Chris Wood (now playing for Nottingham Forest)

[Chris_R]

7 minutes ago, neesy111 said:

 

Easily copped out by faking a injury.

 

If you're not subbed off, we wait

If you are subbed off, the replacement takes it

If all the subs have been used and you are not fit to continue, the captain takes it and you are barred from rejoining play if you make a miraculous recovery after

[Thiago]

1 hour ago, Pata said:

 

You want them to allow an offside goal stand because VAR fucked up at Stamford Bridge? Horrible take and as you said, crazy.

Such an odd reply from you. I don't know how you've misunderstood this so catastrophically. 

 

I have no issue with them flagging the offside goal. Where I take issue is with how inconsistently they apply 'clear and obvious'. It's debatable whether Bruno's studs being offside is 'clear and obvious' as evidenced by the linesman not flagging and no one in the ground even suggesting it. But if we accept it as meeting the threshold, to then sit on your hands when Trevor Chalobah is trying to undress Murphy in the penalty box makes the whole system a farce. 

 

That was my point - that we've added all this technology just to hope that 'it evens itself out across the season'. 

 

 

[Pata]

1 minute ago, Thiago said:

Such an odd reply from you. I don't know how you've misunderstood this so catastrophically. 

 

I have no issue with them flagging the offside goal. Where I take issue is with how inconsistently they apply 'clear and obvious'. It's debatable whether Bruno's studs being offside is 'clear and obvious' as evidenced by the linesman not flagging and no one in the ground even suggesting it. But if we accept it as meeting the threshold, to then sit on your hands when Trevor Chalobah is trying to undress Murphy in the penalty box makes the whole system a farce. 

 

That was my point - that we've added all this technology just to hope that 'it evens itself out across the season'. 

 

 

 

You can't apply the 'clear and obvious' to offsides, thus you can't compare objective offsides to subjective shouts for a penalty. Chalobah on Murphy was 100% a pen and VAR referee failed.

 

Linesman not flagging Wood's goal just highlights how much VAR is needed for offsides, impossible job for human eyes.

[Thiago]

3 minutes ago, Pata said:

 

You can't apply the 'clear and obvious' to offsides, thus you can't compare objective offsides to subjective shouts for a penalty. Chalobah on Murphy was 100% a pen and VAR referee failed.

 

Linesman not flagging Wood's goal just highlights how much VAR is needed for offsides, impossible job for human eyes.

I can critique the system as used because if it's not going to catch everything then don't prescribe it as doing so. 

 

It was oversold as something it couldn't be and all it leads to is an imbalance of outcomes. Before VAR we'd have not got that penalty but got the goal. Now it's overcorrected and made things worse IMO.

[Pata]

2 minutes ago, Thiago said:

I can critique the system as used because if it's not going to catch everything then don't prescribe it as doing so. 

 

It was oversold as something it couldn't be and all it leads to is an imbalance of outcomes. Before VAR we'd have not got that penalty but got the goal. Now it's overcorrected and made things worse IMO.

 

You do realise it's still used by humans? I don't see much wrong with VAR as a system but humans making the decisions are still poor. It's better implemented elsewhere, hopefully PL can fix it too. And VAR didn't give the Wood penalty, just checked it for possible offside and whether there really was a foul.

[Pata]

Just now, ManDoon said:

The problem is it’s reducing things to millimeter judgements based on frame rates. Im fine with it for penalties, it’s absolutely shit for offside 

 

 I'm the opposite, IMO it's working well enough for offsides but it's often a mess for penalties without any consistency.

[Thiago]

1 minute ago, Pata said:

 

You do realise it's still used by humans? I don't see much wrong with VAR as a system but humans making the decisions are still poor. It's better implemented elsewhere, hopefully PL can fix it too. And VAR didn't give the Wood penalty, just checked it for possible offside and whether there really was a foul.

Why are you being so patronising? 

