The Ref Stop

Newcastle v Manchester City

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bloovee

RefChat Addict
I'd made a promise to myself not to start a thread about City games but - even after my wife said "The referee's decision is always right", which didn't help - this has to raise questions about the semi-automated offsides.

Exhibit 1. From Futoffsides
1763912997998.png

Exhibit 2. The cartoon drawn by SAOT:

1763913136105.png


The defending player is somehow levitating - but even if it was accurate, why would the system draw a line to an arm rather than to a part of the body that counts for offside? (I've had the ruler out - extended upwards, the right hand edge of the yellow line misses the shoulder, the left hand edge might just about be argued to be where the armpit would be if the arm was at the player's side.) Any VAR audio of that?

And will "the panel" say whether this was a foul? It went to VAR for a penalty check but I think the commentators said that as the ball had gone it was "contact without consequence"...

1763914160471.png
 
Last edited:
The Ref Stop
How do you know the line drawn by Futoffsides is correct? Surely the one drawn by the SAOT is more likely to be correct than that drawn by someone else? The line is drawn at the armpit level as that is the furthest forward part of the body that can legally play the ball. For some inexplicable reason they don't show the line the other side of the body, but if you keep drawing it up to the top of the arm it looks about right for the placement.

It was definitely a foul on Foden, but as we see so often top level referees just don't penalise it if the attacker has already got the shot away, at least not unless it would draw a disciplinary sanction.
 
I think the offside is correct, of you follow the line up it gets to dias shoulder, the graphic really should note the point on the body the line is taken from to avoid any doubt.

It is of course a pen on foden, any excuses for not giving it are just that, excuses. Its a foul, a clear one. Do your job and penalise it.
 
I agree not sure why the offside is controversial, line is marked from the shoulder, level with the bottom of the armpit which you can score from?
 
es1 said:
I think the offside is correct, of you follow the line up it gets to dias shoulder, the graphic really should note the point on the body the line is taken from to avoid any doubt.

It is of course a pen on foden, any excuses for not giving it are just that, excuses. Its a foul, a clear one. Do your job and penalise it.
Click to expand...
It isn't just an English / PGMOL thing, all over the world penalties are very rarely given if the foul is after the attacker has got a shot away. It is almost like there is an unwritten rule.
 
RustyRef said:
It isn't just an English / PGMOL thing, all over the world penalties are very rarely given if the foul is after the attacker has got a shot away. It is almost like there is an unwritten rule.
Click to expand...

I'm aware, it's a massive anomaly within officiating
 
es1 said:
I think the offside is correct, of you follow the line up it gets to dias shoulder, the graphic really should note the point on the body the line is taken from to avoid any doubt.

It is of course a pen on foden, any excuses for not giving it are just that, excuses. Its a foul, a clear one. Do your job and penalise it.
Click to expand...
Agreed clear reckless challenge, penalty yellow card. If you do that anywhere else on the pitch it’s a free kick so why does a defender get a free hit?

I am one for giving late tackles in the penalty area even if a shot has been got off.
 
RustyRef said:
How do you know the line drawn by Futoffsides is correct? Surely the one drawn by the SAOT is more likely to be correct than that drawn by someone else? The line is drawn at the armpit level as that is the furthest forward part of the body that can legally play the ball. For some inexplicable reason they don't show the line the other side of the body, but if you keep drawing it up to the top of the arm it looks about right for the placement.

It was definitely a foul on Foden, but as we see so often top level referees just don't penalise it if the attacker has already got the shot away, at least not unless it would draw a disciplinary sanction.
Click to expand...
If it can show a player jumping when he isn't, why should anyone trust it?
 
Last edited:
bloovee said:
If it can show a player jumping when he isn't, why should anyone trust it?
Click to expand...
I think that is not the right question. The right question is if an entity with interest in creating controversy, or a man city fan 😜 says a player is not jumping, while in fact the player is jumping, can they be trusted.

1763952939525.png

Agree that the pen should have been given. But if it is going to be given, then it should be given for all games and not just when Man city is on the benefiting end of it.
 
