Dogawful Officiating

[Bimpy474]

2 minutes ago, Sir Joel Inton said:

 

Even if the grass isn’t straight, which I think the groundsman will disagree with - the Fulham player’s foot is quite a distance behind the cut of grass, as you can clearly see a gap between the two, whereas Wirtz’s is clearly ahead of it.

 

The line of grass would need to be out by some distance, which would be visible on the TV for that not to be offside.

 

I’ve not noticed the computer images to be so different to the real image before either. Wirtz’s leg and foot are in different positions and on the computer image his foot isn’t even on the floor and he appears to be floating.

 

Tell you what, if you can show any groundsman who can line up a grass cut exact to the other side of a 74 yards wide pitch, without the use of a laser I'd shake his hand. That would be a feat and a half.

 

By the way, i think what they said is bullshit. They got it wrong and won't admit it.

[Sir Joel Inton]

5 minutes ago, Bimpy474 said:

 

Tell you what, if you can show any groundsman who can line up a grass cut exact to the other side of a 74 yards wide pitch, without the use of a laser I'd shake his hand. That would be a feat and a half.

 

By the way, i think what they said is bullshit. They got it wrong and won't admit it.

 

They measure from a starting point (the goal line) to make each line identical. So they’ll measure it down one side of the pitch and the same at the other and then cut down that line. Usually with a line of string across the pitch at both of the measured ends to ensure a straight cut.

 

For the image shown above not to be offside there would need to be quite a deviation away from the line they’d measured which would look abnormal to the naked eye. 

 

Source: one of my mates is a groundsman in the Championship. 

 

 

Edited January 5 by Sir Joel Inton

[Sir Joel Inton]

This is a great image to show how straight the pitch lines are as they line up perfectly with markings in the box. and how clearly Wirtz is offside  

 

Although you could argue Fulham deserve to be on the wrong end of that decision for that awful defensive line.

 

 

Edited January 5 by Sir Joel Inton

[Bimpy474]

On 05/01/2026 at 00:49, Sir Joel Inton said:

This is a great image to show how straight the pitch lines are as they line up perfectly with markings in the box. and how clearly Wirtz is offside  

 

It looks so offside it's untrue, it's not even close. The 5cm thing isn't even relevant as it's more than that off 

 

 

Edited January 7 by Bimpy474

[Bimpy474]

11 minutes ago, Sir Joel Inton said:

 

They measure from a starting point (the goal line) to make each line identical. So they’ll measure it down one side of the pitch and the same at the other and then cut down that line. Usually with a line of string across the pitch at both of the measured ends to ensure a straight cut.

 

For the image shown above not to be offside there would need to be quite a deviation away from the line they’d measured which would look abnormal to the naked eye. 

 

Source: one of my mates is a groundsman in the Championship. 

 

 

 

 

When I played and managed at our local club, i used to watch the groundsman use the line of string, and still draw a line like he was drunk, which he usually was to be fair 

 

 

Edited January 5 by Bimpy474

[Sir Joel Inton]

The only thing I can try and explain with that is if the technology has malfunctioned by Szoboszlai’s position, which is very similar to Wirtz’s but may be slightly more onside than he was.

 

Either that or the technology is just not as accurate as they’ll lead us to believe which may bring into question other decisions or why it’s being used.

 

Otherwise I’m at a loss with even a tolerance how that can be described as being onside.

[Teslact]

46 minutes ago, Sir Joel Inton said:

They measure from a starting point (the goal line) to make each line identical. So they’ll measure it down one side of the pitch and the same at the other and then cut down that line. Usually with a line of string across the pitch at both of the measured ends to ensure a straight cut.

Would love to see the groundsman post two photos with a tape measure from the goal line to the strip where the two players were.

[alexf]

38 minutes ago, Sir Joel Inton said:

The only thing I can try and explain with that is if the technology has malfunctioned by Szoboszlai’s position, which is very similar to Wirtz’s but may be slightly more onside than he was.

 

Either that or the technology is just not as accurate as they’ll lead us to believe which may bring into question other decisions or why it’s being used.

