Coventry fans pride

[ricardo 7,395]

31 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

So onside.

Sadly not.

Unless fof course you think they digitally moved the players about on the frames they shew during the game.

[Midlands Yellow 4,025]

2 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Sadly not.

Unless fof course you think they digitally moved the players about on the frames they shew during the game.

You were wrong on Project Restart and probably on this. Clearly onside on that video. 

[Capt. Pants 4,270]

Wow at the split second the pass was hit he's clearly onside. The lines are pointless if they are not at the precise split second when there was contact with the ball.

[Midlands Yellow 4,025]

1 minute ago, Capt. Pants said:

Wow at the split second the pass was hit he's clearly onside. The lines are pointless if they are not at the precise split second when there was contact with the ball.

Not even close!! 

[Duncan Edwards 2,256]

Offside. Looked off at first glance. Was clearly off on review. Would also have been chalked off at the other end. Also, did Cov a favour as they would have got pumped 10-0 in the final. They should stop crying and move on. 

[Midlands Yellow 4,025]

2 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Offside. Looked off at first glance. Was clearly off on review. Would also have been chalked off at the other end. Also, did Cov a favour as they would have got pumped 10-0 in the final. They should stop crying and move on. 

That’s cleared that up then. 

[Samwam27 531]

10 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Offside. Looked off at first glance. Was clearly off on review. Would also have been chalked off at the other end. Also, did Cov a favour as they would have got pumped 10-0 in the final. They should stop crying and move on. 

You must be one of the very few to use the words "clearly" offside, even after review 😅

[Google Bot 3,298]

1 hour ago, duke63 said:

VAR is a solution to a problem that never was. It’s there to create controversy and social media discussion.

I think it's further jobs for the boys too, think of all those extra officials and training programs due to VAR.  Just like broadcasters, players, foreign investors and sponsors - all trying to get their slice of the money pie.

[One Flew Over... 33]

It took away a massive cup comeback by ruling it offside, but doubt there was any conspiracy involved. Coventry got a 95th minute penalty which could have been overturned by VAR if that was the case.

[BroadstairsR 2,194]

8 minutes ago, One Flew Over... said:

It took away a massive cup comeback by ruling it offside, but doubt there was any conspiracy involved. Coventry got a 95th minute penalty which could have been overturned by VAR if that was the case.

I agree that penalty was highly contentious as well.

Nevertheless, something need to be done about the "toenail" (the latest term, I remember when it was Suarez's offside teeth that was the joke,) interpretation of the offside laws.

[nutty nigel 7,558]

Of course those Coventry fans made for great tv. The elation followed by disbelief and then tears. I’ve said it before “unpaid extras” in the drama.

 

[sgncfc 1,239]

On 22/04/2024 at 17:19, ricardo said:

you have to accept that there will always be close decisions that you may come out on the wrong side of.

Which negates the entire justification for using VAR in the first place. It's clearly not quite as cut and dried as they would have us believe when the lines are drawn differently in games. So we might just as well rely on the assistant ref.

Having said that, I shouted "offside" at the TV in real time, so maybe they should just let me decide.

[ricardo 7,395]

46 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

Which negates the entire justification for using VAR in the first place. It's clearly not quite as cut and dried as they would have us believe when the lines are drawn differently in games. So we might just as well rely on the assistant ref.

Having said that, I shouted "offside" at the TV in real time, so maybe they should just let me decide.

If you have a red and a blue pen you are fully qualified for a VAR ref.

 

[Mason 47 1,391]

The issue with VAR is that VAR is now the de facto match official. I always thought it was meant to be a tool to help the on-pitch officials avoiding glaring errors; the on pitch crew are now just there to watch IMO.

It was never meant to be forensic science. 

[Foxy2600 305]

How funny after 8 and a half minutes - the Manc Untd goal stands lol - 8 and a half minutes of VAR scrutiny 

 

Sheffers , your going down

[Midlands Yellow 4,025]

Coventry will go up next season. The club are on a mission and they’ll smash it. 

[ricardo 7,395]

2 hours ago, Mason 47 said:

The issue with VAR is that VAR is now the de facto match official. I always thought it was meant to be a tool to help the on-pitch officials avoiding glaring errors; the on pitch crew are now just there to watch IMO.

It was never meant to be forensic science. 

Of course it was  you are either on or offside. Just like goal line technology, it's either over the line or not. Neither of these situations are subjective, they are matters of fact.

 

[Mason 47 1,391]

2 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Of course it was  you are either on or offside. Just like goal line technology, it's either over the line or not. Neither of these situations are subjective, they are matters of fact.

 

Then to me, the question is of consistency. If we are following the letter of the law, it must be for all laws, all the time.

