MotD
-
- Posts: 8369
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:50 pm
- Been Liked: 2977 times
- Has Liked: 2075 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: MotD
What a bloody disgrace in the Spurs match.
Couldn't even get the screen right.
Farcical in the extreme.
Couldn't even get the screen right.
Farcical in the extreme.
-
- Posts: 1855
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:35 pm
- Been Liked: 540 times
- Has Liked: 187 times
- Location: Retirement Home in Suffolk
Re: MotD
Vertongen ssaults a Watford player VAR backs up a crap referee decision. Evans trips over Wood accidentally the correct decision is reversed.
So what is the actual use of VAR in helping the ref reach the correct decision?
So what is the actual use of VAR in helping the ref reach the correct decision?
-
- Posts: 25697
- Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
- Been Liked: 4644 times
- Has Liked: 9849 times
- Location: Glasgow
Re: MotD
Not the 1st time Watford have been bitten by VAR,the Newcastle handball goal cost them 2 points,those 4 points could be critical come May.TVC15 wrote:Watford absolutely robbed by VAR.
Clear penalty not given and dubious to say the least Spurs goal
Shearer now musing why the refs don't consult the pitchside monitor,that foul on Deulofeu is blatant and should have been picked up by one of the officials.
-
- Posts: 8528
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:22 pm
- Been Liked: 2889 times
- Has Liked: 1763 times
Re: MotD
i hate lineker, i hate neville, and detest their obsession with big six .
listened to radio 5 earlier and every half hourly bulletin had all the london managers on. the bias is disgusting, and that VAR decision was a travesty.
we were mugged yet again. really bad officiating, and more examples of cheating.
listened to radio 5 earlier and every half hourly bulletin had all the london managers on. the bias is disgusting, and that VAR decision was a travesty.
we were mugged yet again. really bad officiating, and more examples of cheating.
This user liked this post: MT03ALG
-
- Posts: 19799
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
- Been Liked: 5483 times
- Has Liked: 2540 times
- Location: Burnley, Lancs
Re: MotD
I've just seen that penalty that wasn't given in the spurs game. How the **** was that not given?
-
- Posts: 8528
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:22 pm
- Been Liked: 2889 times
- Has Liked: 1763 times
Re: MotD
put simply, VAR is a mess, and slowly ruining the season.
This user liked this post: MT03ALG
-
- Posts: 1855
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:35 pm
- Been Liked: 540 times
- Has Liked: 187 times
- Location: Retirement Home in Suffolk
Re: MotD
Where Wood went wrong looking at the Vertongen tackle is that he should have totally cleaned out Evans and the goal would have stood.
These 2 users liked this post: MT03ALG THEWELLERNUT70
Re: MotD
I’m starting to think his biggest mistake was wearing a shirt with a Burnley badge on it.ClaretLoup wrote:Where Wood went wrong looking at the Vertongen tackle is that he should have totally cleaned out Evans and the goal would have stood.
This user liked this post: MT03ALG
-
- Posts: 3660
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 10:13 pm
- Been Liked: 1402 times
- Has Liked: 2693 times
- Location: varied
Re: MotD
Strange especially after what Lineker tweeted at the time..........
Maybe they are told to comply for TV ?
It's a shambles - VAR backs refs most of the time regardless how stupid the refs' decision.
Refs ignore the opportunity to review their own decisions.
Not just for us.
It irked me seeing Evans repeatedly shouting "John, John, John" at the ref to get it reviewed. Far to familiar imho - but he did play for ManU
I don't thing anyone else on the pitch or stands thought it should be ruled out at the time.
There should be 2 league tables the second being the VAR Adjusted. (be interested to see how that evens itself up over a season). Only kidding.
Maybe they are told to comply for TV ?
It's a shambles - VAR backs refs most of the time regardless how stupid the refs' decision.
Refs ignore the opportunity to review their own decisions.
Not just for us.
It irked me seeing Evans repeatedly shouting "John, John, John" at the ref to get it reviewed. Far to familiar imho - but he did play for ManU
I don't thing anyone else on the pitch or stands thought it should be ruled out at the time.
There should be 2 league tables the second being the VAR Adjusted. (be interested to see how that evens itself up over a season). Only kidding.
These 2 users liked this post: MT03ALG THEWELLERNUT70
-
- Posts: 3458
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:13 pm
- Been Liked: 1037 times
- Has Liked: 2039 times
Re: MotD
https://twitter.com/GaryLineker/status/ ... 24352?s=20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;HunterST_BFC wrote:Strange especially after what Lineker tweeted at the time..........
Maybe they are told to comply for TV ?
It's a shambles - VAR backs refs most of the time regardless how stupid the refs' decision.
Refs ignore the opportunity to review their own decisions.
Not just for us.
It irked me seeing Evans repeatedly shouting "John, John, John" at the ref to get it reviewed. Far to familiar imho - but he did play for ManU
I don't thing anyone else on the pitch or stands thought it should be ruled out at the time.
There should be 2 league tables the second being the VAR Adjusted. (be interested to see how that evens itself up over a season). Only kidding.
