Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Bats8711
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by trabuch
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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  lol

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by gw_leics772
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...