 

That's the crux of my argument, human input = human error so it's intent to improve things won't really do that. We could go down huge rabbit holes about how do you accurately confirm point of contact from the player passing the ball etc. We keep trying to modernise processes that in many instances can't be. I wasn't referencing Wood's penalty, we'd have got that because the referee gave it of his own accord, I'm talking about the Murphy one that the on field refs didn't give. 

 

I think it's best if we just agree to disagree.

[Pata]

1 minute ago, Thiago said:

Why are you being so patronising? 

 

That's the crux of my argument, human input = human error so it's intent to improve things won't really do that. We could go down huge rabbit holes about how do you accurately confirm point of contact from the player passing the ball etc. We keep trying to modernise processes that in many instances can't be. I wasn't referencing Wood's penalty, we'd have got that because the referee gave it of his own accord, I'm talking about the Murphy one that the on field refs didn't give. 

 

I think it's best if we just agree to disagree.

 

Apologies, don't mean to be patronising. And yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[The Prophet]

Great interview with NBC. He knows exactly why he was brought here and that bigger and better players will be brought in.

[Conjo]

17 hours ago, ManDoon said:

I’m always a “best technique player on the pitch” takes it. Personally 

 

Generally agree, but pelanties are a skill that can be mastered even if you don't have the best technique. Post-Shearer there's not a player in any of our teams I'd want to take penalties ahead of Shola. He was absolutely clinical, got them right past the root of the post into the side netting with power consistently. Keepers didn't have a chance even if they guessed the right corner. Don't think he missed a penalty for us?

[danny]

Is he good enough for us next season, i dont know i doubt it

Was he brought to do a job in the championship incase we were religated, yes

Dont think he will be playing much next season

But done ok for us in the battle, happy with him for now

[Happinesstan]

18 hours ago, madras said:

Then you're getting into "there's contact so he has every right to down" territory. Was there enough contact to bring him down  ? Was there hell was there enoughbto impede him enough for it to be a foul ? Possibly. 

 

 

Was it a pen ? They are given every time regardless of the rights or wrongs.

You're not. The keeper makes a decision that influences the decision of the striker, the keeper needs to justify that decision by winning the ball cleanly.

[The College Dropout]

I'd be fuming at Dubs in that situation. Sa didn't even pull out of the challenge.

 

Smart play by Wood. Recognised the possible situation and did what was needed. It wasn't an overt fall for a penalty. I think Jota did a bad one recently and won the penalty.

[morpeth mag]

36 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I'd be fuming at Dubs in that situation. Sa didn't even pull out of the challenge.

 

Smart play by Wood. Recognised the possible situation and did what was needed. It wasn't an overt fall for a penalty. I think Jota did a bad one recently and won the penalty.

You don't need to do much to win a pen if you have a red top mind

[PauloGeordio]

27 minutes ago, morpeth mag said:

You don't need to do much to win a pen if you have a red top mind

I have no problem with the penalty. But! if we need a shithousery goal of any kind to win (and many have gone against us) then so be it too. Onwards and upwards

 

I read that as "red top mind" as in always looking for the penalty

 

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by PauloGeordio

[ponsaelius]

19 hours ago, ManDoon said:

 damn. I don’t think offside can be clinical enough for them to say and I don’t care if someone’s toenail is off really. For penalties they should be reviewed, but tiny marginal offsides benefits nobody

 

Saying that offsides can't be judged by human eyes ignores that:

 

1. They have been for 100+ years

2. The offside rule was never, ever intended to be measured to the Nth degree 

 

The point of the offside rule was to stop players goalhanging. Changes to the rule over time have always been to do with adjusting that basic principle (three player to two, own half not offside etc) based on the game as it has evolved.

 

If an attacker is broadly level with a defensive line then that should be absolutely fine. If it's close enough that the video needs pausing and lines drawn on a frame to measure then in my opinion it is not a clear advantage and should be allowed. Chasing perfection is a disingenuous and incorrect interpretation of the rule that has only came about owing to the existence of universal TV coverage and HD cameras.

