Prem Officiating Abomination Journal 24/25

[lcfcdamo]

2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Apparently Selhurst park is ‘not good for drawing the lines’ because of the lack of high level camera angles. But the decision is correct - apparently  

Well they must see a line in the var room so how can we not

[Bert]

The referee was very inconsistent. Let them get away with a lot of things we didn’t. 
 

Officials in England are so far off it, it’s unbelievable. 

[moore_94]

 

[moore_94]

 

[foxfanazer]

1 minute ago, moore_94 said:

 

Steady on Steve. You'll give yourself a hernia

[DJ Barry Hammond]

55 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

 

The problem I have with drawing the line on the wide angle shot is that camera angle and the problem with depth perception on a 2D image makes it very difficult to be conclusive on where Justin’s foot is in relation to the pitch.

 

Consider if they drew an identical downward line from Justin’s heel - there would be quite a difference - so much so, it’s like suggesting he has size 27 boots on.

 

Mean even the suggested ‘margin’ that Mateta is onside by feels dubious to the eye.

[Spudulike]

Mateta's knee looks over that green line.

[Danizen]

1 hour ago, moore_94 said:

 

I'd love to know how the fvck that meets the threshold of 'clear and obvious error'.

[Fear Of The Fox]

Where is this fellow fan who was telling me PGMOL won't allow Premier League to slaughter us with decisions like this today? Some people are so naive that think these 2 corrupt bodies can't work together to destroy whichever team they like. 

 

[Foxdiamond]

6 minutes ago, Danizen said:

I'd love to know how the fvck that meets the threshold of 'clear and obvious error'.

I would prefer if there was no doubt that it was onside and accept it. This though looks dodgy

[Kierzz]

There should be a second line as there normally is showing where the offensive player's leg/head/armpit is. Then proving if this is in breach of the offside line or not. I would like to see the Premier League also realise this image.

 

I think his knee is breaching that offside line but as the VAR system was slow with drawing the lines, the official had to make a call based on only the green line.

[StanSP]

14 minutes ago, Danizen said:

I'd love to know how the fvck that meets the threshold of 'clear and obvious error'.

I'm not sure 'clear and obvious error' applies to offsides as they are factual - offside or not. 

 

It's more a mockery from the PL that they can't/don't have technology that can bring up a camera angle to definitively show the evidence that he is offside or onside. 

[The Doctor]

1 hour ago, Spudulike said:

The line is not parallel to the 6 yard box. Is that possible?

I feel like we have this conversation every single time there's a VAR off side. yes, it is possible and should be, because the camera isn't flat on, they're all going to the vanishing point so are done parallel even if they don't look it in image 

[JonesLCFC]

The angle they used to determine it was offside is so unclear. Whatever system they currently use to determine offsides needs to be replaced. It's beyond a joke. There's a few Twitter accounts claiming the decision was incorrect and that the goal should have stood. I'm fully expecting a PGMOL apology any minute now. 

Edited Saturday at 19:37 by JonesLCFC

[john ridley]

If hadn't of had shit substitutions  and tactics none of this would've mattered. 

[st albans fox]

11 minutes ago, JonesLCFC said:

The angle they used to determine it was offside is so unclear. Whatever system they currently use to determine offsides needs to be replaced. It's beyond a joke. There's a few Twitter accounts claiming the decision was incorrect and that the goal should have stood. I'm fully expecting a PGMOL apology any minute now. 

There is a wide angle shot and the PGMOL will need to do nothing else 

We just have to suck it up and accept that despite that it looks off side visually, there is no side on view and therefore we have to trust the tech 

[FrankieADZ]

 

[whoareyaaa]

20 minutes ago, JonesLCFC said:

The angle they used to determine it was offside is so unclear. Whatever system they currently use to determine offsides needs to be replaced. It's beyond a joke. There's a few Twitter accounts claiming the decision was incorrect and that the goal should have stood. I'm fully expecting a PGMOL apology any minute now. 

You could see on the video feed Madley was doing everything to give it when you could clearly see it was offside.

 

corrupt organisation   

[st albans fox]

6 minutes ago, FrankieADZ said:

 

That freeze frame isn’t the same as the var. JJ’s leg is more outstretched on the var one. (Which looks a frame too late imo) 

[FrankieADZ]

3 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

That freeze frame isn’t the same as the var. JJ’s leg is more outstretched on the var one. (Which looks a frame too late imo) 

thats my thinking too, VAR clearly used one frame more, which looks to be after the point of impact, not the point 

[JonesLCFC]

20 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

There is a wide angle shot and the PGMOL will need to do nothing else 

We just have to suck it up and accept that despite that it looks off side visually, there is no side on view and therefore we have to trust the tech 

I understand that and wouldn’t have any complaints if the on-field decision was a goal, but the fact that there is no decent view of it and they still overruled it really grates on me.

[JonesLCFC]

25 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

There is a wide angle shot and the PGMOL will need to do nothing else 

We just have to suck it up and accept that despite that it looks off side visually, there is no side on view and therefore we have to trust the tech 

If there is a side on view that’s clear, why aren’t we seeing it? It should be made available.

[st albans fox]

14 minutes ago, JonesLCFC said:

If there is a side on view that’s clear, why aren’t we seeing it? It should be made available.

There isn’t one 

[JonesLCFC]

3 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

There isn’t one 

The goal should have never been ruled out then

[Foxdiamond]

26 minutes ago, FrankieADZ said:

thats my thinking too, VAR clearly used one frame more, which looks to be after the point of impact, not the point 

It was like no not that frame use another