General Premier League Thread 2020-21 - Mod Notes in 1st post. [Updated 17/12/20]

CSF · 29-11-2020 01:19AM

plibige wrote: »

What have I lied about?

You have said 2 different people said the tackle was not a penalty, neither whom have said that.

plibige · 29-11-2020 01:31AM

CSF wrote: »

You have said 2 different people said the tackle was not a penalty, neither whom have said that.

Dermot Gallagher said "I think its a very tough call, I think its a very harsh call"

Peter Walton said "He’s taken the context of the challenge out of it and seen it in slow motion".

I'll give you neither out and out said "no penalty" but they certainly suggested it.

If you want to call me a liar based on that fine. But I think there is enough information from what both said to know neither seen it as a penalty.

The clear and obvious thing is another thing all together

Ikozma · 29-11-2020 01:35AM

The Premier lge is absolutely ****ed and is at a critical stage I think unless var is dropped or a least that the rules are changed and refs know what the rules are, it's a complete mess and is turning an awful lot of people off the Premier lge altogether and I'm certainly one of them

happyoutscan · 29-11-2020 07:45AM

As far as I'm concerned it was a penalty.

A foul inside the penalty area equates to a penalty, nevermind all this 'context' crap. I'd be raging if the roles were reversed.

I was more pissed off with Robinson's kick than anything.

The two off-side calls were also correct, but the whole off-side measuring is a mess. The lack of focus on exactly when the ball is played forward along with the grainiest footage this side of Virgin Media (Tv3) is ridiculous.

Those are the breaks, could be worse.

29-11-2020 09:49AM

Rants about refs, VAR, TV companies, fixture lists, injury lists, penalties, other managers, interviewers, offsides...everyone, let's all go out there today and hug a Liverpool fan, and tell them enjoy being top of the league because there will be bad days...

super_furry · 29-11-2020 09:49AM

Ikozma wrote: »

The Premier lge is absolutely ****ed and is at a critical stage I think unless var is dropped or a least that the rules are changed and refs know what the rules are, it's a complete mess and is turning an awful lot of people off the Premier lge altogether and I'm certainly one of them

Was actually just thinking that today. Maybe it's a combination of no fans and VAR but I've less interest in the Premier League than any other time I can remember.

I'll watch Liverpool games still but I don't think I've watched a game not involving the club I support since September. I used to watch everything that was on TV. Up until last season really.

I've been far more interested in the League of Ireland.

Part or it too I think is all the staggered kick-offs. You'd miss the grouped Saturday 3pm games, it was nearly the focus of a weekend, now everything is all over the place.

Rock77 · 29-11-2020 09:59AM

plibige wrote: »

Your definition of a foul and mine are far apart.

Post about who you like. I'll interpret your posts how I see them.

I don’t like being accused of being anti anyone.. you accused me of it and when called on it you back tracked.

As for the foul, two Liverpool supporters in here thought it wasn’t a foul.. one said he kicked him but that doesn’t matter, you said he didn’t kick him.

Everyone else including Liverpool fans thought it was a foul. A harsh peno yes, but when you have var and you are slowing replays down to see if there’s contact you can’t say ‘he didn’t get the ball, he connected with the player, but I won’t give it anyway’

yourdeadwright · 29-11-2020 10:22AM

Rock77 wrote: »

You agree that a defender can’t keep an attacker without it being a peno.

But you don’t think Robbo kicked Wellbeck?

I kinda see what your trying to get at.. if there was no var nobody would have even noticed it happened (me included) but there is var and in the replay it’s clear as day Robbo kicked him..

As i said i think it was a coming together not a foul, the ball hitting Robbo standing foot at the same time as the contact os the game changer for me

Kind of like when someone goes one and one and a keeper flys out to smother the shot and ball hits the keeper at the same time as the keeper comes in contact with the forward,

I wonder if Welbck didnt dive after it would it have even been checked

davemckenna25 · 29-11-2020 10:29AM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

As i said i think it was a coming together not a foul, the ball hitting Robbo standing foot at the same time as the contact os the game changer for me

Kind of like when someone goes one and one and a keeper flys out to smother the shot and ball hits the keeper at the same time as the keeper comes in contact with the forward,

I wonder if Welbck didnt dive after it would it have even been checked

He didn't dive...he was kicked and went to ground.