 

Otherwise I’m at a loss with even a tolerance how that can be described as being onside.

 

I think what's happened is the semi automated looks to have paused a few frames early, which is why wirtz hasn't planted his foot yet. But that's wrong as clearly they ball hadn't been played yet according to the real image. So if it matched up to the image shown above then it's pretty clear wirtz foot is ahead. Either the system malfunctioned or someone manipulated it to tell it to freeze 1-2 frames too early to the benefit of Liverpool. 

 

Just relieved they didn't get the full benefit of it like they have in the past. Hell of a a strike from the Fulham lad.

[GEFAFWISP]

7 hours ago, alexf said:

 

I think what's happened is the semi automated looks to have paused a few frames early, which is why wirtz hasn't planted his foot yet. But that's wrong as clearly they ball hadn't been played yet according to the real image. So if it matched up to the image shown above then it's pretty clear wirtz foot is ahead. Either the system malfunctioned or someone manipulated it to tell it to freeze 1-2 frames too early to the benefit of Liverpool. 

 

Just relieved they didn't get the full benefit of it like they have in the past. Hell of a a strike from the Fulham lad.

Therein lies one of the major problems with this entire system, if frame selection and camera fidelity is not able to ascertain with 100% certainty when the passer passes the ball, when it leaves their foot or when they first strike it, then it's still just a big guessing game for any marginal (5cm...) calls.

 

Surprised Liverpool benefitted from this though, major shock.

[joeyt]

11 hours ago, Kaizero said:

 

What's the definition of VAR error?

[Kaizero]

5 hours ago, joeyt said:

 

What's the definition of VAR error?

 

Image is from this article: https://www.squawka.com/en/features/var-errors-premier-league-2025-26/

[The Prophet]

5 hours ago, joeyt said:

 

What's the definition of VAR error?

 

Decided by Twitter users.

[joeyt]

9 minutes ago, Kaizero said:

 

Image is from this article: https://www.squawka.com/en/features/var-errors-premier-league-2025-26/

 

So nothing concrete at all then

[Checko]

15 hours ago, John P said:

What the fuck is this? His foot on the actual image is beyond the dark stripe of grass, yet on the computer image it isn't. How on earth can that be?

His pose looks slightly different in the two pics to me: both legs and arms are a bit straighter in the picture compared to the photo. My guess is the photo doesn't capture the exact moment they're judging, it's probably a few fractions of a second out.

 

Either that or their computer modelling is buggered.

[Kaizero]

1 minute ago, joeyt said:

 

So nothing concrete at all then

 

I mean... I just thought it might offer an interesting addition to the "VAR sucks" discussions on here  In no way did I mean for it to imply that there's any other "official" error report than the annual VAR report the FA releases (or at least used to release, can't recall seeing one make the rounds for last season after it finished ) 

[joeyt]

6 minutes ago, Kaizero said:

 

I mean... I just thought it might offer an interesting addition to the "VAR sucks" discussions on here  In no way did I mean for it to imply that there's any other "official" error report than the annual VAR report the FA releases (or at least used to release, can't recall seeing one make the rounds for last season after it finished ) 

 

I think a definition of what a VAR error would have helped. Or even just saying it's voted from random people on the Internet. 

 

It's one human interpretation vs another humans interpretation. I'm not sure how it can be deemed an "error"

 

 

Edited January 5 by joeyt

[timeEd32]

I've always felt like I'm losing my mind watching a lot of these offside reviews. Like we're all in some big experiment to see how stupid we all are as something between corruption and incompetence is carried out before our eyes. At least there aren't so many ridiculous camera angles as there were before, but there are so many inconsistencies I'm not sure how anyone let's this go on with a straight face. The fact that the PL somewhat covertly has a different tolerance (that is subject to human decision) than UEFA is ridiculous, but also the intent of this never should have been about solving 5cm differences. What's more of a fiasco coming out of this Liverpool goal is confirmation that the VAR official can manually adjust the frame when the ball is kicked. You can probably manipulate 99% of debatable offside decisions just by doing that 1-2 frames in either direction.

