Prem Officiating Abomination Journal 24/25

[Bert]

2 hours ago, The Doctor said:

PGMOL and PL are two separate organisations, can we not do this "everything is a conspiracy" shit? like having El Empty back

The PL employ PGMOL employees. 

[CrazyKopCorner]

and it was an over rule as well. 

 

These fuchers are crooks 

[Iran]

 

This isn't even Steve Cooper's fault!

[ClaphamFox]

How long after an error like that does it usually take PGMOL to acknowledge it and apologise?

[HoustonFox]

15 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

How long after an error like that does it usually take PGMOL to acknowledge it and apologise?

[st albans fox]

30 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

How long after an error like that does it usually take PGMOL to acknowledge it and apologise?

They won’t acknowledge anything on this one 

they’ve already tweeted the evidence and they’ll stick with that 

 

dermot will be on ssn in the morning to say that it looks iffy but the tech is sound. That it’s an optical illusion. The two scousers will say that they’re amazed it’s onside but we have to accept the tech is correct because we don’t have any angle that shows it isn’t 

[ClaphamFox]

13 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

They won’t acknowledge anything on this one 

they’ve already tweeted the evidence and they’ll stick with that 

 

dermot will be on ssn in the morning to say that it looks iffy but the tech is sound. That it’s an optical illusion. The two scousers will say that they’re amazed it’s onside but we have to accept the tech is correct because we don’t have any angle that shows it isn’t 

But their ‘evidence’ does not support their case at all. They may as well have posted a picture of a can of tomato soup and said, “This picture of a can of soup shows Justin played Mateta onside.” How can they even pretend that the images they shared support the decision to allow the goal?

[st albans fox]

5 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

But their ‘evidence’ does not support their case at all. They may as well have posted a picture of a can of tomato soup and said, “This picture of a can of soup shows Justin played Mateta onside.” How can they even pretend that the images they shared support the decision to allow the goal?

They’ll just say that they do 

the wide angle shows the green line drawn  from Justin’s foot

the close angle shows that same green line relative to mateta at the same frame time  - clearly onside 

 

whose going to present actual evidence to say that’s not correct ??  Only PGMOL can do that and they aren’t going to !

 

[ClaphamFox]

4 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

They’ll just say that they do 

the wide angle shows the green line drawn  from Justin’s foot

the close angle shows that same green line relative to mateta at the same frame time  - clearly onside 

 

whose going to present actual evidence to say that’s not correct ??  Only PGMOL can do that and they aren’t going to !

 

The wide angle green line from Justin’s foot is just in front of Mateta’s foot (implying onside), but Mateta is very clearly leaning forwards and his head looks very much ahead of that green line. Why haven’t they drawn a line from his head?

[Wortho]

When a similar incident happened to Liverpool last season, didn’t Klopp and media want the game replayed?

 

I think we all knew that the PL might use their influence but it’s a bit early isn’t it 🤷‍♀️

[Trav Le Bleu]

40 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

The wide angle green line from Justin’s foot is just in front of Mateta’s foot (implying onside), but Mateta is very clearly leaning forwards and his head looks very much ahead of that green line. Why haven’t they drawn a line from his head?

You see, I've always said that the line should be drawn from feet, since attackers and defenders are often leaning in opposite directions, yet the part that matters, the feet, can be level whilst their heads can be 3-4 ft apart.

 

However, that never happens, so don't go changing the rules to suit. We all just want consistent decision making.

 

In all the images that show the player with the ball AND the scorer, the line shows offside. The picture that says inside, it looks like they have moved the line forward and we have no idea if they have or not, since there no reference point.

 

Wouldn't stand up in a court of law.

[Trav Le Bleu]

21 hours ago, dylanlegend said:

Richest league in the world and they are checking VAR angles with the most dodgy side view, surely there is enough money to get a better view of the pitch at 40 differnet side viewpoints of the pitch. In the euros there was a semi-automated system. Why does VAR in the EPL seem so amateur? 

Selhurst Park innit?

[Trav Le Bleu]

21 hours ago, funkyrobot said:

The ball can go backwards and not touch a defender and still mean a player is offside. As long as it fits the criteria of offside when the ball is played. - ie the ball is received by a player who is ahead of the player that’s passed it to him and ahead of the last line of defence when the ball leaves the passers foot, then they are offside whether the ball is passed in a forwards, sideways or backwards direction. 

Only if the player is running back towards their own goal, in which case they'd be stupid.

[LcFc_Smiv]

2 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

How long after an error like that does it usually take PGMOL to acknowledge it and apologise?

It will be discussed on a call early this week if it hasn't been already, apologies are very much private and there won't be any public acknowledgement unless it's mentioned by the club in a press conference or makes it to the monthly VAR sky sports segment they do.

[jammie82uk]

This is the madness in the system as well, only 5 cameras are calibrated to measure the offside (defenders position) but they can choose any broadcast camera in the stadium to judge the attacking player (up to 40 cameras)
 

 

Before each match, Hawk-Eye calibrates multiple cameras to give many options when showing an offside decision in the event that a body part is covered in one camera.

For the Premier League, five cameras are calibrated: the main wide camera, both 18-yard box cameras and both goalline cameras.

 

Hawk-Eye can also use any broadcast camera to identify the point of contact with the ball by the attacker, and synchronises all cameras for this purpose.

The broadcast cameras operate with 50 frames per second, so the point of contact with the ball is one of those frames inside the 50 per second.