Quazzie · 29-11-2020 10:36AM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

As i said i think it was a coming together not a foul, the ball hitting Robbo standing foot at the same time as the contact os the game changer for me

Kind of like when someone goes one and one and a keeper flys out to smother the shot and ball hits the keeper at the same time as the keeper comes in contact with the forward,

I wonder if Welbck didnt dive after it would it have even been checked

The ball was kicked onto Robertson foot, by the attacker at the same time as Robertson was making full on contact with the attacker.

It was a penalty all day long.

yourdeadwright · 29-11-2020 10:39AM

davemckenna25 wrote: »

He didn't dive...he was kicked and went to ground.

Ahh stop he 100% dived, there was contact yes but he then took about 3 steps before he decided to go down,
Thats a div
Watch the reply his right foot is hit he then places his left foot, right foot, left foot on the ground before diving

Rock77 · 29-11-2020 10:43AM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

As i said i think it was a coming together not a foul, the ball hitting Robbo standing foot at the same time as the contact os the game changer for me

Kind of like when someone goes one and one and a keeper flys out to smother the shot and ball hits the keeper at the same time as the keeper comes in contact with the forward,

I wonder if Welbck didnt dive after it would it have even been checked

I know this one is hard to take if it’s against your team and I know what your trying to say (your just not doing a good job of saying it)

If there’s no var, there’s no pen. Nobody even noticed anything happened.

But there is var so these things get looked at, and when you slow it down and view it multiple times you can clearly see Robbo swing a kick at the ball, he misses the ball and makes contact with the player. When that happens, there is no reason whatsoever to not give a pen.

Nothing else matters, no contact on the ball, contact with the player= penalty

Rock77 · 29-11-2020 10:44AM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Ahh stop he 100% dived, there was contact yes but he then took about 3 steps before he decided to go down,
Thats a div
Watch the reply his right foot is hit he then places his left foot, right foot, left foot on the ground before diving

I agree, he dived after he was kicked

And if he doesn’t go down, var probably doesn’t even look at it.

fyfe79 · 29-11-2020 11:00AM

Rock77 wrote: »

I agree, he dived after he was kicked

And if he doesn’t go down, var probably doesn’t even look at it.

I think Welbeck could've stayed on his feet - just like Salah last week in fairness. Just shows that both players were right... if they'd stayed on their feet, they'd get nothing. I suppose referee's need to start determining what level of contact constitutes a foul. Some fans will argue that both are penalties, other fans will argue that both are not. In my honest opinion, only biased fans (both Liverpool and non-Liverpool fans) will argue that one is a penalty and the other isn't.

I think VAR is a good idea but is not being used in the spirit of the game. To help correct it, I think the following needs to happen:

1. Slow-motion replays should not be used. Incidents should only be reviewed in normal motion, as it happened.
2. No more arbitary drawing of lines for offside. A simple free-frame at the point in question, to be viewed with the naked eye. If it looks level (Salah yesterday) allow it, if it looks off (Mane, yesterday), disallow it.

Yeah, some pedantics will still moan, but you can't make everyone happy. Right now, the current application is making a lot of people unhappy a lot of the time. It's distracting from the game.

Crash Bang Wall · 29-11-2020 11:07AM

davemckenna25 wrote: »

He didn't dive...he was kicked and went to ground.

It can be a foul and a dive......if the contact wasnt the cause of the fall, he dived....all this nonsense of entitled to go down is exactly that....nonsense

Refs need to start giving pens for players trying to stay on their feet to even have a hope of getting rid of diving

The pundits are also part of the problem.....thats a dive and hes entitled to go down are both views regularly expressed, yet are bot sides of the same coin

Crash Bang Wall · 29-11-2020 11:12AM

fyfe79 wrote: »

I think Welbeck could've stayed on his feet - just like Salah last week in fairness. Just shows that both players were right... if they'd stayed on their feet, they'd get nothing. I suppose referee's need to start determining what level of contact constitutes a foul. Some fans will argue that both are penalties, other fans will argue that both are not. In my honest opinion, only biased fans (both Liverpool and non-Liverpool fans) will argue that one is a penalty and the other isn't.

I think VAR is a good idea but is not being used in the spirit of the game. To help correct it, I think the following needs to happen:

1. Slow-motion replays should not be used. Incidents should only be reviewed in normal motion, as it happened.
2. No more arbitary drawing of lines for offside. A simple free-frame at the point in question, to be viewed with the naked eye. If it looks level (Salah yesterday) allow it, if it looks off (Mane, yesterday), disallow it.

