ClaphamFox

In many ways Tielemans' performances in 22/23 were the perfect representation of our general decline. Watching a very talented player waddle around miserably, knowing he was capable of so much more, was symptomatic of a team in which undoubted talent was being completely suffocated by apathy and decay.

Shearer and Murphy didn't offer any opinion other than "VAR says it was onside so we have to trust it" - completely ignoring the fact that VAR is completely dependent on human beings drawing the lines (hence why they took an age to make this decision) and is therefore highly fallible. Others may choose to blindly trust flawed tech if they want to. That doesn't mean we have to

There is clearly not a deliberate, organized conspiracy against us. The mere suggestion is absurd. However, there is a lot of ill-feeling towards us out there at the moment. Refs and VAR officials may have their own private opinions about whether we got away with it re: PSR. Is it beyond the realms of possibility that, in addition to not having the unconscious bias that benefits big clubs, there may perhaps be an extra layer of unconscious bias against us because of the perception that we finagled our way out of a points deduction? I'm not sure it can be ruled out. In this case I think the main problem was that the way the cameras are positioned at Selhurst Park meant that the VAR officials did not have a straight-on view of the incident (hence why the image released is from behind the action). They then drew a line from Justin's outstretched boot which extended just in front of Mateta's foot, showing that Mateta's foot was onside. However, they did not factor in the fact that Mateta's knee and upper body were clearly ahead of his foot and very likely over the line they'd drawn from Justin, and as such showed Mateta to be offside. Why didn't they draw the line to Mateta's upper body? Was it because the ill-placed cameras meant they couldn't, or did they just forget to do it? Those are the questions I'd like to see answered.

But I didn’t say anything about PSR! I’m not connecting it to that in any way. I don’t for one moment believe we’re the victims of a conspiracy, but I do believe we were the victims of a scandalous VAR decision, probably due to a combination of inadequate technology at Selhurst Park and a terrible lapse of judgment by the VAR officials. I just want PGMOL to acknowledge it. Any other club in the division would demand the same.

No, but if we don't hold them to account for this decision, what's to stop them from doing it again? If they have to publicly admit they were wrong, it will put pressure on them to deal with us more carefully in the future. What's 'victimhood' about asking PGMOL for the evidence they used to overrule the on-field decision on Saturday? We're just asking for transparency. If they can provide clear evidence that Mateta was onside, fair enough. But I strongly suspect that such evidence doesn't exist because if it did, we'd have seen it by now.

I suspect you're right and that when PGMOL provide their explanation they will admit that they didn't have a full side-view image because of the positioning of the cameras. If so, I'm really interested to see how they justify the decision to overrule the on-field decision.

This isn't my reading of it at all. Cooper spoke afterwards about seeking clarification but there were no reports that the club had pursued it. Tom Collomose, who is pretty reliable, has reported this morning that we've formally approached the PL for clarification. This is new - it is not a rehash of Cooper's post-match comments. If we request the evidence, the authorities have to provide it. And it seems we have formally requested to see the evidence.

I don't understand. If the club wanted it to 'blow over', why would they be seeking clarification from the PL and leaking that news to a journalist? It's not remotely in our interests to take this lying down - if we don't hold them to account this time, what's to stop them from doing it again next week?

They might not want to be helpful, but they can’t just refuse to provide the evidence simply because it’s us. They still have to follow the protocol.

Well they'll have to provide the smoking gun image that prove they were right then, won't they? I'm glad the club is pursuing this and I hope they demand to hear the audio too - we need to know exactly what the VAR officials said before they made the decision.

It definitely doesn’t count if it’s just the tip.

Absolutely.

Thoughts and prayers with Owen Jones today...

The second image clearly shows Mateta leaning over the green line - ie, offside.

This was shown on TV on the live broadcast overseas. Interestingly, however, it didn't make it into MotD's highlights and the PL declined to use it in their tweet explaining the decision. You can use the lines of the mowing pattern of the pitch to draw a line from Mateta's upper body to the touchline. Do you see Justin's foot anywhere near that line? No. The decision to rule it onside was an absolute joke.

This was the view from the other side of the pitch.

So basically we're left with: 1) A wide angle shot that seems to show Mateta leaning over the green line they've drawn to his feet, but which does not draw a line to his upper body and head (which were active as he was leaning forwards). 2) A close-up showing Mateta behind the green line but that does not show where Justin's foot is, and does not address the fact that the active part of Mateta's body is his head. And when reviewing the above two bits of evidence, Gallagher basically says, "The tech reckons he's onside and that's all we have to go on", but completely refuses to address or even acknowledge the fact that the line was drawn to the wrong part of Mateta's body? Is that a fair summary?

This is from the Sky Sports website: INCIDENT: Jean Phillippe Mateta had his goal initially flagged offside, but after a VAR review the goal was given. Dermot says: "VAR felt he was just kept onside. The only authority we've got is the technology until semi-automated comes. "The line says he's just onside, that's all we can go on. Every team plays to the same technology, if it says onside it's onside if it says off it's off. In their view it's factual." Warnock says: "I understand Steve Cooper's frustration but I don't think you've got much of an argument with that second angle" For anybody who watched it, what was the 'second angle' they looked at?

I just want PGMOL to explain why they appeared to have deliberately drawn the line to Mateta’s feet rather than his head, which was further forward and therefore the point at which the offside should have been judged. I hope a journalist asks Cooper about it at the next press conference - it will be very annoying if it’s swept under the carpet.

The wide angle green line from Justin’s foot is just in front of Mateta’s foot (implying onside), but Mateta is very clearly leaning forwards and his head looks very much ahead of that green line. Why haven’t they drawn a line from his head?

But their ‘evidence’ does not support their case at all. They may as well have posted a picture of a can of tomato soup and said, “This picture of a can of soup shows Justin played Mateta onside.” How can they even pretend that the images they shared support the decision to allow the goal?

How long after an error like that does it usually take PGMOL to acknowledge it and apologise?

It was a scandalous decision to overturn the on-field call. It’s bad enough when VAR fails to overrule incorrect on-field decisions, but when correct on-field decisions are incorrectly overruled, it starts to look very dodgy. Cooper said they’d be seeking an explanation for it from PGMOL. I’d love to know whether they’ve provided one yet.

He’s very clearly offside. It’s not even particularly debatable.

The Palace line-up is very attacking. There should be plenty of space for our attacking pla….. oh 😢