This user liked this post: HunterST_BFC
-
- Posts: 6141
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:53 am
- Been Liked: 2635 times
- Has Liked: 6463 times
- Location: -90.000000, 0.000000
Re: MotD
I think you may be correct in stating that. However, the problem is that there is a clear bias appearing for the “bigger” clubs already with VAR, and I had hoped it would have levelled the playing field.jrgbfc wrote:I guarantee if it was down the other end Vardy tripping Ben Mee up the majority of people saying the goal should have stood would be screaming for a foul.
-
- Posts: 6975
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:25 pm
- Been Liked: 1490 times
- Has Liked: 1848 times
Re: MotD
There was no contact at all seen on the camera angles
Evans is a cheat and a liar.
He screwed up.
Unfortunately , with useless Jon Moss reffing it was always going to be ruled out
Not wishing to stop a Leicester win on their celebration day also didnt help us
.
Evans is a cheat and a liar.
He screwed up.
Unfortunately , with useless Jon Moss reffing it was always going to be ruled out
Not wishing to stop a Leicester win on their celebration day also didnt help us
.
-
- Posts: 9335
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:48 pm
- Been Liked: 4107 times
- Has Liked: 6590 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: MotD
Burnley1989 wrote:Ask Turtle, he will have a perfect response
Has he started posting on football threads now?
Is there to be NO sanctuary?
This user liked this post: Imploding Turtle
-
- Posts: 1855
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:35 pm
- Been Liked: 540 times
- Has Liked: 187 times
- Location: Retirement Home in Suffolk
Re: MotD
If it helps:Woodleyclaret wrote:There was no contact at all seen on the camera angles
Evans is a cheat and a liar.
Unfortunately , with useless Jon Moss reffing it was always going to be ruled out
.
Dyche stated there was contact. VAR ruled the goal out.
Re: MotD
Is Brighton a bigger club than Villa then?Rick_Muller wrote:I think you may be correct in stating that. However, the problem is that there is a clear bias appearing for the “bigger” clubs already with VAR, and I had hoped it would have levelled the playing field.
There is no bias, just inconsistency and incompentce.
-
- Posts: 7313
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
- Been Liked: 1827 times
- Has Liked: 3965 times
Re: MotD
Clear and obvious contact is revealed on VAR but not sufficient to make it a clear and obvious error by the ref and therefore the goal should have stood.Woodleyclaret wrote:There was no contact at all seen on the camera angles
.
That's the only way we can look at it really.
Evans was not wrong to point out to Moss that he had been clipped. (Mee and Tarkowski would have done the same), but based on the VAR evidence it shouldn't have been disallowed since there was no clear and obvious error, and in any case it was accidental.
Having said that if this had been reversed we would have been looking for a VAR penalty for "contact".
VAR is ruining football. I've never supported the idea except for goal-line technology.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: MotD
"We should have ex-professionals doing VAR"
"Many of the ex-professionals say it was a foul"
"What do they know?"
I love football fans.
"Many of the ex-professionals say it was a foul"
"What do they know?"
I love football fans.
-
- Posts: 3458
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:13 pm
- Been Liked: 1037 times
- Has Liked: 2039 times
Re: MotD
https://mobile.twitter.com/turfcastpodc ... 29377?s=12" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- Posts: 12371
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
- Been Liked: 5210 times
- Has Liked: 921 times
Re: MotD
Ignoring all the over contentious issues around this I think the reason VAR will have judged this to be a clear and obvious error is because Moss will have said he saw no contact and VAR will have deemed that a clear mistake.nil_desperandum wrote:Clear and obvious contact is revealed on VAR but not sufficient to make it a clear and obvious error by the ref and therefore the goal should have stood.
That's the only way we can look at it really.
If a ref see's the contact and coming together in an incident then it is hard for the video review to show anything clear and obvious to overrule. If like in our case the ref says he didnt see any contact then the video review now shows the ref was clearly wrong.
Note: I am not using this to say VAR was correct but just trying to give a perspective of why VAR was able to overrule the ref in this case when in other Penalty incidents it has not overruled.
Edit: Just to further clarify what i mean I would say that if Moss would have seen the contact but deemed it not worthy of a foul I think there is no way VAR would have overruled
Re: MotD
That's a fair point. I believe the VAR team ask the referee what he saw and if it's not consistent with what they see on the replays then they can overturn the decision. So if the ref says, I saw contact but didn't think it was a foul, they go with his decision.Devils_Advocate wrote:Ignoring all the over contentious issues around this I think the reason VAR will have judged this to be a clear and obvious error is because Moss will have said he saw no contact and VAR will have deemed that a clear mistake.
If a ref see's the contact and coming together in an incident then it is hard for the video review to show anything clear and obvious to overrule. If like in our case the ref says he didnt see any contact then the video review now shows the ref was clearly wrong.
Note: I am not using this to say VAR was correct but just trying to give a perspective of why VAR was able to overrule the ref in this case when in other Penalty incidents it has not overruled.
