A frustrating game where the refereeing on and off the pitch added to my levels of annoyance.
Firstly on VAR and Mickey VDVs disallowed goal.
That was a shot from about 25-30 yards by Porro. Now it took 2 deflections off Arenal players that resulted in it being at VDVs feet, to score.
What is the ruling here? I understood that accidental/not deliberate contact meant that its still the same phase of play so VDV was offside.
But to me this wasnt checked and surely it should have been. Didnt even see a decent replay. But if Porro shoots from distance and their defender (Tomiyasu i think) tries to block it, then that is not an accidental touch, it's deliberate. It then flies up into Gabriel's face and deflects to VDV. Now that was a pure non-deliberate intervention by Gabriel....but it has first come off Tomiyasu's attempted block.
Now whether I am right or wrong in this interpretation, surely VAR should have been checking the double deflection, rather than just VDVs position when the shot was hit?
Michael Oliver. This guy usually lets games flow and generally I am down with that approach (although its frustrating that not every ref is like that so some give every little foul and he lets most go).
But if ever there is proof that refs are dodging the big decisions and letting VAR sweep up, then that game was it. That Davies foul for the penalty was right in front of him, a few yards away. Clear stonewall pen! How the league's supposed top ref cannot see that and give it is beyond me.
In looking at the clipping of Kulusevski in the action that actually led to Saka's goal, VAR looked at it and determined "not enough contact". Deki had his heels clipped which made him kick his own leg and stumble. He managed to reach the ball but only really when on the way down.
I am not complaining that it was a defo penalty, but the reasoning does not stack up. "Not enough contact" is bollox because you can easily clip someone's heels making them fall with minimal contact. How many times do you see players being booked for these sort of clips, often not even deliberate fouls as players cut across their line causing the contact.
Deki paid for his honesty there. We have situations when the ref is not going to give a stonewall penalty that's happened right in front of him , and VAR ruling that contact has to be significant, even for a clip of someone's heels.
Its a fecking mess and they hide behind each other.
NLD - VAR/Oliver
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
I'm not sure I'd say I think the right decision was reached on the Kulu one, I'm just saying that I can understand why the ref missed it and VAR didn't overturn it.
Even after watching that one back a lot I'm not really sure which way I fall on it.
Offside seems pretty clear so I can't really come to any other conclusion, I just don't like the rule.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 1 minute ago
(largely I don't really mind, I think the talking point for us is our set-pieces not relying on one decision to change our fortune)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I think if I was a Spurs fan, after taking some time to reflect this would probably be the thing that irked me the most too.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 4 hours, 33 minutes ago
I think that would be a poor interpretation of what Tomiyasu tried to do, an attempted block from a shot shouldn't count as him trying to play the ball or whatever. Its not like the Lovren incident where he went to clear the ball and miskicked it.
I have always been on the record regarding close decisions, VAR and offsides that I don't think the technology has the margin of error to say that offsides as close of that they can say are definitively offside.
I think the Kulu one was a penatly, but it really wasn't helped by Maddison continuing his clown act. I very much hope he is dropped.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've seen divided opinions on whether the incident is offside or not, but VdV scoring from that position is certainly against the spirit of the offside rule. The notion an attacking player can profit from an offside position where a ball deflects off the defensive player just seems ill-thought. I can understand if it's a miskick or something similar, but from a ball that deflected off a block?
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
The Kulusevski incident was a coming together with minimal contact. The main reason he went down was tripping over his own feet. I've seen then given (soft penalties get given all the time), but more often than not, those are not given.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
I think its offside and I think a block is completely different from a miskick. To speak for both of us (and TBAG can correct me if I'm wrong) we are arguing that the spirit of offside isn't for 3mm decisions (where the technology doesn't have that degree of accuracy).
With Kulu, he only tripped over his own feet as his feet were knocked into eachother by Trossard's knee. Its the same outcome as a tap-tackle in rugby or whatever.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Nope you're correct, I haven't really made myself familiar with the limitations of the technology but I think there should be a certain level of allowance given to the forward in these situations.
Having goals like this one and the one in the Coventry game ruled out for a margin like that just seems cruel and against the spirit of the game.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
Some basic dumb sums, assuming two footballers are running oppsitte directions at 30kmh - that would be 8 meters a second.
In a second they would be 16m away. Most sports (from a quick google) broadcasts film at 60 frames per second.
In that scenario the distance between each footballer would change 27cm per frame (therefore 27cm of uncertainty). Naturally thats an extreme worst case example but it shows the flaw in the technology that tries to be precise.
posted 2 weeks, 3 days ago
https://icdn.caughtoffside.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Referee-Michael-Oliver-enjoys-pub-before-supporting-Newcastle.jpg.webp
posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago
"
In looking at the clipping of Kulusevski in the action that actually led to Saka's goal, VAR looked at it and determined "not enough contact". Deki had his heels clipped which made him kick his own leg and stumble. He managed to reach the ball but only really when on the way down"
*******************
Yes that was a penalty, not given.
Also I do not think VDV's goal was offside. On replay you can see an Arsenhole ass right in line with VDV's back foot. Not offside!
posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 12 hours, 18 minutes ago
Some basic dumb sums, assuming two footballers are running oppsitte directions at 30kmh - that would be 8 meters a second.
In a second they would be 16m away. Most sports (from a quick google) broadcasts film at 60 frames per second.
In that scenario the distance between each footballer would change 27cm per frame (therefore 27cm of uncertainty). Naturally thats an extreme worst case example but it shows the flaw in the technology that tries to be precise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what annoys me about the technology. TBF, VDV looked off side so i have not problem with that but much smaller margins are given when they are drawing lines from pixelated images because the picture definition is not good enough, determining ball contact from a 'low' framerate.
so 2 inaccurate factors determining a mm precise outcome.
And all of that is trying to establish whether the player has gained an advantage. Since when was being 5mm closer to the goal any sort of advantage