Other Games 23/24

[Gemmill 50035]

Has any other club ever had a PGMOL apology statement come out within hours of full time?

[wykikitoon 22923]

6 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

Has any other club ever had a PGMOL apology statement come out within hours of full time?

No 

[Holden McGroin 7640]

1 hour ago, Kid Dynamite said:

That's tight, but Isak's shoulder is marginally ahead of the defenders foot. We get enough shit decisions without having to claim conspiracies about dubious ones 

There is no way you can be certain from that angle. The lines are bollocks. 

[Holden McGroin 7640]

1 hour ago, Dr Gloom said:

that decision is dodgy AF man. I thought it at the time and I still do. His feet are behind the Liverpool defender’s

It’s not about feet though. It’s any part of the body that can score.

 

I think the rule should be feet though. 

[PaddockLad 19031]

1 hour ago, Gemmill said:

Has any other club ever had a PGMOL apology statement come out within hours of full time?

I think it was minutes rather than hours…

[wykikitoon 22923]

16 minutes ago, Holden McGroin said:

It’s not about feet though. It’s any part of the body that can score.

 

I think the rule should be feet though. 

There was a time when it was 'clear daylight' wasn't there? 

 

Whats it like in Europe? Is it as bad as what we have? Something needs to be done. 

[Kid Dynamite 7645]

1 hour ago, Dr Gloom said:

that decision is dodgy AF man. I thought it at the time and I still do. His feet are behind the Liverpool defender’s

Howay man  Why do you think sprinters lean forward at the finish line.

 

 

[PaddockLad 19031]

5 minutes ago, wykikitoon said:

There was a time when it was 'clear daylight' wasn't there? 

 

Whats it like in Europe? Is it as bad as what we have? Something needs to be done. 

Daylight was a guideline in the mid 90s, not a law. 
 

The automated systems used in the men’s & womens  WC recently were rejected by the clubs that form the premier league in favour of keeping the human element in the judgement of decisions. Wonder why?  

Edited October 1, 2023 by PaddockLad

[Alex 36743]

31 minutes ago, Kid Dynamite said:

Howay man  Why do you think sprinters lean forward at the finish line.

 

 

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 

Edited October 1, 2023 by Alex

[Dr Gloom 23650]

23 minutes ago, Kid Dynamite said:

Howay man  Why do you think sprinters lean forward at the finish line.

 

 

it isn’t clear to me from those lines that any part of Isak’s body is ahead of the defender’s foot. I don’t see that he’s gained any advantage from those pictures. They used to talk about the benefit of the doubt going to the attackers. The Isak one is an example of VAR intervening when it isn’t a clear and obvious error. I was raging about it at the time and still think it was a shite use of the technology. 

[Renton 23726]

2 minutes 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 you body in front of the defender when the ball the played. Even if the attacker’s feet weren’t ahead of the defender’s. I think the main point with the Isak one is though that, it was offside and, within the current rules that decision was right. The problem isn’t so much the law, it 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 (like whether or not the ball has crossed the line) is not something that shooed be open to interpretation. The worrying thing is VAR is no longer nee 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 

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. 

[Alex 36743]

12 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

it isn’t clear to me from those lines that any part of Isak’s body is ahead of the defender’s foot. I don’t see that he’s gained any advantage from those pictures. They used to talk about the benefit of the doubt going to the attackers. The Isak one is an example of VAR intervening when it isn’t a clear and obvious error. I was raging about it at the time and still think it was a shite use of the technology. 

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 not 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 

Edited October 1, 2023 by Alex

[Dr Gloom 23650]

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 4568]

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 23650]

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 4568]

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 36743]

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 7645]

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 36743]

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 36661]

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 7645]

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 36743]

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 23650]

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 36661]

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 1809]

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...