Premier League 2020/21 Thread

[deep blue 612]

30 minutes ago, martyn said:

Don Hutchison saying Chilwell has "gone up a notch" from the player he was at Leicester. He has played 120 mins in the PL for Chelsea. 

 

I can't help feeling that Chilwell lost his mojo with us from November to a much larger extent than our other players, and I suspect some tapping up by Chelsea players during the England meet-ups.

[seanfox778 1,179]

Kepa again  Zouma equally as terrible.

Edited 17 October 2020 by seanfox778

[Silva Fox 744]

I see Chelsea have sorted their defence out then! 

[seanfox778 1,179]

3-2 Chelsea now

[adejo92 1,098]

1 hour ago, TheUltimateWinner said:

Imagine paying £14.99

Sorted.

[Shane 1,372]

Did they check Werner offside for the 3rd goal? Looks very close

 

 

[Ian Nacho 3,471]

Just now, Shane said:

Did they check Werner offside for the 3rd goal? Looks very close

 

 

He’s a mile on?

[Bats8711 395]

1 hour ago, turtmcfly said:

Don't see how razor thin stops the 'games gone' brigade. If anything it exacerbates the problem - the mirage of technical perfection which can't happen when the technology is controlled by humans. 

 

If the lines were a fair bit thicker (the equivalent a football's width seems too wide, but along those lines) the rule could change such that if the lines overlapped it wasn't offside

See - I think what you suggest exacerbates the problem. How does giving a margin of error do anything to solve the current issue? You’d have close decisions where the width or allowance barely does or does not overlap and you still have the core issue which is how / where they draw the lines. 

 

Also - wow they really breezed through that last Chelsea goal. The one view I saw (not the one pictured above) looked very close. Certainly enough to see some lines drawn. 

Edited 17 October 2020 by Bats8711

[Shane 1,372]

3 minutes ago, Ian Nacho said:

He’s a mile on?

Look close in line with the CB , did var check it? 

Edited 17 October 2020 by Shane

[Bats8711 395]

2 minutes ago, Shane said:

Look close in line with the CB , did var check it? 

THIS is the problem with VAR. the commentators will breeze by it: “and it looks like the initial check is complete” but there’s no way they actually got to the point they drew lines, it would have taken longer (and also wouldn’t they show it? If not why not? Surely if they show the real time var review with lines etc they should do it every time?)  how can a cursory glance at a replay of that goal definitively tell you that’s onside?

[st albans fox 8,298]

6 minutes ago, Shane said:

Look close in line with the CB , did var check it? 

They check every possible offside .... especially when there is a goal 

 

 

[Stuntman_Mike 1,220]

Anyone else fancy Arsenal to win at Man City?*

 

please don't quote me at 19:30pm 

[trabuch 2,249]

5 hours ago, Bats8711 said:

See - I think what you suggest exacerbates the problem. How does giving a margin of error do anything to solve the current issue? You’d have close decisions where the width or allowance barely does or does not overlap and you still have the core issue which is how / where they draw the lines. 

 

Also - wow they really breezed through that last Chelsea goal. The one view I saw (not the one pictured above) looked very close. Certainly enough to see some lines drawn. 

There is a margin for error though.   VAR uses a frame rate of 50fps. So regardless of the speed the players are moving they can't be mm accurate on when the ball leaves the foot of the passer. EG - if the ball is moving at 5 m/s (only 11 mph) then it will travel 10cm in one frame. So in this case the accuracy is 10cm. That's not taking into account players moving. It is not as black and white as people claim. Someone might want to check my maths though.

Edited 17 October 2020 by trabuch

[turtmcfly 1,866]

1 minute ago, Bats8711 said:

See - I think what you suggest exacerbates the problem. How does giving a margin of error do anything to solve the current issue? You’d have close decisions where the width or allowance barely does or does not overlap and you still have the core issue which is how / where they draw the lines. 

 

The suggestion isn't aimed at absolute accuracy. As I say, I think that aim is part of the problem, because it's not realistic when there's human involvement.

 

Instead, it's aimed at returning to the idea of the benefit of the doubt going to the attacker. So, reducing the number of offsides given in general, and trying to make sure the ones given are as close as non-contentious as possible.

 

For the sake of argument, use a football's width* as the equivalent line width. Even with the 'worst' (i.e. tightest) possible call where VAR gave offside, you would effectively be saying that the player was still 'a football's width minus a littlle bit' offside. That, instead of what currently is akin to splitting hairs. The hair-splitting with wider lines doesn't make as much difference.

 

 

 

* I know repeated use of the word 'football' instead of 'ball' seems clumsy/pedantic. It's almost entirely a function of my own lack of maturity that I don't want to invoke the phrase 'a balls' width' into what is a deadly serious discussion about marginal offside decisions

[whoareyaaa 2,374]

[Paninistickers 2,163]

Fack off, rent boys! 😂

[st albans fox 8,298]

Chelsea fans on social media were drooling at 2-0 .......

[Bats8711 395]

Awesome

[KingsX 5,409]

Abramovitch is hardly the only billionaire who likes to collect lots of Ferraris and Lamborghinis ...

 

But most have enough sense to get doors and locks for the garage 

[surrifox 2,386]

Someone explain to Frankie that he really does need to get to chapter 2 of “Football management for dummies “ and look at the bit about organising a defence and investing in goalkeepers

[Bats8711 395]

Just now, surrifox said:

Someone explain to Frankie that he really does need to get to chapter 2 of “Football management for dummies “ and look at the bit about organising a defence and investing in goalkeepers

I’d prefer nobody explain it to him

[gw_leics772 1,263]

13 minutes ago, turtmcfly said:

 

The suggestion isn't aimed at absolute accuracy. As I say, I think that aim is part of the problem, because it's not realistic when there's human involvement.

 

Instead, it's aimed at returning to the idea of the benefit of the doubt going to the attacker. So, reducing the number of offsides given in general, and trying to make sure the ones given are as close as non-contentious as possible.

 

For the sake of argument, use a football's width* as the equivalent line width. Even with the 'worst' (i.e. tightest) possible call where VAR gave offside, you would effectively be saying that the player was still 'a football's width minus a littlle bit' offside. That, instead of what currently is akin to splitting hairs. The hair-splitting with wider lines doesn't make as much difference.

 

 

 

* I know repeated use of the word 'football' instead of 'ball' seems clumsy/pedantic. It's almost entirely a function of my own lack of maturity that I don't want to invoke the phrase 'a balls' width' into what is a deadly serious discussion about marginal offside decisions

A balls width would definitely be preferable to the pubes width they currently use! Bit big though. The above post about frames per second equating to 10cm definitely sounds too big and with the technology available they should definitely be doing better there. 

You can't judge it on a gnats gnacker if the video gives 10cm margin for error. 

 

Who cares though. Chelsea and Liverpool have both had shit results as well as Everton dropping points. That'll do for me. 

Edited 17 October 2020 by gw_leics772

[surrifox 2,386]

I said we should have signed Vestergaard 

 

back up to 4th 

[Corky 12,846]

Sky really are spoiling us with Sherwood and Merson. Mangling of the English language mixed in with Merson screaming "OH OH AGH WOAH" when a throw in is given and Sherwood shouting at the TV- "COR FACKIN ELL WORRA SHAAAMBULLS CHEWLSEE, SAFAMPTUN BRILYUNT JEFF!"

 

Bring back Tiss.

[mozartfox 5,098]

Really enjoyed that tussle between 2 of the ‘big’ 9.  You can see why Chelsea want preferential Voting rights i.e to preserve their Big 6 status.