Norwich 0-2 LCFC - Post Match Thread

[AKCJ]

7 minutes ago, ARM1968 said:

No. I’m just incorrect. Ball did go forward so I guess, effectively, it should have been offside. 

No, because McAteer was behind the ball.

[Sooper Steve's shin]

1 hour ago, brookfox said:

I tell you how I know for a fact it was onside... the goal was given and we won 2-0. Would VAR have got the set squares out and deemed the tip of his old man ahead of the ball at the precise moment it left KDHs boot, who knows. But personally I hate the use of VAR in this instance anyway as it's not a clear and obvious error.

This is the only valid use of VAR in my view. Offside is offside - by 1cm or 5 yards. It’s black and white, so if he’s even slightly offside then that’s an error (whether or not it’s clear and obvious).

[Walshie is God]

There are some on here that clearly have no idea about the offside rule, I thought it was only my MRS that struggled, jeez

[Walshie is God]

Also just to point out that VAR isn't used in the Championship so we have pages and pages debating if VAR would have found an angle to show him offside or not. Who gives a flying one, goal stood, simple as that. Personally couldnt care less if he was offside, didnt you know the big teams get all the calls, and Leicester are MASSIVE

Edited 21 September 2023 by Walshie is God

[brookfox]

26 minutes ago, Sooper Steve's shin said:

This is the only valid use of VAR in my view. Offside is offside - by 1cm or 5 yards. It’s black and white, so if he’s even slightly offside then that’s an error (whether or not it’s clear and obvious).

I’ve got two challenges with it. Firstly I still think there’s an element of subjectivity based on which frame they freeze it at, how the lines are drawn, the angle the camera takes the shots from. You get it now where pundits still debate decisions so it’s not as black and white as say Hawkeye for goal lines. Secondly it seems to be the offside decisions which take the longest so lend themselves to the poorest in stadium experience. So personally I’d ditch the lines, go back to clear and obvious errors and cap decisions at 30s.

[ajthefox]

20 minutes ago, brookfox said:

I’ve got two challenges with it. Firstly I still think there’s an element of subjectivity based on which frame they freeze it at, how the lines are drawn, the angle the camera takes the shots from. You get it now where pundits still debate decisions so it’s not as black and white as say Hawkeye for goal lines. Secondly it seems to be the offside decisions which take the longest so lend themselves to the poorest in stadium experience. So personally I’d ditch the lines, go back to clear and obvious errors and cap decisions at 30s.

I think a time cap on decisions is a good idea - if it takes 5 minutes to decide then it's clearly negligible and benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker. I understand some don't agree with that but I dont think what we are shown as fans helps in that regard.

 

I also think the rule should be changed and based only on where your feet are, but I don't know how much support that would have.

[KingsX]

19 hours ago, Izzy said:

Great stuff but you're wasted on this forum 

 

What other forum is so spoiled for choice … @StriderHiryu analyzing the football, or @Strokes and @Daggers on "NSFW crisps", all within a few posts

[Daggers]

2 minutes ago, KingsX said:

 

What other forum is so spoiled for choice … @StriderHiryu analyzing the football, or @Strokes and @Daggers on "NSFW crisps", all within a few posts

Shame about Strider messing it all up for everyone really though, eh?

[KingsX]

2 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Shame about Strider messing it all up for everyone really though, eh?

 

There's always a few weirdos who want to intelligently discuss football on a football forum

[Daggers]

2 minutes ago, KingsX said:

 

There's always a few weirdos who want to intelligently discuss football on a football forum

Idiots

[ARM1968]

1 hour ago, AKCJ said:

No, because McAteer was behind the ball.

Ooh god………..  That was more or less my whole point way back when I gave a damn 🤣

[Lillehamring]

1 hour ago, brookfox said:

I’ve got two challenges with it. Firstly I still think there’s an element of subjectivity based on which frame they freeze it at, how the lines are drawn, the angle the camera takes the shots from. You get it now where pundits still debate decisions so it’s not as black and white as say Hawkeye for goal lines. Secondly it seems to be the offside decisions which take the longest so lend themselves to the poorest in stadium experience. So personally I’d ditch the lines, go back to clear and obvious errors and cap decisions at 30s.

I think i came up for the best way to use VAR for offside...

 

the call is made on the field by the linesman, play goes on - a review is done by VAR but with no lines drawn, simply with a visual check - if the VAR official can clearly and obviously see it is a wrong decision he can overturn it, if it is unclear, the linesman's decision stands. Simple and fair - all we want from VAR is to eliminate bad decisions, not to be anal about them.

[TommyK]

The goal was given. With VAR it might have been close, but quite frankly I don't care. 

[Matt]

Shakey at times, thought they were going to equalise but we stayed strong, pushed on and got a 2nd. Lovely stuff.

 

I've spoke to people who said we didn't play well, we were up against it, e.t.c, tbh I don't mind the kind of jeopardy we're playing with - it's arguably what I was calling out for, it opens things up allowing you to play out, push forward.