Yeah, some pedantics will still moan, but you can't make everyone happy. Right now, the current application is making a lot of people unhappy a lot of the time. It's distracting from the game.

I seem to remeber a journo recently (Melissa Reddy I think but not sure), basically saying the media were shown how VAR works but were also pretty much told it wasnt 100% accurate, in terms of the very tight calls, so some level of "linesmans call" needs to be introduced

Get the linesaman to make a decision, and if the freeze frame requires the lines to come out, then you stick with the linesmans decision.....also saves time, because all the time wasted with VAR is not all added on

davemckenna25 · 29-11-2020 11:16AM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Ahh stop he 100% dived, there was contact yes but he then took about 3 steps before he decided to go down,
Thats a div
Watch the reply his right foot is hit he then places his left foot, right foot, left foot on the ground before diving

But it wasn't a dive.
He got a full force kick on the sole of his foot, momentum took him forward and he collapsed to the ground

How you don't see it as a penalty is beyond me.

DM_7 · 29-11-2020 11:18AM

Fitz* wrote: »

I'd like to know why VAR used the right foot as the line, as opposed to the left foot or left shoulder.

It's hard to see from the one image what part of the defenders body is actually further back.

https://twitter.com/Watch_LFC/status/1332672769708994561?s=19

The image perspective gives a false impression to the naked eye. That is why they use software to determine where the line should be.

Below is helpful,

Note: Dale's comment on if people want to see or not is there as he tweeted same and is not intended by me to be a comment on posters here.

https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/status/1332983700905222144?s=19

Crash Bang Wall · 29-11-2020 11:21AM

davemckenna25 wrote: »

But it wasn't a dive.
He got a full force kick on the sole of his foot, momentum took him forward and he collapsed to the ground

How you don't see it as a penalty is beyond me.

You are seeing what you want to see champ

I said it can be a foul and a dive.....if the contact didnt cause him to fall then its a dive

I never said it was or wasnt a pen, as more me the bigger issue is simulation. Salahs pen a few weeks ago....he got clipped slightly, but theres no way that level of contact caused him to fall the way he did, so therefore, he was arguably fouled, but definitely dived.

davemckenna25 · 29-11-2020 11:29AM

Crash Bang Wall wrote: »

You are seeing what you want to see champ

I said it can be a foul and a dive.....if the contact didnt cause him to fall then its a dive

I never said it was or wasnt a pen, as more me the bigger issue is simulation. Salahs pen a few weeks ago....he got clipped slightly, but theres no way that level of contact caused him to fall the way he did, so therefore, he was arguably fouled, but definitely dived.

1st, my reply wasn't to you so I wasn't debating whether you called it a penalty or not. You have agreed it was a foul.

2nd, maybe he could have limped on but he decided not to. He decided to drop to the ground.
He didn't make it theatrical and didn't throw himself to the ground, he just went down.
He had been kicked as we agreed, on so I don't see how it gets labeled as a dive.

Girly Gal · 29-11-2020 11:37AM

DM_7 wrote: »

The image perspective gives a false impression to the naked eye. That is why they use software to determine where the line should be.

Below is helpful,

Note: Dale's comment on if people want to see or not is there as he tweeted same and is not intended by me to be a comment on posters here.

https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/status/1332983700905222144?s=19

That image doesn't prove conclusively that White's right foot is furthest forward, especially with his body position it's unlikely his right foot is further ahead than his left shoulder, that blue vertical line doesn't look perpendicular to the pitch, also the image doesn't prove if the ball has already left the both or not, so, very difficult to conclusively prove tight decisions like this one are offside or not.

noodler · 29-11-2020 11:47AM

It's not really something I want to see given, in that the contract didn't really affect Welbeck (bar his dive).

But it's very difficult to argue with the simple premise of "Miss the ball but get the man" equates to a peno.

osarusan · 29-11-2020 11:51AM

I think there is conflation of two different questions which are "is that a penalty?" and "is it a clear and obvious error not to give that as a penalty?"

It is pretty much impossible for the ref to look at the monitor and think to themselves that while it was a penalty, it was not a clear and obvious error not to give it - no way the ref can make that decision by themselves.

Agent Coulson · 29-11-2020 11:51AM

So how do they determine when the ball leaves the player who passes the balls foot and when the player receiving the ball is offside.

