Prem Officiating Abomination Journal 24/25

[ClaphamFox]

8 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

 

Even if they admit it was a cock up, the most we get is an apology.

 

Unfortunately, we can't add that apology to our points total at the end of the season.

 

 

 

 

No, but if we don't hold them to account for this decision, what's to stop them from doing it again? If they have to publicly admit they were wrong, it will put pressure on them to deal with us more carefully in the future.

 

9 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Thought it would take us longer to reach Everton/Forest levels of victimhood but here we are. 

What's 'victimhood' about asking PGMOL for the evidence they used to overrule the on-field decision on Saturday? We're just asking for transparency. If they can provide clear evidence that Mateta was onside, fair enough. But I strongly suspect that such evidence doesn't exist because if it did, we'd have seen it by now.

[Swarles Barkley]

51 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

No, but if we don't hold them to account for this decision, what's to stop them from doing it again? If they have to publicly admit they were wrong, it will put pressure on them to deal with us more carefully in the future.

 

What's 'victimhood' about asking PGMOL for the evidence they used to overrule the on-field decision on Saturday? We're just asking for transparency. If they can provide clear evidence that Mateta was onside, fair enough. But I strongly suspect that such evidence doesn't exist because if it did, we'd have seen it by now.

Exactly this. The amount of times during the relegation season we seemed to just accept bad refereeing decisions was infuriating. Seeing more fight on and off the fight is nice to see

[st albans fox]

8 hours ago, StanSP said:

Wonder if this will make the cut for the mic'd up programme that Howard Webb does on Sky Sports... 

I doubt it cos they don’t have an explanation and they’ll have to admit the freeze frame is wrong 

[CUJimmy]

It is a simple fact that it is not possible to project a 3-D situation onto a 2-D image without a loss of information so unless the camera is more or less in line so effectively eliminating one dimension they are trying to do the impossible.  The operator has no way to tell how far above the pitch JJ’s foot was so can’t know when to stop the vertical line, this obviously affects where the horizontal line goes.

 

 Dermot was just talking bollocks as usual about the technology always being right and the two nodding donkeys just went along with him.

 

VAR should have the option to say “Sorry, we haven’t got a good enough picture here so we stick with the on-field decision”

[Wortho]

21 minutes ago, CUJimmy said:

It is a simple fact that it is not possible to project a 3-D situation onto a 2-D image without a loss of information so unless the camera is more or less in line so effectively eliminating one dimension they are trying to do the impossible.  The operator has no way to tell how far above the pitch JJ’s foot was so can’t know when to stop the vertical line, this obviously affects where the horizontal line goes.

 

 Dermot was just talking bollocks as usual about the technology always being right and the two nodding donkeys just went along with him.

 

VAR should have the option to say “Sorry, we haven’t got a good enough picture here so we stick with the on-field decision”

I quite agree with you. If there was any doubt they shouldn’t have changed it. I saw Gallagher and he thinks the var technology is untouchable.

[The Doctor]

6 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

No, but if we don't hold them to account for this decision, what's to stop them from doing it again? If they have to publicly admit they were wrong, it will put pressure on them to deal with us more carefully in the future.

 

What's 'victimhood' about asking PGMOL for the evidence they used to overrule the on-field decision on Saturday? We're just asking for transparency. If they can provide clear evidence that Mateta was onside, fair enough. But I strongly suspect that such evidence doesn't exist because if it did, we'd have seen it by now.

yes, because in future they'll definitely go "well that looks like Daka was offside, but we'll give it as onside so they don't kick up a fuss". 

 

this "we need to make the PL know we won't accept being punished for winning the PSR court case" stuff is a level of victimhood and conspiracy theorising that makes forests Sephiroth posting after the Everton v Forest game look comparatively hinged.

[Product of 84]

There really does seem to be a lack of media interest in a decision that could have huge ramifications for VAR offsides at Selhurst Park.

 

The issue, we are led to believe, is they can't put cameras in the right places like they can at other grounds. If they rule they got it wrong in our game how many other times will the tech have failed at Selhurst Park. 

 

Perhaps, this is why it's so quiet in the media world. Everyone can see from the images we have something is amiss but to question it creates doubt in a system that is supposed to be highly accurate. 

[Chelmofox]

Just now, Product of 84 said:

There really does seem to be a lack of media interest in a decision that could have huge ramifications for VAR offsides at Selhurst Park.

 

The issue, we are led to believe, is they can't put cameras in the right places like they can at other grounds. If they rule they got it wrong in our game how many other times will the tech have failed at Selhurst Park. 

 

Perhaps, this is why it's so quiet in the media world. Everyone can see from the images we have something is amiss but to question it creates doubt in a system that is supposed to be highly accurate. 

Because it didn’t happen to Liverpool. 

[ClaphamFox]

33 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

yes, because in future they'll definitely go "well that looks like Daka was offside, but we'll give it as onside so they don't kick up a fuss". 