I look at the Arsenal/ Bayern debacle recently, in which the defender picked up a goal kick not knowing the keeper had restarted play. Many people applauded 'use of common sense' in not 'ruining the match' by awarding a penalty. But, the law is the law. Why was it not given? And how might one police such things in a consistent manner?

The only solution would be every decision measured out by the Big Brother.

[Midlands Yellow 4,025]

Coventry fans are the best in this league by miles, fair play. 

[Hairy Canary 705]

37 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Of course it was  you are either on or offside. Just like goal line technology, it's either over the line or not. Neither of these situations are subjective, they are matters of fact.

 

Goal line technology is a matter of fact. The sensor is in the ball and is compared to a static goal line with the receiver measuring against a single parallel line.

Off side is measured against hundreds of imaginary lines where it is impossible for the camera to be parallel. In addition the frame when the ball is kicked is arbitrary depending on which one the VAR decides to make the measurement against. Then there is the exact position of the defenders and attackers most forward acceptable body part, where lines have been shown to have not always been drawn correctly. All this and then decisions are decided on millilitres.

You have more confidence in the technology than I do Ricardo if you think there is no margin for error there.

[ricardo 7,395]

1 minute ago, Hairy Canary said:

Goal line technology is a matter of fact. The sensor is in the ball and is compared to a static goal line with the receiver measuring against a single parallel line.

Off side is measured against hundreds of imaginary lines where it is impossible for the camera to be parallel. In addition the frame when the ball is kicked is arbitrary depending on which one the VAR decides to make the measurement against. Then there is the exact position of the defenders and attackers most forward acceptable body part, where lines have been shown to have not always been drawn correctly. All this and then decisions are decided on millilitres.

You have more confidence in the technology than I do Ricardo if you think there is no margin for error there.

It's still a matter of fact once the line is drawn o the chosen frame.

[Hairy Canary 705]

1 minute ago, ricardo said:

It's still a matter of fact once the line is drawn o the chosen frame.

The line is a matter of fact. Its accuracy is dependent on the technology. 

[GodlyOtsemobor 2,337]

Offside should be half of the attackers body.

If your ENTIRE body is level with the defender apart from the toe of your boot then how in the hell is that classed as offside. 

It's bollox, and everyone knows it's bollox. Anyone spouting rules are rules etc. need to give their heads a wobble.This should never have been the rule!

Level should be classed as onside until at least a half of the attackers body is off. Then there's an advantage. There's absolutely zero advantage in having a toe offside. 

[Duncan Edwards 2,256]

1 hour ago, GodlyOtsemobor said:

Offside should be half of the attackers body.

If your ENTIRE body is level with the defender apart from the toe of your boot then how in the hell is that classed as offside. 

It's bollox, and everyone knows it's bollox. Anyone spouting rules are rules etc. need to give their heads a wobble.This should never have been the rule!

Level should be classed as onside until at least a half of the attackers body is off. Then there's an advantage. There's absolutely zero advantage in having a toe offside. 

But we’d still be debating lines. Debating what determines “half”. By its nature it will always be contentious; were we happier with human error? We were in the grounds, I’m fairly sure we could agree on that.

 

 

 

 

Or not 😂

Edited April 25 by Duncan Edwards

[Sufyellow 222]

On 22/04/2024 at 17:19, ricardo said:

 

Its not debatable at all,  you see decisions like this in the Premier League every week. Yesterday there was one just as close in the Fulham Liverpool game. In this case Jotta was narrowly onside whereas the Coventry player in the FA Cup match was narrowly offside.

Unless you believe they are sorting out frames and drawing lines with which to manufacture a decision they want (which some people seem to believe), then you have to accept that there will always be close decisions that you may come out on the wrong side of.

I think football is corrupt. 

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,294]

Offside will always be controversial. But it’s far more controversial with VAR than it ever was.

The way FA / UEFA / FIFA persist with VAR some 6 years on is criminal. It clearly hasn’t  achieved what it set out to do. 

[Hairy Canary 705]

13 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Offside will always be controversial. But it’s far more controversial with VAR than it ever was.

The way FA / UEFA / FIFA persist with VAR some 6 years on is criminal. It clearly hasn’t  achieved what it set out to do. 

I’m afraid this is right.

With goal line technology there is no need for a referee, VAR or any other sort, and there is no controversy.

With offside the VAR needs to choose the frame, decide which part of the attackers body is most forward, the same for the defender, accurately draw both lines and then decide which is closer. There is so much scope to choose/make an error that to then claim it’s accurate to a few millimetres means that it can only be contentious. 

Edited April 25 by Hairy Canary

[GodlyOtsemobor 2,337]

9 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

But we’d still be debating lines. Debating what determines “half”. By its nature it will always be contentious; were we happier with human error? We were in the grounds, I’m fairly sure we could agree on that.

 

 

 

 

Or not 😂

Yep I'd be happier if it was human error and not some **** drawing lines on a touchscreen for sure.