[Kilcline]

2 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

I've always felt like I'm losing my mind watching a lot of these offside reviews. Like we're all in some big experiment to see how stupid we all are as something between corruption and incompetence is carried out before our eyes. At least there aren't so many ridiculous camera angles as there were before, but there are so many inconsistencies I'm not sure how anyone let's this go on with a straight face. The fact that the PL somewhat covertly has a different tolerance (that is subject to human decision) than UEFA is ridiculous, but also the intent of this never should have been about solving 5cm differences. What's more of a fiasco coming out of this Liverpool goal is confirmation that the VAR official can manually adjust the frame when the ball is kicked. You can probably manipulate 99% of debatable offside decisions just by doing that 1-2 frames in either direction.

It never ceases to amaze me how rules/technology seem to work largely fine elsewhere then they make it over here and we cock it up.

 

VAR, semi-automated offside, the handball rule just off the top of my head for starters 

[timeEd32]

3 minutes ago, Kilcline said:

It never ceases to amaze me how rules/technology seem to work largely fine elsewhere then they make it over here and we cock it up.

 

VAR, semi-automated offside, the handball rule just off the top of my head for starters 

 

In the course of an NFL game I've never really questioned the process playing out. There's still plenty to debate like what is and isn't considered a catch (which is probably similar to handball debates), but I've never felt like I'm not seeing something the video official may be seeing or that they are somehow toying with outcomes. I think this falls more on the side of incompetence than grand conspiracy, though there's enough leeway for an individual to move things in the direction they want and also too many relationships between officials, managers, etc.

 

Step 1 to fixing this for me would be moving all reviews to the PL offices in London (the way the NFL has it centralized in New York) and creating a distinction between pitch referees and replay officials. This probably wouldn't help with the conspiracists who would assume the PL is making it even easier to maneuver results to their liking, but I think it would instantly improve things. 

[joeyt]

22 minutes ago, Kilcline said:

It never ceases to amaze me how rules/technology seem to work largely fine elsewhere then they make it over here and we cock it up.

 

VAR, semi-automated offside, the handball rule just off the top of my head for starters 

 

When you say largely elsewhere do you mean in other sports or still in football just not in England?

 

If you mean other sports then I don't think cricket and tennis for example are comparable to football

[Kilcline]

8 minutes ago, joeyt said:

 

When you say largely elsewhere do you mean in other sports or still in football just not in England?

 

If you mean other sports then I don't think cricket and tennis for example are comparable to football

Just football elsewhere, it's like night and day.

 

I also found it noticeable during the Euros last year how other countries' officials were much slicker at dealing with VAR calls etc, although there might be some bias in there as I naturally default to ours being shit 

[huss9]

i'm still keen on there being a time limit on decisions.

if you dont know in 30 to 60 seconds, then its not clear and obvious.

[Sir Toon]

4 hours ago, huss9 said:

i'm still keen on there being a time limit on decisions.

if you dont know in 30 to 60 seconds, then its not clear and obvious.

Wont happen until they can 'doctor' the footage quicker.

[Optimistic Nut]

4 hours ago, huss9 said:

i'm still keen on there being a time limit on decisions.

if you dont know in 30 to 60 seconds, then its not clear and obvious.

 

Then when there's an iffy decision in one of their clubs' favour, just drag the process out until that time elapses and the decision stays in their favour. 

[joeyt]

I thought the passage of play in the West Ham - Forest game was a nearly perfect indictment of where the game is at

 

Forest have a penalty appeal turned down for handball. For some reason the referee gave a goal kick and even though the VAR in his ear is telling him to delay the game while they check for a potential handball, he doesn't change his decision to a corner it stays as a goal kick. Whether he's allowed to change his decision I don't know but it makes everyone look pretty stupid

 

West Ham then go up the other end and score a goal which would surely have seen them claim a vital 3 points.  It gets disallowed because a West Ham forward is offside when one of his teammates is tackled denying a great goal and moment for West Ham fans

 

Anyone saying it isn't diluting the experience is talking rubbish in my opinion