I got to admit though, I'm not fully on board with this SAOT if you can't trust the technology enough to bring it in line because the angles the pictures show can look a little dubious.

I mean at the end of the day, we don't have margin for error on goal line tech and the PL boast this is the best technology out there so if that is the case, why the margin for error?

Also that green line is not up towards the bottom of the armpit, surely it's too low(almost on the elbow).

The pen shout should be a penalty, as been mentioned if a striker gets a shot away then they don't usually get given which I kinda get but in this case, I think it is reckless(so going by guidance it should be given) and not only that, Foden no doubt got affected by the defender flying in so probably did not get the shot he wanted off.
 
I'm quite happy with the penalty not being given. :D

Sure, Schar (somewhat carelessly) lunges with his foot in there but part and parcel of the actual contact is derived from Foden's shot follow-through so that he also kicks the bottom of Schar's boot and so it's "six and half a dozen" for me.

Surprised it wasn't given in real time - after which I'm sure VAR would have let the decision stand but because it wasn't given, they were obviously looking for reasons not to send Barrott over to the screen for which the explanation above is as good as any. 👍
 
Kes said:
I'm quite happy with the penalty not being given. :D

Sure, Schar (somewhat carelessly) lunges with his foot in there but part and parcel of the actual contact is derived from Foden's shot follow-through so that he also kicks the bottom of Schar's boot and so it's "six and half a dozen" for me.

Surprised it wasn't given in real time - after which I'm sure VAR would have let the decision stand but because it wasn't given, they were obviously looking for reasons not to send Barrott over to the screen for which the explanation above is as good as any. 👍
Click to expand...

I disagree, it's a reckless challenge for the ball where anywhere else on the field would be given a free kick and some refs may of went yellow there aswell.

Not comfortable with this cop out it's not a foul because the attacker got a shot away. If we want to be more technical, you can argue the quality of his shot was affected by the lunging defender.
 
Paul_10 said:
Not comfortable with this cop out it's not a foul because the attacker got a shot away. If we want to be more technical, you can argue the quality of his shot was affected by the lunging dedefender.
Click to expand...
I've said nowt about "an attacker getting his shot away". Merely stated what actually happened and why I think VAR let it slide is all.
 
Paul_10 said:
I disagree, it's a reckless challenge for the ball where anywhere else on the field would be given a free kick and some refs may of went yellow there aswell.
Click to expand...
If a referee is penalising a reckless challenge and doesn't also give a yellow card I would be seriously questioning their competence.
 
one said:
I think that is not the right question. The right question is if an entity with interest in creating controversy, or a man city fan 😜 says a player is not jumping, while in fact the player is jumping, can they be trusted.

View attachment 8451

Agree that the pen should have been given. But if it is going to be given, then it should be given for all games and not just when Man city is on the benefiting end of it.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! (35 seconds in)

 
Paul_10 said:
I mean at the end of the day, we don't have margin for error on goal line tech and the PL boast this is the best technology out there so if that is the case, why the margin for error?
Click to expand...
GLT does have a margin for error...
 
RustyRef said:
Good article here by Dale Johnson explaining it, as well as how not showing the vertical line all the way to the top of the shoulder confuses supporters, as I alluded to in post #2.

View attachment 8452

www.bbc.co.uk

Why VAR offside images are not always what they seem

When the Premier League rolled out semi-automated offside technology we thought we would lose the rows about offside.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
So effectively he was offside, but we're calling it onside? Who decides who gets the benefit of the "grace"? Always to the attack, or always just going with the onfield flag or lack of it, or are they tossing a coin at Stockley Park?
 
bloovee said:
So effectively he was offside, but we're calling it onside? Who decides who gets the benefit of the "grace"? Always to the attack, or always just going with the onfield flag or lack of it, or are they tossing a coin at Stockley Park?
Click to expand...
It is explained in the article, but you obviously don't want to read and / or accept it as the decision didn't go in City's favour.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top