[Daggers]

[Spudulike]

Just watched the extended highlights on LCFC.COM and didn't think we looked that good. Norwich looked far more threatening but it was only a brief look at what actually happened. I'm assuming that it wasn't a fair reflection of how the game actually panned out 

[purpleronnie]

6 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

Just watched the extended highlights on LCFC.COM and didn't think we looked that good. Norwich looked far more threatening but it was only a brief look at what actually happened. I'm assuming that it wasn't a fair reflection of how the game actually panned out 

It is, but we've not played that well apart from a couple of games, thats the difference between the Premier League and the Championship.  We'd have probably lost most of those games in the PL.  Thankfully the standard is pretty low.

[Guest nathan.]

9 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

Just watched the extended highlights on LCFC.COM and didn't think we looked that good. Norwich looked far more threatening but it was only a brief look at what actually happened. I'm assuming that it wasn't a fair reflection of how the game actually panned out 

We played very well overall the highlights didn't do us justice.  

[Mr Weller 2]

Good grief, some people on here are determined to find fault. We’ve won 6/7 games and that’s not luck. Luck can go for or against you on a single occasion but not on every occasion.

 

Norwich were okay but their own manager accepts we are a quality side. The argument that the standard is low is plain stupid because we’re in the championship right now and the challenge is to be the best team in it. 

[purpleronnie]

3 minutes ago, Mr Weller 2 said:

Good grief, some people on here are determined to find fault. We’ve won 6/7 games and that’s not luck. Luck can go for or against you on a single occasion but not on every occasion.

 

Norwich were okay but their own manager accepts we are a quality side. The argument that the standard is low is plain stupid because we’re in the championship right now and the challenge is to be the best team in it. 

So the quality can never be low?  weird.

[shen]

4 hours ago, ARM1968 said:

Show me an example man. Doesn’t happen. 

 

[orangecity23]

Since we've been having discussions about offside, the ball not having to be played forwards and so on, I remembered that odd goal Wolves had ruled out against us a few years back after mucking up a short corner and playing a backwards pass to the taker who had been retreating from an offside position. Then something about it being a corner reminded me of the Cov goal scored against us, as I recall the goalscorers starting position being in the goal, so I took another look. Lo and behold:

 

Because of Hermansen and Faes positions being forward, the only thing that could have kept the Cov scorer onside was the position of the ball. And if Hamer did the usual corner taker thing of sticking it forward a bit and right on the edge of the Quadrant, then Macfazdean is actually offside. I wonder if a VAR would have actually noticed? Linos probably wouldn't even think to check most of the time, as 90% of keepers are starting on the line and there is often a defender on a post as well, so the chances of someone being in an offside position from a corner are tiny.

[LCFCABC]

Just now, orangecity23 said:

Since we've been having discussions about offside, the ball not having to be played forwards and so on, I remembered that odd goal Wolves had ruled out against us a few years back after mucking up a short corner and playing a backwards pass to the taker who had been retreating from an offside position. Then something about it being a corner reminded me of the Cov goal scored against us, as I recall the goalscorers starting position being in the goal, so I took another look. Lo and behold:

 

Because of Hermansen and Faes positions being forward, the only thing that could have kept the Cov scorer onside was the position of the ball. And if Hamer did the usual corner taker thing of sticking it forward a bit and right on the edge of the Quadrant, then Macfazdean is actually offside. I wonder if a VAR would have actually noticed? Linos probably wouldn't even think to check most of the time, as 90% of keepers are starting on the line and there is often a defender on a post as well, so the chances of someone being in an offside position from a corner are tiny.

Ball was played backwards so can’t be offside? 

[Sampson]

With regards to VAR and offside it shouldn’t actually measure “the moment it left his boot”, it should measure the moment it made contact with his boot while performing the pass, the offside rule is based on the first point of contact.
 

One of the big problems with stopping VAR frame by frame is that VAR often displays a frame well after the ball has left the boot. The reality is the technology is not currently good enough to measure the correct moment the offside should be measured from and I’ve seen several instances where the wrong frame has been used: there was one this weekend with the Villa game.
 

It’s just another reason why “VAR should be used for offsides as its objective” is a nonsense argument. 

 

 

[shen]

4 minutes ago, orangecity23 said:

Since we've been having discussions about offside, the ball not having to be played forwards and so on, I remembered that odd goal Wolves had ruled out against us a few years back after mucking up a short corner and playing a backwards pass to the taker who had been retreating from an offside position. Then something about it being a corner reminded me of the Cov goal scored against us, as I recall the goalscorers starting position being in the goal, so I took another look. Lo and behold:

 

Because of Hermansen and Faes positions being forward, the only thing that could have kept the Cov scorer onside was the position of the ball. And if Hamer did the usual corner taker thing of sticking it forward a bit and right on the edge of the Quadrant, then Macfazdean is actually offside. I wonder if a VAR would have actually noticed? Linos probably wouldn't even think to check most of the time, as 90% of keepers are starting on the line and there is often a defender on a post as well, so the chances of someone being in an offside position from a corner are tiny.

The first contact from a corner, goal kick or throw-in can never be offside.