Other Matches - Saturday 2nd November, 2019

[Bluewolf]

 

2 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

@Grizzly21 answer the question how are people sheep if they are against the majority? 

 

2 minutes ago, Stan said:

Yeah didn't get that one either  

One person following another person agreeing on the same things... 

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Grizzly21 said:

You just said we are the minority, now we are the majority?

You're like the flat earthers - they are a minority of people who believe in the earth being flat but are ultimately wrong and that's the end of it. Finding excuses to suit their ongoing agenda and don't want to accept the harm it's doing to the sport.

I said pro va arists are the minority I said that. The fact that you can't even read the post should show you might be missunderstanding things. 

[Guest]

Just now, Bluewolf said:

 

 

One person following another person agreeing on the same things... 

 

Yeah but generally when you call someone a sheep it is because they follow the popular opinion. People who support VAR aren't doing that. We are in the minority. 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

@Stan I find it quite funny that Brian hasn't been able to notice how calling people sheep for supporting VAR even thought they are in the minority doesn't make sense.  

Maybe learn to write properly before criticizing people that they can't read.

[Guest]

Just now, Grizzly21 said:

Maybe learn to write properly before criticizing people that they can't read.

Are you stupid? The post clearly says pro var ists are in the minority. You said we are sheep. A sheep is something you call someone for supporting a popular opinion.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Gunnersauraus said:

Are you stupid? The post clearly says pro var ists are in the minority. You said we are sheep. A sheep is something you call someone for supporting a popular opinion.

Yes, I said "little sheep" with no realization for it's definition. Ah well you lose some you win some.

They are fuckwits. Is that better?

[LFCMadLad]

@Gunnersaurausfirmino was inside mate, literally everyone has said it. The fact that a referee with technology cant decide is ludicrous. It wasn't even a close call. 

[Stan]

4 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

The fact that a referee with technology cant decide is ludicrous.

There's your issue. The referee. Not the VAR technology provided.

Train the referees to use it properly and the better decisions will come. Genuinely is that simple.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

@Gunnersaurausfirmino was inside mate, literally everyone has said it. The fact that a referee with technology cant decide is ludicrous. It wasn't even a close call. 

They must have not had the right angle then mate. Which is something that needs sorting. I know they do have limited angles which seems stupid. I find it very unlikely that a referee would look at a video and not be able to tell it was offside if it clearly was. If we can they would be able to. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Stan said:

There's your issue. The referee. Not the VAR technology provided.

Train the referees to use it properly and the better decisions will come. Genuinely is that simple.

I don't think it is even that mate. Like I said I have heard they have limited angles. I saw it from a certain angle and was sure it was offside. That is something that needs to improve. 

[LFCMike]

10 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

They must have not had the right angle then mate. Which is something that needs sorting. I know they do have limited angles which seems stupid. I find it very unlikely that a referee would look at a video and not be able to tell it was offside if it clearly was. If we can they would be able to. 

They literally had the decision right (onside) then changed it. And the line from Firmino's arm wasn't even straight

[LFCMike]

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

They literally had the decision right (onside) then changed it. And the line from Firmino's arm wasn't even straight

They didn't the linesman flagged for offside

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

 

Andy grey really is using logical fallacies there mate. He says it is obvious to the naked eye. Well the naked eye can play tricks on you. I'm sure you have heard of an optical illusion. I'm pretty certain when they worked this out they would have done it with the aid of mathemations who can work these things out. If they have worked out this system and it has been extensively worked out I'm pretty certain it will be right. 

[LFCMadLad]

1 hour ago, Stan said:

There's your issue. The referee. Not the VAR technology provided.

Train the referees to use it properly and the better decisions will come. Genuinely is that simple.

Fuck it off completely, it really is that simple.

[LFCMadLad]

So now goals are being ruled out because of optical illusions 

I honestly cant be arsed with this anymore. It's actually gone beyond a joke. 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

So now goals are being ruled out because of optical illusions 

I honestly cant be arsed with this anymore. It's actually gone beyond a joke. 

I didn't actually say that mate. What I said is that the naked eye can be misleading. It's quite simple. If your players arm is nearer to the goal than the defender he is offside. It may look like he was onside to the naked eye but the technology may be more accurate. Think about it you look 3 buildings. From one angle it looks like one building is nearer to another. From a different angle it looks like the other one is nearer. An accurate way to determine which is nearer is to shine a level laser marl a point and then you can determine which is nearer. The system they are using is similar. If the referee followed the correct procedure I'd be surprised if it was wrong. The premier League have actually come out and said it was the right decision. I'm pretty certain this system would have been thought out and the correct maths used.

[Guest]

Logical fallacies, optical illusions.

