Champions League 2024/25

[bovril]

25 minutes ago, PAULCFC said:

Is this co commentator on CBS related to Sid Wadell.....it's brilliant!

Ray Hudson? Very Sid Waddell-esque 

[PAULCFC]

3 minutes ago, bovril said:

Ray Hudson? Very Sid Waddell-esque 

Yeah I think you're right....brilliant having an American and a Geordie commentate!....Yes it is Ray Hudson.....just confirmed on the telly......have to listen more from him!

[StanSP]

Atletico look knackered. Hope they can see it through. Tournament becomes much more open with Real and Liverpool both out at this stage. 

[NJFox]

Just now, StanSP said:

Atletico look knackered. Hope they can see it through. Tournament becomes much more open with Real and Liverpool both out at this stage. 

Same with Bellingham, though if someone has any magic left to conjure, it feels like it’ll be him.

[StanSP]

VAR involved in a penalty shootout? Wtf 

[StanSP]

That's a fvcking joke. 

Didn't even look like Alvarez hit it twice. 

 

Anything to get Real through... 

[FoxyPV]

Fkn VAR

[Corky]

Was that really a double touch?

[StanSP]

Get in! Oblak saves from Vazquez. 

[bovril]

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

That's a fvcking joke. 

Didn't even look like Alvarez hit it twice. 

 

Anything to get Real through... 

My first reaction was that he did. Kicked it with his right onto his left which lifted it into the goal

[StanSP]

Just now, Corky said:

Was that really a double touch?

It didn't look clear that it was. 

[StanSP]

Ffs. Llorente of all people to miss. 

[StanSP]

Damn. Oblak so close to saving that. 

[Lionator]

He did obviously kick it twice to be fair.

[Super_horns]

Real Madrid as jammy as ever ?!

[AjcW]

More annoyed by the last 15 of extra time than that VAR check. Real got every decision their way, corners that weren’t corners, corners against them not given. Every season it happens without fail, whether he’s double kicked it or not they always get a helping hand. 

[Ian Nacho]

I've only seen the replay once but I didn't see a double kick there. Very unfortunate. 

[spacemunky]

4 minutes ago, Lionator said:

He did obviously kick it twice to be fair.

I couldn't see it from the replay they showed.

 

Oblak should have kept that last one out.

[Nalis]

That never gets checked by VAR if it was a Real penalty, not in a million years

[foxile5]

Haven't seen this double touch on any replay I have been exposed to. 

 

Can anyone post a clarifying video?

[Fear Of The Fox]

These replay angles aren't the best. The fact is that the ball elevates in a non natural way after the kick though. 

Impressed again by the CBS coverage. It's depressing how bad is the Sky coverage in general compared to CBS. 

[foxile5]

2 minutes ago, Fear Of The Fox said:

These replay angles aren't the best. The fact is that the ball elevates in a non natural way after the kick though. 

Impressed again by the CBS coverage. It's depressing how bad is the Sky coverage in general compared to CBS. 

Shouldn't make the decision based on 'non natural ball elevation'.

 

At this stage of such a tournament it needs to be provable.

 

Can't see any evidence yet that makes it concrete.

[Fear Of The Fox]

2 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

Haven't seen this double touch on any replay I have been exposed to. 

 

Can anyone post a clarifying video?

There isn't one. We can only assume there was a double touch because the ball rises quite strangely. Either way VAR used the ball touch technology which is integrated into the semi automatic offside tech. This means some of the sensors picked up a double touch. 

[foxile5]

6 minutes ago, Fear Of The Fox said:

There isn't one. We can only assume there was a double touch because the ball rises quite strangely. Either way VAR used the ball touch technology which is integrated into the semi automatic offside tech. This means some of the sensors picked up a double touch. 

You can't really work on assumption though, in this instance.

 

Needs to be clear evidence presented to the public doesn't there? 

 

What if he's hit it into the floor and the sensors have picked up that. 

 

Not really fair and sporting to decide a game on assumption and balance of probability. Otherwise let's assume the results prior and save the effort.

 

I've no dog in the fight either way - I couldn't care less about which team goes through - but the integrity is important and I'm yet to see any real evidence that was anything other than a decent penalty. 

[Fear Of The Fox]

2 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

You can't really work on assumption though, in this instance.

 

Needs to be clear evidence presented to the public doesn't there? 

 

What if he's hit it into the floor and the sensors have picked up that. 

 

Not really fair and sporting to decide a game on assumption and balance of probability. Otherwise let's assume the results prior and save the effort.

 

I've no dog in the fight either way - I couldn't care less about which team goes through - but the integrity is important and I'm yet to see any real evidence that was anything other than a decent penalty. 

I don't disagree with what you're saying. I'm just saying they have the evidence of the double touch because of the specific tech. We're the ones assuming regarding the incident because we only have 2 replays which aren't clear and tbf we can't see a double touch. 

Don't forget that this offside tech uses around 25 sensor cams. Initially these sensors check when the ball touch/pass occurred. It's not something revolutionary, it's just the tech football videogames use for decades implemented in real life. The sensors picked up a second ball touch and this is displayed as a graph.