The focus always seems to be on the goal scorer or player offside and not the passer of the ball and when it left their foot.

Also there a margin of error when it comes to VAR so when they are calling offside at the mm level what is the actual margin of error and is that margin of error taken into account.

noodler · 29-11-2020 11:53AM

osarusan wrote: »

I think there is conflation of two different questions which are "is that a penalty?" and "is it a clear and obvious error not to give that as a penalty?"

That's also true.

But the ref looked at it himself I'm personally satisfied on that score.

If it had been overturned purely on VAR say so then I would be querying why VAR suddenly grew a pair this week.

ShamoBuc · 29-11-2020 11:55AM

This still going on?

It was a penalty.......harsh, absolutely and needed slow mo to really see the foul, but a foul nonetheless by the letter of the law.
It was offside.....close? Absolutely, a split second earlier he was probably onside.

These decisions have gone more against Liverpool than any other team so far this season, there's no doubt about that, the stats are there for all to see.

But we are only at the end of November, I reckon things will even out as the season goes on. On the law of averages, they should.

Given Liverpools chronic injury list to key players, not playing particularly well, the VAR decisions etc they still find themselves top of the league, not a bad position all things considered.

It's a marathon, not a sprint.

Crash Bang Wall · 29-11-2020 11:56AM

davemckenna25 wrote: »

1st, my reply wasn't to you so I wasn't debating whether you called it a penalty or not. You have agreed it was a foul.

2nd, maybe he could have limped on but he decided not to. He decided to drop to the ground.
He didn't make it theatrical and didn't throw himself to the ground, he just went down.
He had been kicked as we agreed, on so I don't see how it gets labeled as a dive.

Not theatrical...he looked around, seen play was continuing, dropped to the ground, and had a wee roll over:rolleyes:

DM_7 · 29-11-2020 11:57AM

Girly Gal wrote: »

That image doesn't prove conclusively that White's right foot is furthest forward, especially with his body position it's unlikely his right foot is further ahead than his left shoulder, that blue vertical line doesn't look perpendicular to the pitch, also the image doesn't prove if the ball has already left the both or not, so, very difficult to conclusively prove tight decisions like this one are offside or not.

The software and calibration of same has determined the foot is closest to the goal. It is far more accurate than how things 'look' to us. A question was asked yesterday and in my view the pictures and video explain the process that was/is followed.

I agree on the issue of determining when the ball is played. I don't think the extreme analysis of on/offside is in spirit of what the rule was meant to be. The attackers are not getting a clear advantage or defenders suffering a major disadvantage in these really close scenarios.

The suggestion of a freeze frame scenario without the calibrated lines would be great if a camera angle showing the true line was available. It is not though, so it would not be suitable either due to the limitations of seeing a true line on camera angle's without a set and calibrated process of determining the offside line.

yourdeadwright · 29-11-2020 11:58AM

davemckenna25 wrote: »

But it wasn't a dive.
He got a full force kick on the sole of his foot, momentum took him forward and he collapsed to the ground

How you don't see it as a penalty is beyond me.

Of course i can see how it was given, yes there was contact it was not black and white, i just have the same opinion as ex ref Walton that i dont think it was pen, but i can see why it was given and understand people wil lthink it was a pen

But he 100% still dived,

fyfe79 · 29-11-2020 12:01PM

Agent Coulson wrote: »

So how do they determine when the ball leaves the player who passes the balls foot and when the player receiving the ball is offside.

The focus always seems to be on the goal scorer or player offside and not the passer of the ball and when it left their foot.

Also there a margin of error when it comes to VAR so when they are calling offside at the mm level what is the actual margin of error.

Very true. I work in calibration and there is something known as "uncertainty of measurement" which factors in the uncertainty of the measuring equipment being used. Generally speaking, if the uncertainty of measurement is big enough to bring the result of a reading in to doubt (ie if the error of reading + the uncertainty of measurement = greater than the tolerance), we would still consider the reading to be acceptable with an accompanying note that compliance cannot be proven or disproven. This is in a very heavily regulated pharma company.

With these tight offside calls, the PL are basically saying that the reading (goal) is not acceptable as compliance (onside) cannot be proven/disproven.
It's quite a negative way to approach what is a game of football!

If they approached it like the regulations governing pharma companies, the result in these tight calls would be a more positive outcome, ie. goal awarded.

General Premier League Thread 2020-21 - Mod Notes in 1st post. [Updated 17/12/20]

Comments