Other Games 23/24

[Dr Gloom 21941]

5 minutes ago, Renton said:

Correct. Offside is an objective metric which should be decided by AI very quickly, maybe instantly. It's also by far the most frequent issue of VAR halts and controversies. Personally, I'd like to see a " clear daylight" implementation to benefit the attacking team. More goals, more entertainment. 

 

Agree. The VAR gimps can do one - let the robots decide 

[NJS 4389]

The telltale for me on the Isak one was that Sky showed it once, said "that was tight" and never showed it again. 

[Dr Gloom 21941]

1 minute ago, Alex said:

That’s a fair point too, because the issue of someone deciding where to put the lines based on their interpretation of exactly when the ball was played is too subjective. Iirc though ‘clear and obvious error’ is applicable for offsides as they’re either onside or off. Although that goes back to the potential for human error with the placement of the lines 

I still think it’s ridiculous that a player’s fingernails or his hipster beard can be playing someone onside but I’d rather the robots decided than some full kit wanker in the VAR booth. 

[NJS 4389]

There's also the ref review angle choice - the idiots last year against Palace showed the one angle out of 10 that didn't show Willock was clearly pushed. 

 

On that red last night which I still think was a red btw they chose the one where it most looked like a leg breaker without the second before showing his ffoot possibly sliding off the ball. 

[Alex 35095]

14 minutes ago, NJS said:

There's also the ref review angle choice - the idiots last year against Palace showed the one angle out of 10 that didn't show Willock was clearly pushed. 

 

On that red last night which I still think was a red btw they chose the one where it most looked like a leg breaker without the second before showing his ffoot possibly sliding off the ball. 

Absolutely. I’ve said before the VAR officials should own / make those decisions. Not have the ridiculous spectacle of a ref looking at a monitor, under immense pressure, in front of a baying crowd without even the full picture of how the events unfolded. 

[Kid Dynamite 7034]

1 hour ago, Alex said:

Because your torso crossing the line determines that you’ve finished the race. Not really relevant in this sense as this type of offside is essentially the start of a foot race as opposed to the end. However I can see the logic of the law. Because if it was a ball crossed into the box and the defender and attacker weren’t running then you could theoretically gain an ‘unfair’ advantage by having a part of your body in front of the defender when the ball was played. Even if the attacker’s feet weren’t ahead of the defender’s. I think the main point with the Isak one though is that it was offside and, within the current rules, that decision was right. The problem isn’t so much the law, it’s the (in)consistent application of it. As PL mentions, there’s technology available that would appear to remove the potential for human error. If that’s the case then why isn’t it being used? Because offside (similar to whether or not the ball has crossed the line) is not something that shouldn’t be open to interpretation. The worrying thing is VAR is no longer new, yet the issues around it seem no closer to being resolved. That was a fucking incredibly bad decision yesterday, for example. Hilarious too of course 

My post was in reference to the assertion that Isak couldn't have been offside as his feet were behind the defenders. Which is nonsense under the current law. Whether you agree with the law or not, Isak's head and body are clearly leaning forward and are playing him offside.

People keep using that photo as evidence of a conspiracy where Liverpool get decisions and we don't and it just makes us look small time imo.

[Alex 35095]

18 minutes ago, Kid Dynamite said:

My post was in reference to the assertion that Isak couldn't have been offside as his feet were behind the defenders. Which is nonsense under the current law. Whether you agree with the law or not, Isak's head and body are clearly leaning forward and are playing him offside.

People keep using that photo as evidence of a conspiracy where Liverpool get decisions and we don't and it just makes us look small time imo.

Yeah, I get all that and I don’t disagree. I mentioned about why athletes dip because I don’t think Isak gains an unfair advantage in this instance. I know that’s not relevant to the law as it stands. But the feet position would perhaps be better. Like if a defender is caught on his heels and the attacker has some of his body ahead of the defender. This is likely because the attacker’s momentum means that would be his natural body position. In an instance like that it seems to favour a defender who has switched off. For decades now the law has been about giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt and it now runs counter to that imo. Like I said though the main problem is obvious human error coming into an area (VAR) that was meant to remove that. Rather than the law itself. 