[ClaphamFox]

10 hours ago, LcFc_Smiv said:

It will be discussed on a call early this week if it hasn't been already, apologies are very much private and there won't be any public acknowledgement unless it's mentioned by the club in a press conference or makes it to the monthly VAR sky sports segment they do.

I just want PGMOL to explain why they appeared to have deliberately drawn the line to Mateta’s feet rather than his head, which was further forward and therefore the point at which the offside should have been judged. I hope a journalist asks Cooper about it at the next press conference - it will be very annoying if it’s swept under the carpet. 
 

Edited Monday at 07:45 by ClaphamFox

[UniFox21]

Refs slated for being too lenient then refs slated for carding for the rules many wanted implemented 

 

 

[LcFc_Smiv]

41 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

Refs slated for being too lenient then refs slated for carding for the rules many wanted implemented 

 

 

Hackett takes any opportunity to have a pop, as the former boss of the officials he comes across as bitter.

[bart]

The sky sports ref watch discussion of the offside made no sense whatsoever.

 

Dermot basically said the technology showed him onside. Ignoring the fact that they only drew one line so it was impossible for it to show him offside!

Edited Monday at 10:36 by bart

[ClaphamFox]

4 minutes ago, bart said:

The sky sports ref watch discussion of the offside made no sense whatsoever.

This is from the Sky Sports website:

 

INCIDENT: Jean Phillippe Mateta had his goal initially flagged offside, but after a VAR review the goal was given. 

Dermot says: "VAR felt he was just kept onside. The only authority we've got is the technology until semi-automated comes. 

"The line says he's just onside, that's all we can go on. Every team plays to the same technology, if it says onside it's onside if it says off it's off. In their view it's factual."

Warnock says: "I understand Steve Cooper's frustration but  I don't think you've got much of an argument with that second angle"

 

For anybody who watched it, what was the 'second angle' they looked at? 

[moore_94]

2 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

This is from the Sky Sports website:

 

INCIDENT: Jean Phillippe Mateta had his goal initially flagged offside, but after a VAR review the goal was given. 

Dermot says: "VAR felt he was just kept onside. The only authority we've got is the technology until semi-automated comes. 

"The line says he's just onside, that's all we can go on. Every team plays to the same technology, if it says onside it's onside if it says off it's off. In their view it's factual."

Warnock says: "I understand Steve Cooper's frustration but  I don't think you've got much of an argument with that second angle"

 

For anybody who watched it, what was the 'second angle' they looked at? 

If it is the same further zoomed out angle then it is a load of shite

[st albans fox]

4 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

This is from the Sky Sports website:

 

INCIDENT: Jean Phillippe Mateta had his goal initially flagged offside, but after a VAR review the goal was given. 

Dermot says: "VAR felt he was just kept onside. The only authority we've got is the technology until semi-automated comes. 

"The line says he's just onside, that's all we can go on. Every team plays to the same technology, if it says onside it's onside if it says off it's off. In their view it's factual."

Warnock says: "I understand Steve Cooper's frustration but  I don't think you've got much of an argument with that second angle"

 

For anybody who watched it, what was the 'second angle' they looked at? 

The second angle is the close up image where mateta is about a yard away from the line -  yeah like how ????

 

as predicted it’s a simple ‘onside - trust me bro’ (well the tech ) 

Edited Monday at 10:43 by st albans fox

[bart]

Just now, ClaphamFox said:

This is from the Sky Sports website:

 

INCIDENT: Jean Phillippe Mateta had his goal initially flagged offside, but after a VAR review the goal was given. 

Dermot says: "VAR felt he was just kept onside. The only authority we've got is the technology until semi-automated comes. 

"The line says he's just onside, that's all we can go on. Every team plays to the same technology, if it says onside it's onside if it says off it's off. In their view it's factual."

Warnock says: "I understand Steve Cooper's frustration but  I don't think you've got much of an argument with that second angle"

 

For anybody who watched it, what was the 'second angle' they looked at? 

The second angle was just the close up with the onside line that was shown during the match. Not showing Justin (so no reference if was the correct frame) and no lines on the attacker.

[jayfox26]

I'm absolutely convinced that we'll have decisions go against us this season after the failed attempt to give us a points deduction. Anything that could be seen as close/controversial will 9 times out of 10 go against us, like we saw against Palace. They can say the tech works and can't be wrong but it's clear that's utter bollocks. What will also have been clear is that the people running var for the Palace game will have known there was no conclusive angle, so they knew they would be able to "get away with" giving a dodgy decision. 

[ClaphamFox]

16 minutes ago, bart said:

The second angle was just the close up with the onside line that was shown during the match. Not showing Justin (so no reference if was the correct frame) and no lines on the attacker.

So basically we're left with:

 

1) A wide angle shot that seems to show Mateta leaning over the green line they've drawn to his feet, but which does not draw a line to his upper body and head (which were active as he was leaning forwards).

2) A close-up showing Mateta behind the green line but that does not show where Justin's foot is, and does not address the fact that the active part of Mateta's body is his head.

And when reviewing the above two bits of evidence, Gallagher basically says, "The tech reckons he's onside and that's all we have to go on", but completely refuses to address or even acknowledge the fact that the line was drawn to the wrong part of Mateta's body? 

 

Is that a fair summary?

Edited Monday at 10:59 by ClaphamFox