Dogawful Officiating

[Wullie]

19 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Sorting offside out would go a long way. Either take offside out of VARs remit, or allow a buffer zone for the attacking player, so we're not checking borderline decisions.

Dale Johnson from ESPN said the other day that leagues have been prevented from using the Champions League method, which is apparently just to do a visual check.

[Doctor Zaius]

 

Balbuena decision was absolutely laughable. How can you get to the top level of officiating and think that this is anything more than a follow through. The tech can be perfect, but its useless if its left in the hands of utterly clueless cunts.

Every week there' outrageous decisions. Its pathetic. 

 

[Adam]

So many things happen today show how broken football is. 

The Wilson goal, shows how the rules just don't work and how VAR is not fit for purpose as they never looked at the TAA push. 

ASM getting body checked, yellow cards worthless here. Football needs sin bins like all other sports. Do a tactical foul like that your team is down to 10 men for 10 mins.

The west ham red, well I'm not sure how you fix that. See so many stupid decisions with follow throughs either the kicker catching someone, or a defender trying to block and the kicker kicking them and then getting hurt. You'd think with endless replays they'd see it's not even a foul but I'm not sure what rules these people are reading. 

[Happinesstan]

That Balbuena sending off was fuckin ridiculous. 

[Pilko]

I wonder what it'll take before a manager or players decide to take protest action and refuse to give interviews, walk off the pitch etc? Surely we can't be far away from that, every week there's a blatantly wrong shit decision screwing one team or another over.

[Cronky]

I'd like to hear a ref like Peter Walton come on to explain the reasoning behind the decision. The pundits don't seem to know enough about how the rules are being interpreted to help us here. It does seem that a lack of intention doesn't completely exonerate a player if they're not properly in control of the challenge.

Overall, there's sufficient doubt about the incident to make it not worthy of a red. It was unusual became the leading foot came downwards on to the opponent's leg, although that seemed to be the result of Balbuena's standing foot slipping on the turf. 

I was opposed to VAR being used for anything but matters of fact like whether the ball crossed the goal line and offsides. But now that it's here, we may as well try and make it work better. As Walton said yesterday, refs are in areas which they've never had to explore before, and it'll take some time before it's all straightened out.

[joeyt]

Are offsides matter of fact?

They're literally drawing lines on a screen to see if someone's toe nail is offside 

[Cronky]

Well, within the limitations of the technology, yes, offsides are a matter of fact.

I don't get the fuss about decisions when a player is only fractionally offside. If you're going to use technology, then that's offside. Keep it simple.

[Sima]

7 hours ago, Cronky said:

I'd like to hear a ref like Peter Walton come on to explain the reasoning behind the decision. The pundits don't seem to know enough about how the rules are being interpreted to help us here. It does seem that a lack of intention doesn't completely exonerate a player if they're not properly in control of the challenge.

Overall, there's sufficient doubt about the incident to make it not worthy of a red. It was unusual became the leading foot came downwards on to the opponent's leg, although that seemed to be the result of Balbuena's standing foot slipping on the turf. 

I was opposed to VAR being used for anything but matters of fact like whether the ball crossed the goal line and offsides. But now that it's here, we may as well try and make it work better. As Walton said yesterday, refs are in areas which they've never had to explore before, and it'll take some time before it's all straightened out.

I wouldn’t ask Peter Walton anything.  I don’t think he’s ever went against a decision that’s already been made when he’s been asked for a ‘second opinion’.

[LFEE]

10 hours ago, Cronky said:

Well, within the limitations of the technology, yes, offsides are a matter of fact.

I don't get the fuss about decisions when a player is only fractionally offside. If you're going to use technology, then that's offside. Keep it simple.

The fuss is surely at what point do you freeze the frame then what part of the body you use to draw the line. If the TV companies revisited all these VAR offsides and didn’t show the lines and asked an audience whether they were on or off you’d soon realise the problem.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Also the offside rule was invented with built-in benefit of the doubt to attackers. 

[Cronky]

20 minutes ago, LFEE said:

The fuss is surely at what point do you freeze the frame then what part of the body you use to draw the line. If the TV companies revisited all these VAR offsides and didn’t show the lines and asked an audience whether they were on or off you’d soon realise the problem.

Like I said, the technology has its limitations, but you get a more accurate decision than relying on the human eye in a split second. 

VAR was never going to be perfect. 

[LFEE]

1 minute ago, Cronky said:

Like I said, the technology has its limitations, but you get a more accurate decision than relying on the human eye in a split second. 

VAR was never going to be perfect. 

Referees are never perfect. So let’s just stick with them and enjoy the moment more wether the decision is proven right or wrong the next day  ?‍♂️ 

[Guest neesy111]

12 hours ago, LFEE said:

Referees are never perfect. So let’s just stick with them and enjoy the moment more wether the decision is proven right or wrong the next day  ?‍♂️ 

It's obstructing what the real issue is that refs are getting a lot of decisions wrong and don't apply the rules consistently enough.

[The Prophet]

The West Brom penalty decision was absolutely grim too.

[joeyt]

What's the point

[Guest]

I put this in wrong thread, think the ref should get the 3-match ban. How he watched that on a replay and decided that’s a red card was shocking.

 

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Optimistic Nut

[joeyt]

 

[Dancing Brave]

Never a pen that. ^

[et tu brute]

8 minutes ago, joeyt said:

 

Jesus it's more of a foul by the Peterborough player

[Fantail Breeze]

VAR would probably have sent the Lincoln player off.

[joeyt]

How come Bale's first goal was allowed to stand today but Wilson's against Liverpool wasn't?

[midds]

Just now, joeyt said:

How come Bale's first goal was allowed to stand today but Wilson's against Liverpool wasn't?

The handball wasn't 'immediately' before the goal. Apparently.  

[joeyt]

That's mad

[midds]

I'm paraphrasing but that's essentially what they said. A few seconds of play elapsed between the handball and the goal. Therefore it's ignored and the goal given.