Edit: Just to further clarify what i mean I would say that if Moss would have seen the contact but deemed it not worthy of a foul I think there is no way VAR would have overruled
That means we can blame Jon Moss after all
This user liked this post: Hibsclaret
-
- Posts: 12371
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
- Been Liked: 5210 times
- Has Liked: 921 times
Re: MotD
Yep thats how I think it works and thanks for succinctly summing up my waffling postTall Paul wrote:That's a fair point. I believe the VAR team ask the referee what he saw and if it's not consistent with what they see on the replays then they can overturn the decision. So if the ref says, I saw contact but didn't think it was a foul, they go with his decision.
That means we can blame Jon Moss after all
-
- Posts: 1151
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:38 pm
- Been Liked: 435 times
- Has Liked: 176 times
Re: MotD
Someone said Ian Wright did not play for us, I my be getting old and forget things but I thought he did and scored 3 or 4 goals one of them a volley from a steve davis pass
-
- Posts: 643
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:20 am
- Been Liked: 261 times
- Has Liked: 21 times
Re: MotD
I seem to remember wrighty getting us a late winner against notts county on the turf but might just be my ageing brain.pureclaret wrote:Someone said Ian Wright did not play for us, I my be getting old and forget things but I thought he did and scored 3 or 4 goals one of them a volley from a steve davis pass
-
- Posts: 2502
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:34 am
- Been Liked: 519 times
- Has Liked: 266 times
- Location: Malaga Spain
Re: MotD
What made this even more of a fallacy was way that Vicki Sparks commentates i have to turn the sound off
But last night had to go through her wrenching grinding voice
Pereira had a shot and she screeches Hoooo that was so close Pereira's, shot had gone over the bar by about 4 feet even Pope had relaxed his hands confidently knowing it was way over.
Commentary at its very worst on par with the Sherpa Van Trophy video commentary V Wolves
But last night had to go through her wrenching grinding voice
Pereira had a shot and she screeches Hoooo that was so close Pereira's, shot had gone over the bar by about 4 feet even Pope had relaxed his hands confidently knowing it was way over.
Commentary at its very worst on par with the Sherpa Van Trophy video commentary V Wolves
-
- Posts: 11532
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:33 pm
- Been Liked: 3191 times
- Has Liked: 1872 times
- Contact:
Re: MotD
Longside4evr wrote:What made this even more of a fallacy was way that Vicki Sparks commentates i have to turn the sound off
But last night had to go through her wrenching grinding voice
Pereira had a shot and she screeches Hoooo that was so close Pereira's, shot had gone over the bar by about 4 feet even Pope had relaxed his hands confidently knowing it was way over.
Commentary at its very worst on par with the Sherpa Van Trophy video commentary V Wolves
I didn’t think it was as screechy as usual tbh
Re: MotD
Not sure how it can be deemed clear and obvious when it took so long for people watching replays on TV (sky pundits etc) to realise there had been contact. How many times did Matt Murray who was covering the game on soccer Saturday watch the replay and he was still adamant there was no contact.Tall Paul wrote:That's a fair point. I believe the VAR team ask the referee what he saw and if it's not consistent with what they see on the replays then they can overturn the decision. So if the ref says, I saw contact but didn't think it was a foul, they go with his decision.
That means we can blame Jon Moss after all
Plus how can it be clear and obvious which of Evans or Wood instigated the contact ?
And then you see the absolutely clear foul and penalty Watford should have had and you know that VAR is completely ruining the game because of the idiots in charge of applying it have made up their own little rules which they don’t want to share with the rest of the world.
Rugby Union and the use of TMO puts football to shame.
Re: MotD
VAR is in disrepute.
Rin by those who only want referees to be right, even when not and who then look at the minutest things to rule out perfectly good goals.
There were clear and obvious pens not given for real flatters and yet Evan's 'felt a touch' and was able to trip himself, a yard later, when he realised he wasn't getting it...and because there was 'a touch' going down by yourself warrants a decision.
How can a real clatter not get something and a touch seemed ok for subsequent cheating be deemed 'correct'?
Cheating imbeciles running the game.
Rin by those who only want referees to be right, even when not and who then look at the minutest things to rule out perfectly good goals.
There were clear and obvious pens not given for real flatters and yet Evan's 'felt a touch' and was able to trip himself, a yard later, when he realised he wasn't getting it...and because there was 'a touch' going down by yourself warrants a decision.
How can a real clatter not get something and a touch seemed ok for subsequent cheating be deemed 'correct'?
Cheating imbeciles running the game.
-
- Posts: 6141
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:53 am
- Been Liked: 2635 times
- Has Liked: 6463 times
- Location: -90.000000, 0.000000
Re: MotD
Highlighting an exception to a rule does not discount the rule...Tall Paul wrote:Is Brighton a bigger club than Villa then?
There is no bias, just inconsistency and incompentce.
-
- Posts: 19799
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
- Been Liked: 5483 times
- Has Liked: 2540 times
- Location: Burnley, Lancs
Re: MotD
Rick_Muller wrote:Highlighting an exception to a rule does not discount the rule...
You've obviously never missed a semi-colon only once in a program.
This user liked this post: Rick_Muller