Edited October 1, 2023 by Alex

[Howmanheyman 33267]

1 hour ago, Alex said:

Because your torso crossing the line determines that you’ve finished the race. Not really relevant in this sense as this type of offside is essentially the start of a foot race as opposed to the end. However I can see the logic of the law. Because if it was a ball crossed into the box and the defender and attacker weren’t running then you could theoretically gain an ‘unfair’ advantage by having a part of your body in front of the defender when the ball was played. Even if the attacker’s feet weren’t ahead of the defender’s. I think the main point with the Isak one though is that it was offside and, within the current rules, that decision was right. The problem isn’t so much the law, it’s the (in)consistent application of it. As PL mentions, there’s technology available that would appear to remove the potential for human error. If that’s the case then why isn’t it being used? Because offside (similar to whether or not the ball has crossed the line) is not something that shouldn’t be open to interpretation. The worrying thing is VAR is no longer new, yet the issues around it seem no closer to being resolved. That was a fucking incredibly bad decision yesterday, for example. Hilarious too of course 

 

I saw a comment from a supporter that said Liverpool have just experienced what it's like to play against Liverpool and I just thought.....

 

[Kid Dynamite 7034]

12 minutes ago, Alex said:

Yeah, I get all that and I don’t disagree. I mentioned about why athletes dip because I don’t think Isak gains an unfair advantage in this instance. I know that’s not relevant to the law as it stands. But the feet position would perhaps be better. Like if a defender is caught on his heels and the attacker has some of his body ahead of the defender. This is likely because the attacker’s momentum means that would be his natural body position. In an instance like that it seems to favour a defender who has switched off. For decades now the law has been about giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt and it now runs counter to that imo. Like I said though the main problem is obvious human error coming into an area (VAR) that was meant to remove that. Rather than the law itself. 

Using feet might be easier. But you will also get cases where a player is mid stride, their front foot is in the air and their back foot is 3feet behind them/the defender. Which leads you back to the same situation of having to draw imaginary lines for body parts not touching the ground 

 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2023 by Kid Dynamite

[Alex 35095]

5 minutes ago, Kid Dynamite said:

Using feet might be easier. But you will also get cases where a player is mid stride, their front foot is in the air and their back foot is 3feet behind them/the defender. Which leads you back to the same situation of having to draw imaginary lines for body parts not touching the ground 

 

 

 

Yeah. Agree with that too so it’s not perfect. But whatever the law is using AI (with human observation as a backup) seems like the only decent option. Wyki (I think) mentioned the lack of transparency too. When you look at sports like cricket and rugby and how the process of the video referees isn’t hidden it makes you wonder what they’re hiding. Not going down the conspiracy route, I suspect it’s chaotic incompetence 

[Dr Gloom 21941]

49 minutes ago, Kid Dynamite said:

My post was in reference to the assertion that Isak couldn't have been offside as his feet were behind the defenders. Which is nonsense under the current law. Whether you agree with the law or not, Isak's head and body are clearly leaning forward and are playing him offside.

People keep using that photo as evidence of a conspiracy where Liverpool get decisions and we don't and it just makes us look small time imo.

One thing it ain’t is clear 

[Howmanheyman 33267]

Go to 2.50 onwards for the true Goodison experience.....

 

 

 

 

 

I actually feel a bit sorry for the lad at the end, reminds me a bit of NUFC under Bruce.

 

 

[RobElliott 1493]

1 hour ago, Kid Dynamite said:

Using feet might be easier. But you will also get cases where a player is mid stride, their front foot is in the air and their back foot is 3feet behind them/the defender. Which leads you back to the same situation of having to draw imaginary lines for body parts not touching the ground 

 

 

 

 

The ones down the road in Mordor will not be happy with this approach, with them having oversized webbed feet and all that...

[Kid Dynamite 7034]

29 minutes ago, Howmanheyman said:

Go to 2.50 onwards for the true Goodison experience.....

 

 

 

 

 

I actually feel a bit sorry for the lad at the end, reminds me a bit of NUFC under Bruce.

