more a "guideline" and is much easier to distinguish and can be the same from grassroots to the top level. 

 

If there's still a tight call with the "Wenger" law then I think a quick review is fine. I'm assuming for VAR it'd just need a look at when the pass was played and if there's a gap between the defender and attacker. No daft lines trying to determine which body part is leaning slightly off.

 

If you're still barely millimetres off with the new law then that's completely fine. 

 

 

 

The problem with that is - what happens if the linesman flags that for offside? He's right, the player is factually offside.

[joeyt]

 

 

 

[Bimpy474]

1 hour ago, joeyt said:

 

 

 

 

What's so bad about that is two professional referees (Var Ref, and then eventually the on field ref) came to the conclusion it was a red card, they seem to be the only people on earth who thought it was red.

 

All the camera's, replays, different angles and help given to the refs mean nowt, if the two refs that matter are so inept they come to the wrong conclusion in the face of all the said help. Just ineptitude in the standard of our refereeing.

 

They're just awful and VAR is making them worse, as it reaffirms they're own completely bonkers take on things when they look at the replays, they look for any kind of slight touch or reasoning to back up their wrong calls, the penalties against us in the Liverpool game as prime examples.

 

OK they've overturned the red, that's good. But the majority of decisions cost teams in games, and no amount of we got it wrong apologies help at that stage. Be feckin better at your professional job ffs.

 

 

Edited January 9 by Bimpy474

[Tsunami]

Seemed pretty clear infringement on Trafford last night. Clear, intentional nudge which stopped Trafford making any attempt to get the ball.

 

 

[Hanshithispantz]

Hello

[Pilko]

Chris Kavanagh - useless bent cunt.

[Magpie]

This fucking arsehole yet again, not good enough 

[alexf]

Haven't seen it back but it looked the most blatant obstruction/not playing the ball. Lead to Gordon not tracking back properly and being out of position. 

[pubteam]

Anyone who watched it on TV, was the ref as bad as he looked at the ground. Seemed to miss lots of very clear fouls, in particular the foul in the build up to their first goal?

[joeyt]

Looked an absolute clear as day foul on Gordon 

[Hudson]

9 minutes ago, pubteam said:

Anyone who watched it on TV, was the ref as bad as he looked at the ground. Seemed to miss lots of very clear fouls, in particular the foul in the build up to their first goal?

Yeah he was just as bad on TV should have booked Burn for a tactical fowl.

He then books a City player for the very same fouls.

 

Generally bad all round

[geordie_b]

15 minutes ago, joeyt said:

Looked an absolute clear as day foul on Gordon 

What did Sky say? Was it reviewed by VAR as we didn’t touch the ball after before the goal

[joeyt]

9 minutes ago, geordie_b said:

What did Sky say? Was it reviewed by VAR as we didn’t touch the ball after before the goal

 

It can't be reviewed by VAR as the ball went out of play for a throw in

[midds]

If you're a referee, and you allow a team to take a free-kick for offside inside the opponents half  and just let that shit happen then you're weak as fucking piss. He let them do whatever the fuck the wanted, when they wanted and how they wanted. The spineless little cunt feels that threatened that he gave them the everything this afternoon. Scared shitless to give fouls against them as Pep would kick off about it at full time and he'd be in the spotlight. 

 

i expected City to win but I also expected the referee to be impartial and he just fucking wasn't. They're better than us but fuck me, at least abide by the fucking rules and make them play by them. Kavanagh can fuck clean off.

 

I don't normally blame refs for losses but tonight was insane. Hope ne never refs us again

[nufc123]

At least it was both ways