 

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by ponsaelius

[LV]

2 minutes ago, ponsaelius said:

 

Saying that offsides can't be judged by human eyes ignores that:

 

1. They have been for 100+ years

2. The offside rule was never, ever intended to be measured to the Nth degree 

 

The point of the offside rule was to stop players goalhanging. Changes to the rule over time have always been to do with adjusting that basic principle (three player to two, own half not offside etc) based on the game as it has evolved.

 

If an attacker is broadly level with a defensive line then that should be absolutely fine. If it's close enough that the video needs pausing and lines drawn on a frame to measure then in my opinion it is not a clear advantage and should be allowed. Chasing perfection is a disingenuous and incorrect interpretation of the rule that has only came about owing to the existence of universal TV coverage and HD cameras.

 

 

 

Amen

[OverThere]

I'm really confused by the VAR "clear and obvious rule". If it is to be applied I would say offside/onside by a few millimeters would not me considered a clear and obvious mistake. The problem becomes where do you draw the line, 12 inches, 16 inches or what?

[ponsaelius]

If they are absolutely insistant on using VAR for offsides I would just get rid of the lines and the pursuit of perfection which is not possible. Get VAR to let the ref look at a replay if it's clearly miles offside. Otherwise the immediate interpretation at face value should be accepted as fine - with benefit of the doubt given to the attacker. This would get rid of most of these ludicrous MSPaint endeavours which waste minutes of the game.

 

Most of the dubious fingernail offsides should simple be onside. Everybody has lost the plot IMO but the genie is probably out of the bottle now.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

Sterling gains no discernible advantage from his offside position. It really doesn't seem in the spirit of the game to take these types of goals away. I mean its miles apart from when Aguero stood two yards offside against us and headed the ball in from a free kick. 

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

They desperately need a sort of margin of error approach, like Umpire's call in Cricket. If a linesman doesn't flag and you're within a margin of error seems like a goal could stand.  

[ponsaelius]

The other thing I disagree with is the constant clamour for 'transparency'. Refereeing discretion has gone completely out of the window as a result of paranoia and pursuit of perfection. A rugby-esque need for everything to be explained and visualised in the immediacy after it has happened is what leads to lines being drawn on a screen and the flow of the game lost.

 

Let VAR look at the offside as soon as the goal goes but make it a quick look, if it looks more-or-less in line, decision stays with the on-pitch. Move on quickly and get it kicked off again. 

 

Transparency for refereeing after the game, explaining decisions, fine. During the game - nah, fuck off. 

[Yorkie]

9 minutes ago, ponsaelius said:

The other thing I disagree with is the constant clamour for 'transparency'. Refereeing discretion has gone completely out of the window as a result of paranoia and pursuit of perfection. A rugby-esque need for everything to be explained and visualised in the immediacy after it has happened is what leads to lines being drawn on a screen and the flow of the game lost.

 

Let VAR look at the offside as soon as the goal goes but make it a quick look, if it looks more-or-less in line, decision stays with the on-pitch. Move on quickly and get it kicked off again. 

 

Transparency for refereeing after the game, explaining decisions, fine. During the game - nah, fuck off. 

 

The irony being that things are less transparent than ever. Before VAR you could see the officials deliberating and discussing; now that discussion is deliberately hidden by earpieces and an unseen room somewhere.  

 

I hate VAR but if we're keeping it then we should be able to hear the refs when a VAR review is being undertaken imo. It would undoubtedly make the spectacle worse (one minute watching rugby proves that), but now the spotlight is on the decision-making process as much as the decisions themselves, paying fans deserve to know why they're being so relentlessly fucked over.

[ponsaelius]

It's a vicious cycle though. I'd rather strip it back then continue on this road.

[Kid Icarus]

If offside can be done with hawkeye to the extent that it's basically like goal-line technology or when you play FIFA, that's ideal imo. The way it as the moment with the pursuit of getting to that level of perfection by drawing lines and ruining the flow of the game is just spoiling it like.