Premier League 2020/2021

[Adversus]

VVD's tackle also lead to Deulofeu doing his ACL. Personally I thought it was just a coming together. It was a ball over the top with the keeper coming out and the player waiting for it to drop. Richarlison's tackle was no worse than plenty of theirs like Mane on Digne or Robertsons on Allan. Robertsons was miles from the ball and there was also another kick out from Mane that wasn't caught. They make a lot of niggly fouls when they press and rarely get called for them yet the referees called every small foul against us.

Nevermind VVD went in hard on James and Richarlison in the first 5 minutes who liverpool targeted all game.

Plus I thought Richarlison should have had a penalty. Without that pull back I think he would have finished his header.

 

[Birdy]

You absolutely do need a machine to tell you if something is an offside or if it isn't based on parts of the body it refers to.
Especially since you, the viewer on a 3k screen, cannot see it with your useless 'naked eye' method.

'based on the parts of the body'
Something that was not even raised as an issue until VAR
The discussion until then was to revert errors that were made by refs.
No one said 'our precision is poor, we need more precision'.
They said 'we need to have the ability to look again at replays and revoke incorrect calls'
And that's a valid claim.

It doesn't matter what you're against mate. I'm telling you human eye is shit. Cameras see better. Fact. Read up on optics if you choose to not believe me. Therefore we use cameras, and we assume those they use for VAR are some of the best available (I'd hope), to determine decisions instead of some vague 'position of the center of the body' rubbish. End of story.

You don't address my point at all.
Read again what I wrote carefully.
The question is not whether machine or human eye sees better. You reduce the real problem to a non-issue.
The question is whether the offside law and its understanding has to do with how human eye perceives.

 

[El Gato]

'based on the parts of the body'
Something that was not even raised as an issue until VAR

Yep not for the lack of trying. Because we weren't able to do it in real-time and resorted to measurement 'by eye' and never cared about marginal mistakes, which often distorted results as much as any other mistake. Which you seem to not understand. Got something better now.

Most refs agree things are much better for mistake correction with VAR. Mallenco gave an interview praising the system for giving referees tools to make better choices and apply laws on things they wouldn't have otherwise been able to see.

What you're arguing is to judge things by eye, because that's the way it's been done in the past. Which is absurd and archaic.

The question is not whether machine or human eye sees better. You reduce the real problem to a non-issue.
The question is whether the offside law and its understanding has to do with how human eye perceives.

Not at all. It's the problem of being able to consistently call an offside based on what you can observe, which was the problem for decades.

Doesn't matter what the human eye perceives. Our eye judgement is irrelevant in the age of cameras.

 

[Adversus]

It's a joke people are complaining about offsides. It's the one thing VAR can get right or at least as close to right every decision. Now for penalties I think it's a mixed bag, football is a contact sport and determining what contact is enough to warrant a penalty using slow mo on a TV screen from a room a mile away is probably more difficult than at full speed a few yards away.

 

[Birdy]

Not at all. It's the problem of being able to consistently call an offside based on what you can observe, which was the problem for decades.

Doesn't matter what the human eye perceives. Our eye judgement is irrelevant in the age of cameras.

No man, you don't get my point. I have said enough to rest my case.

Think only about how many indignation VAR guidelines create in offside, ask yourself why, and then compare to goal-line technology where no one complains. Accidental? Not at all.
Because goal-line technology was a case in which human eye needed technological augmentation to see whether the ball went over the line, something (technological augmentation of the human eye) was never the case with the offside, which was always understood relatively to the human eye.

 

[El Gato]

Because goal-line technology was a case in which human eye needed technological augmentation to see whether the ball went over the line, something (technological augmentation of the human eye) was never the case with the offside, which was always understood relatively to the human eye.

Yes it was understood as so. And it produced thousands of incorrect calls, including those that were too close to overturn by virtue of not having anything better than a human eye to discern whether a mistake was made. You can keep pretending as if everything was fine by human eye. Doesn't make it so. Silly notion tbh.

Referees need help with offsides as much as they did with the goal line tech, especially since their judgement is absolutely useless over 30m distances in close call situations from a sideline and movement often happening at full sprint.

 

[Morten]

Absolutely ridiculous to allow Pickford to continue after that challenge, even if it was offside before that.
They could just have sent him off but given Everton free kick for offside, couldnt they?

 

[Gnidrologist]

Agree with Birdy here. Offside by and elbow, tip of the nose or bulge in the pants being 3 millimeters closer to goal should not be an offside call and time should not be wasted. There should be a rule if judges in the VAR room cannot determine an offside situation within first 10 seconds of reviewing the replay motion, there is no offside. There was a good reason why attackers were given the benefit of the decision, if offside situation was deemed dubious. Should stop disrupting flow of the game to measure if hair in someone's nostril reaching over the computer manufactured line could be a decisive factor. No wonder this farce is so predominant in UK. They love absurd policing of non issues, while ignoring the real problems.

 

[Porque]

Absolutely ridiculous to allow Pickford to continue after that challenge, even if it was offside before that.
They could just have sent him off but given Everton free kick for offside, couldnt they?

Not contesting your point in any way, do you remember the Ghana sending off reversal at WC2006 after the play was ruled offside.

Horrible tackle and another case of this weird rule.

 

[Morten]

Not contesting your point in any way, do you remember the Ghana sending off reversal at WC2006 after the play was ruled offside.

Horrible tackle and another case of this weird rule.

No memory of that game(doubt i watched it), but i will look it up.

 

[Sterlingfan2000]

LoL kane is better passer then de Bruyne

 

[Morten]

Harry Kane is a complete forward in just about every sense.

 

[Alik]

Could this be Mourinho's redemption?

 

[Morten]

Could this be Mourinho's redemption?

Dont know, Spurs is playing some great, one-touch football as of late, thats for sure.
Where was this type of attacking football when he was coaching United?

 

[serghei]

Could this be Mourinho's redemption?

I hope so. I quite like Mourinho in recent years.

Harry Kane is a complete forward in just about every sense.

Massive underachiever in his career though. Still, nice to see players being loyal to their club.