Fuck me, these idiots will say anything that will fit their argument. Just accept that VAR is a sack of shite and move on.

[RandoEFC+]

I saw a thread on Twitter that I skim read saying how because they could see Firmino's foot between Mings legs then it affected where his centre of gravity was which affected where to draw the offside line which changed the decision. Then there was a link to read more about why the centre of gravity matters which I didn't click.

I mean for fucks sake. Offside is one of the only actual black and white rules in football. Why do you have to fuck around with this centre of gravity nonsense? Offside has always been as simple as who is closer to the end of the pitch with a part of their body that they can use to play the ball.

I'm actually not bothered about the ones where someone's shoulder plays them offside by 3mm. Offside is offside. But now you're messing that up by throwing idiotic centre of gravity stuff in there.

There's enough grey areas in football that need to be ironed out. The last rule in the entire book that needs to be refined is the offside rule. Why spend your time and energy adding unnecessary permutations to the offside rule?

And yet again, has anyone heard of this rule before yesterday? Or is this just the latest one that they've made up to say "no you're all wrong to criticise our decisions, this is the rule, didn't you know?"

Also Firmino is a big lesbian.

[Mel81x+]

5 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

And yet again, has anyone heard of this rule before yesterday? Or is this just the latest one that they've made up to say "no you're all wrong to criticise our decisions, this is the rule, didn't you know?"

This is a classic case of "We have to justify what we did or they'll think we don't know what we're doing". Here's the thing, we've always known you didn't know what you were doing and this just makes it so crystal clear that you have nowhere to hide now. In the past you'd see this on a replay and say "but he couldn't have seen it so its understandable" then spend a few weeks debating it. Now, you can see video evidence and the fact that someone can't use a visual guide to make a decision and can't use frame-tech to make the decision even more clear so what they then do is invent validations for their lack of understanding. Today their dream job is being a physicist so they'll use gravity and tomorrow they'll use psychology when gravity doesn't suit the narrative. 

I honestly think the refs on the pitch should never see the inside of a VAR room and vice-versa. You've got refs who will have a bad game then read the news and see what people are saying and try to make up for their mistake when they are put in a similar position. Atkinson clearly tried to do that with the penalty he gave from VAR and then the subsequent penalty call he had to make a decision on. Why even allow that kind of behavior at all? Also, would it hurt the Premier League to mic the VAR/REF decision process so everyone knows? Other sports do it and are better for it.

[Honey Honey]

8 hours ago, LFCMike said:

 

Sex offenders get some decent kit in jail 

[LFCMike]

8 hours ago, Gunnersauraus said:

They didn't the linesman flagged for offside

That is completely wrong. They're meant to keep their flag down in these circumstances

6 hours ago, Gunnersauraus said:

I didn't actually say that mate. What I said is that the naked eye can be misleading. It's quite simple. If your players arm is nearer to the goal than the defender he is offside. It may look like he was onside to the naked eye but the technology may be more accurate. Think about it you look 3 buildings. From one angle it looks like one building is nearer to another. From a different angle it looks like the other one is nearer. An accurate way to determine which is nearer is to shine a level laser marl a point and then you can determine which is nearer. The system they are using is similar. If the referee followed the correct procedure I'd be surprised if it was wrong. The premier League have actually come out and said it was the right decision. I'm pretty certain this system would have been thought out and the correct maths used.

You can't score a goal with your arm! or your armpit for that matter

[Fairy In Boots]

12 hours ago, The Artful Dodger said:

Sorry. Villa are a big club in their own right. They shouldn't be taking a song synonymous with another club as one of their main songs. We need more creativity from fans not just changing the lyrics. 

I’d agree an ideal scenario would be we’ve created our own but this song has become as common as “shit on ........” now though, there’s about 8 clubs that sing it 

[Fairy In Boots]

Regarding offside and VAR why can’t it be a rule of thumb that unless a player is ahead by a ft then the attacker gets the benefit of doubt? It would lead to more goals 

[Harry]

11 hours ago, Grizzly21 said:

Talk about moving the goalposts 

"We want correct decisions". If you want that, there can't be any mistake. None, zero. Fuck off.

You're strongly negative stance is unnecessarily polarising mate.

It's wrong for you to simplify it that anyone that doesn't agree with you is an idiot or is just hellbent on destroying the sport. Nobody on this site, that spend their days coming here to talk about football would legitimately have that agenda, and I think everyone here agrees that VAR needs to be fixed because it is currently very disruptive. But what you're actually arguing about right now is whether it can be fixed, and It's not radical to suggest the possibility that it's not totally beyond repair.... a bunch of people could be put in a room and map out on a whiteboard what aspects have gone terribly and put forward some changes to mitigate or eliminate those aspects...