YoboCopter
Player Valuation: £50m
Took me a minute to realise you was takin the mick
Today's Football 2018-19 Season
- Thread starter ToffeeDan
- Start date
- Status
Nathan Jones to be the next Stoke manager
Not to be confused with former WWE wash out Nathan Jones
Not to be confused with former WWE wash out Nathan Jones
Alanbileysfeathercut
Player Valuation: £80m
This fella?Nathan Jones to be the next Stoke manager
Not to be confused with former WWE wash out Nathan Jones
D
Deleted member 48881
Guest
Gotta hate Bayern Munich. Whenever a player shines and impresses in non-Bayern team at Bundesliga they immediately attempt to steal (steal in the sense disproportionate economic situation among German clubs) the said player and not allow any competition there. One team dominated league, at times Dortmund, but that's it. Even with those disgusting tactics, they struggle this season, which is telling, but I cant stand Bayern, dirty minded board. They cant get a same quality player from abroad, oh no... it must be from within, from a fellow German club.
Last victim? Benjamin Pavard from Stuttgart. Joining Bayern in summer.
Last victim? Benjamin Pavard from Stuttgart. Joining Bayern in summer.
BainesontoastNEW
Player Valuation: £40m
Coming soon: Champions League games at the weekend and domestic games moved to midweek
B
Big Fat Sam
Guest
Absolutely hate Murphy. How a man with such a limited vocabulary and barely-understandable accent is able to get a gig on a prime time football show, and as a pundit too(!), is beyond me. The man looks like a potato for fuchs sake.
Chris O'Connor
Player Valuation: £35m
On last night's penalty decision and VAR.
It was a penalty if he was onside so it's this part that has been the most contentious with Chelsea producing their own evidence taken from their own camera high on the gantry, and not the host broadcaster's.
For me he possibly was offside but on the evidence the VAR official had to go on, it was impossible to judge the upper body, the best he could do was really look at the feet. Kane did get the benefit but the VAR official (Scholfield apparently) did do a decent job with the angle he had available to him.
It only took 93 seconds which isn't excessive on so marginal a decision, possibly it could be speeded up but i don't think that's too bad at all tbh.
Apparently they can only use the host broadcaster's feed and therefore wouldn't have had access to Chelsea's feed from a camera on their gantry, so you can't blame the VAR official for that.
My thought is while VAR will get some wrong due to the shortcomings of the available evidence as of now when it's introduced, it will hopefully improve further with familiarity and future technological advancements, but even as it is now, the percentage of incorrect calls will absolutely be far lower and only the very marginal perhaps liable to be called incorrectly.
It will cut out the real howlers and there is a compromise to be made with speed of decision and even more accuracy.
93 seconds can seem a long time and the amount of decisions as close as last night will be a relatively small percentage. If you look from every angle there are two things to consider, firstly they are limited to the host broadcaster's feed and can't use angles derived from other cameras as Chelsea's was last night, and even if the broadcaster had other angles to show there is no guarantee that they would be accurate enough either.
It would inevitably slow the process anyway but that may be ok if the technology was there to give an angle directly in line. As the offside line could in theory occur anywhere within an opponents half I don't think you'll ever get a definite answer to every call, giving the striker any benefit may just have to be accepted.
It was a penalty if he was onside so it's this part that has been the most contentious with Chelsea producing their own evidence taken from their own camera high on the gantry, and not the host broadcaster's.
For me he possibly was offside but on the evidence the VAR official had to go on, it was impossible to judge the upper body, the best he could do was really look at the feet. Kane did get the benefit but the VAR official (Scholfield apparently) did do a decent job with the angle he had available to him.
It only took 93 seconds which isn't excessive on so marginal a decision, possibly it could be speeded up but i don't think that's too bad at all tbh.
Apparently they can only use the host broadcaster's feed and therefore wouldn't have had access to Chelsea's feed from a camera on their gantry, so you can't blame the VAR official for that.
My thought is while VAR will get some wrong due to the shortcomings of the available evidence as of now when it's introduced, it will hopefully improve further with familiarity and future technological advancements, but even as it is now, the percentage of incorrect calls will absolutely be far lower and only the very marginal perhaps liable to be called incorrectly.
It will cut out the real howlers and there is a compromise to be made with speed of decision and even more accuracy.
93 seconds can seem a long time and the amount of decisions as close as last night will be a relatively small percentage. If you look from every angle there are two things to consider, firstly they are limited to the host broadcaster's feed and can't use angles derived from other cameras as Chelsea's was last night, and even if the broadcaster had other angles to show there is no guarantee that they would be accurate enough either.
It would inevitably slow the process anyway but that may be ok if the technology was there to give an angle directly in line. As the offside line could in theory occur anywhere within an opponents half I don't think you'll ever get a definite answer to every call, giving the striker any benefit may just have to be accepted.
hallamblue
Player Valuation: £40m
I didn't see the game but wasn't it flagged offside by the linesman? In which case if they can't make a decision they should stick with the linesman's decision. That's what happens in cricket. It's either changed, upheld or "umpire's call" meaning they stick with the on-field decision as it's too close to call.
Chris O'Connor
Player Valuation: £35m
It's not really analagous to the cricket example where the action all takes place down at the business end of the wicket with the umpire staring down at the batsman and initially adjudicating whether he thinks he got an edge or was leg before etc.
In last night's incident the ball was passed forward by a player who was a relatively long distance away, it is nigh on impossible for the human eye to coordinate the exact moment the ball is passed forward with the offside line if there is a large distance between the two. Any decision he makes therefore has to be only a best guess in a way and he would absolutely be influenced by the player nearest to him as blocking out anyone further along the line who may be keeping him onside.
If he happens to be correct then in this case it would owe a huge amount to luck too and you could hardly blame him for not being right.
He may have got it correct in this particular instance but in the vast majority of decisions involving such distances VAR would easily be better suited to judge imo.
barneygumble
Player Valuation: £60m
What a weird one John Sheridan joining Chesterfield is.
Was on a good little run with Carlisle, and swerves a League club, for a now Non-League club who literally don't have a pittance to their name, and are in the relegation zone.
Weird.
Was on a good little run with Carlisle, and swerves a League club, for a now Non-League club who literally don't have a pittance to their name, and are in the relegation zone.
Weird.
EEEERRRRRMMMMMMMMMM Yes
lollollol
Blues Harp
Player Valuation: £60m
And won feck all........next please
AndyC
Player Valuation: £70m
They could mostly be on the A6
- Status
Welcome
Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.
Shop