 

 

Is it £0.5bil they spent on transfers under Moshiri? And their squad is filled with Dwight McNeil, Dele Alli, Ashley Young etc

[Howmanheyman 33267]

3 minutes ago, Kid Dynamite said:

Is it £0.5bil they spent on transfers under Moshiri? And their squad is filled with Dwight McNeil, Dele Alli, Ashley Young etc

 

Something like that, their best bet this year is the promoted teams struggling but Luton's just beat them and Burnley might get points on board when they get an easier run of games? Losing at home to Luton, Wolves, arsenal and Fulham isn't exactly the hardest of home games other than arsenal, is it? 

[Dr Gloom 21941]

1 hour ago, Howmanheyman said:

 

Something like that, their best bet this year is the promoted teams struggling but Luton's just beat them and Burnley might get points on board when they get an easier run of games? Losing at home to Luton, Wolves, arsenal and Fulham isn't exactly the hardest of home games other than arsenal, is it? 

this could finally be the year they sink. I’d say it confidently if Gemmill hadn’t already saved their skin

[Gemmill 44935]

2 hours ago, Howmanheyman said:

Go to 2.50 onwards for the true Goodison experience.....

 

 

 

 

 

I actually feel a bit sorry for the lad at the end, reminds me a bit of NUFC under Bruce.

 

 

 

They've lost all 4 home games so far this season, and 7 of their last 8 if you factor in last season too. Fortress Goodison.

[NJS 4389]

Chris Wood lives... 

[PaddockLad 17284]

Bocca v River on as we speak, can anyone  come up with a channel streaming it in the uk??  Fucked if I can find it 🤷🏻‍♂️ 🤔

[Ayatollah Hermione 13883]

Just saw that Liverpool offside decision  The reaction is hilarious because it’s the first time they’ve ever had the shit hit the fan with VAR after literal seasons of benefit. Fuck them. Diddums. They’ve even rode their luck massively this season and it’s only a month old ffs.

[Howmanheyman 33267]

A decision goes against Manchester United or Liverpool and it's fucking end of days in the media, every cunt else it's 'yeah, they've been unlucky there, moving on.....'

[wykikitoon 20200]

38 minutes ago, Howmanheyman said:

A decision goes against Manchester United or Liverpool and it's fucking end of days in the media, every cunt else it's 'yeah, they've been unlucky there, moving on.....'

It's a fucking piss take.  My father in law said to me on WhatsApp 'You need to forget about what teams involved as it was the wrong decision'  He knows I fucking detest Liverpool and he seems to think me laughing at them is bitterness.  Fuck that.  Its years of them having the decisions, the media backing and the sycophantic wank fest, whilst teams out the protected lot get fuck all and shit on.  Fuck off.  The status quo is changing and they don't like it.

[Howay 12496]

 

 I like that they think the 8 reds in 8 years was because they’re this clean team, and not because they typically get the benefit of the doubt in every decision. 
 

The reaction their fan base is having to fucking stone wall red cards such as Van Dijk against us and Curtis Jones yesterday says to me they absolutely should have had more reds over the years but have got away with so much their fans think they’re fair tackles. 

[wykikitoon 20200]

11 minutes ago, Howay said:

 

 I like that they think the 8 reds in 8 years was because they’re this clean team, and not because they typically get the benefit of the doubt in every decision. 
 

The reaction their fan base is having to fucking stone wall red cards such as Van Dijk against us and Curtis Jones yesterday says to me they absolutely should have had more reds over the years but have got away with so much their fans think they’re fair tackles. 

Isn't that the one where he went unpunished for doing that?

[Dougle 3338]

28 minutes ago, Howay said:

 

 I like that they think the 8 reds in 8 years was because they’re this clean team, and not because they typically get the benefit of the doubt in every decision. 
 

The reaction their fan base is having to fucking stone wall red cards such as Van Dijk against us and Curtis Jones yesterday says to me they absolutely should have had more reds over the years but have got away with so much their fans think they’re fair tackles. 

 

What a fucking petulant, unprofessional, narcissistic cunt.

I can smell his breath just from that pic.