Dogawful Officiating

[Pancrate1892]

I can't remember the media upset about Callum Wilsons goal against Brentford that would have sewn up a 1-3 win but we had to hold on for 1-2 that season. That didn't even go directly in, it bounced off the bicep area then he put it in 

[Skeletor]

2 minutes ago, Pancrate1892 said:

Aye, small margins, but if it was our goal disallowed they'd say 'correct decision', just like the small margins of schars headbutt where his head travelled 1cm like a bruce lee punch. 

If it hits the deltoid, then it's a goal, but clearly hits below that on the bicep which is not a goal. It's harsh but when all we heard last week was the 'letter of the law' then the uproar on this is basically hypocrisy 

 

Especially as the replays showed it was Brereton Diaz who initiates the "headbutt". We were told constantly that it has to be a red for Schar.

[Pancrate1892]

1 minute ago, Skeletor said:

 

Especially as the replays showed it was Brereton Diaz who initiates the "headbutt". We were told constantly that it has to be a red for Schar.

I know. It's like that specific replay didn't exist and wasn't available to VAR 

[Geordie Ahmed]

28 minutes ago, Matt1892 said:

I don’t see it that way and I haven’t seen a still photo pinpointing the exact part of his arm that it hits which makes it a handball.

 

It could have come off anywhere from the top of the shoulder to mid bicep. However, it isn’t conclusive which part it did hit.

 

 

The red line is clearly way below his armpit, not sure how that isn't conclusive to some 

 

[Matt1892]

10 minutes ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

 

The red line is clearly way below his armpit, not sure how that isn't conclusive to some 

 

The ball doesn’t make contact with the player where the red line is though.

 

A ball is spherical, not flat, so any line drawn should be through the centre of the ball and not the edge.

[Geordie Ahmed]

3 minutes ago, Matt1892 said:

The ball doesn’t make contact with the player where the red line is though.

 

A ball is spherical, not flat, so any line drawn should be through the centre of the ball and not the edge.

Even if you move the line further up it's still below his armpit 

[Matt1892]

Just now, Geordie Ahmed said:

Even if you move the line further up it's still below his armpit 

It clearly isn’t, which is why you drew it at the bottom to try and add weight to your point.

[geordie_b]

6 minutes ago, Matt1892 said:

The ball doesn’t make contact with the player where the red line is though.

 

A ball is spherical, not flat, so any line drawn should be through the centre of the ball and not the edge.

So this only hit the tip of Obriens nose ?

 

 

 

Edited August 26 by geordie_b

[Geordie Ahmed]

1 minute ago, Matt1892 said:

It clearly isn’t, which is why you drew it at the bottom to try and add weight to your point.

I didn't draw it but can ask the person that did to move it further up if it helps? 

[Matt1892]

1 minute ago, geordie_b said:

So this only hit the tip of Obriens nose ?

 

 

 

 

Clearly it doesn’t hit his arm with that much power or force.

 

No point in having a dogawful officiating thread if people cannot put their own bias to the side when judging an incident.

[geordie_b]

Just now, Matt1892 said:

Clearly it doesn’t hit his arm with that much power or force.

 

No point in having a dogawful officiating thread if people cannot put their own bias to the side when judging an incident.

You might want to look into ball compression when hitting different surfaces. For the ball to bounce off him almost the entire perimeter of the ball will have made contact with him

[Theregulars]

It’s our side of borderline, if that makes sense. I think the benefit of the doubt just tilts in our favour (which is why I’m surprised he ruled it out, I didn’t think there was enough in it to change).

[Matt1892]

4 minutes ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

I didn't draw it but can ask the person that did to move it further up if it helps? 

 

There you go.

[Matt1892]

Just now, Theregulars said:

It’s our side of borderline, if that makes sense. I think the benefit of the doubt just tilts in our favour (which is why I’m surprised he ruled it out, I didn’t think there was enough in it to change).

VAR should not be ruling goals out on benefit of the doubt.

[Geordie Ahmed]

1 minute ago, Matt1892 said:

 

There you go.

 

Whilst I accept the red line is on the edge there's not a chance I'm accepting only that blue line is where contact was made, it's a ball not a toblerone 

[Matt1892]

Just now, Geordie Ahmed said:

 

Whilst I accept the red line is on the edge there's not a chance I'm accepting only that blue line is where contact was made, it's a ball not a toblerone 

Show me definitively where the ball made contact with the player then.

 

Again, VAR is for clear and obvious errors.

 

 

Edited August 26 by Matt1892

[Theregulars]

Just now, Matt1892 said:

VAR should not be ruling goals out on benefit of the doubt.

I sort of agree but there are too many debatable calls in football to be that absolutist about it. The way it’s been deployed hasn’t helped: it should either clearly be based on a pure technical application of the rules (in which case the decision was rightly in our favour), or referee’s interpretation with the benefit of different angles and slower time (which may not have gone in our favour). 
 

I don’t think it’s a travesty of a decision or a naked injustice. It’s tough luck and a bitter pill but the decision is logical and justifiable for me.

[KingArthur]

40 minutes ago, Matt1892 said:

Show me definitively where the ball made contact with the player then.

 

Again, VAR is for clear and obvious errors.

 

 

 

99,9% certainty that the ball hit his bicep there. And even a small contact with the arm means no goal. 

[Abacus]

Peter Walton thinks it was a red for Joelinton. But he also thinks it's a good thing he wasn't sent off, since it was a subjective decision where VAR were right not to intervene. So, well done refs.

 

Also thinks the goal should have stood as he couldn't see clear evidence that the ball hit his arm and VAR should only intervene in this case if it was a factual decision. But, however, that if VAR did think it's a handball, then it has to intervene and rule out the goal. Well done refs again.

 

Hope that's cleared everything up. 

 

That's former PL ref Peter Walton folks. Confusing subjectivity with facts and finding ways to agree with referees even when he thinks they're wrong because he often was himself, since 2003.

[Guest]

The real issue here is that there's only one camera angle available for VAR to use, yet in other games there would have been several different angles. 

[Tsunami]

Pretty sure Dermott Gallagher said on ref watch that it was like was the ball over the line. If the circumference is included it’s handball and the laws of physics suggest the ball would have compressed sufficiently for it to have hit the arm. Gallagher then says he’d have allowed the goal, wtf? 
 

Also seen stay with the on-field decision. The ref is completely unsighted and VAR is there to make a factual decision.

[KingArthur]

43 minutes ago, OCK said:

The real issue here is that there's only one camera angle available for VAR to use, yet in other games there would have been several different angles. 

Are there? Most likely there were number of angles but we only saw 1 in the broadcast.

[Cf]

Ask the ref where it hit and the answer would be "his head I assume". Not sure why on field decision would be given any weight. 

[huss9]

Declan Rice shouldnt have been sent off (glad he was though).

The brighton lad should have seen Red for his kick at him.

[JigsawGoesToPieces]

2 hours ago, huss9 said:

Declan Rice shouldnt have been sent off (glad he was though).

The brighton lad should have seen Red for his kick at him.

 

Watching it again on MOTD (did see it live at the time), think Rice knew what he was doing tapping the ball away trying to be cute and the Brighton player went to take a quick FK so for me its a yellow for Rice