 

this "we need to make the PL know we won't accept being punished for winning the PSR court case" stuff is a level of victimhood and conspiracy theorising that makes forests Sephiroth posting after the Everton v Forest game look comparatively hinged.

But I didn’t say anything about PSR! I’m not connecting it to that in any way. I don’t for one moment believe we’re the victims of a conspiracy, but I do believe we were the victims of a scandalous VAR decision, probably due to a combination of inadequate technology at Selhurst Park and a terrible lapse of judgment by the VAR officials. I just want PGMOL to acknowledge it. Any other club in the division would demand the same. 

Edited Tuesday at 19:24 by ClaphamFox

[Clever Fox]

This is a huge injustice  ot only to us but to every other prem club. They told us Var would be available at all prem grounds. Now we're hearing that it's not fit for purpose at Crystal Palace.

 

That's a huge cockup by the League and PGMOL who should have come foward and said it's not acceptable to our Match officials.

 

That should mean that no games are played at Palace until it's sorted.

 

There dragging there feet now qaiting for the passage of time to soften there embarrassment.

[Sly]

Faes Vs Fulham being discussed.

[StanSP]

I'd expect this offside decision will be discussed in next month's edition. 

[trabuch]

Just talking about giving the referee the benefit of the doubt, and not micro analysing where the decision isn't a clear VAR overrule... which is nice. 

[Wortho]

Let’s face it, if Palace had scored that offside goal against a top 4 club it would’ve been analysed by Sky for days. 
 

Arteta would have been writing to the PL demanding a replay.

[Gamble92]

30 minutes ago, Wortho said:

Let’s face it, if Palace had scored that offside goal against a top 4 club it would’ve been analysed by Sky for days. 
 

Arteta would have been writing to the PL demanding a replay.

It's quite sad that when VAR came in we all thought it be the end of the "unconscious" bias given towards big teams for decisions. (Man United didn't have a penalty given against them at old trafford in 6 years in the 90s)

 

But the way they have allowed themselves to re-referee and cowardly hide behind the umpires call bullshit they spin this season has actually made it a double down for the bigger teams. It reaffirms that control and if there is any conspiracy against us from the Premier League then it's sure as hell made easier by a few blokes being able to give what they want watching it on a monitor.

 

The whole things such a disgrace and it is one of many destroying football. 

[Les-TA-Jon]

9 hours ago, Gamble92 said:

It's quite sad that when VAR came in we all thought it be the end of the "unconscious" bias given towards big teams for decisions. (Man United didn't have a penalty given against them at old trafford in 6 years in the 90s)

 

But the way they have allowed themselves to re-referee and cowardly hide behind the umpires call bullshit they spin this season has actually made it a double down for the bigger teams. It reaffirms that control and if there is any conspiracy against us from the Premier League then it's sure as hell made easier by a few blokes being able to give what they want watching it on a monitor.

 

The whole things such a disgrace and it is one of many destroying football. 

This keeps coming up and I keep giving the same answer: 

 

How does that work in practice? The PL and PGMOL are separate entities.

So there’s a deliberate, formalised conspiracy to give us bad decisions, that involves 10s and 10s of people and 0 whistleblowers or leaks?

 

For clarity: I agree with your wider point that the subconscious bias that favours the 'big' clubs has been exacerbated/highlighted by VAR. 

[Super_horns]

13 hours ago, Product of 84 said:

There really does seem to be a lack of media interest in a decision that could have huge ramifications for VAR offsides at Selhurst Park.

 

The issue, we are led to believe, is they can't put cameras in the right places like they can at other grounds. If they rule they got it wrong in our game how many other times will the tech have failed at Selhurst Park. 

 

Perhaps, this is why it's so quiet in the media world. Everyone can see from the images we have something is amiss but to question it creates doubt in a system that is supposed to be highly accurate. 

Oh MOTD they said it was the right decision and your mate Gary ought to stop moaning !

[Gamble92]

14 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

This keeps coming up and I keep giving the same answer: 

 

How does that work in practice? The PL and PGMOL are separate entities.

So there’s a deliberate, formalised conspiracy to give us bad decisions, that involves 10s and 10s of people and 0 whistleblowers or leaks?

 

For clarity: I agree with your wider point that the subconscious bias that favours the 'big' clubs has been exacerbated/highlighted by VAR. 

I don't think there is one either but I just meant it's become easier to control an outcome now. 

[ClaphamFox]

3 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

This keeps coming up and I keep giving the same answer: 

 

How does that work in practice? The PL and PGMOL are separate entities.

So there’s a deliberate, formalised conspiracy to give us bad decisions, that involves 10s and 10s of people and 0 whistleblowers or leaks?

 

For clarity: I agree with your wider point that the subconscious bias that favours the 'big' clubs has been exacerbated/highlighted by VAR. 

There is clearly not a deliberate, organized conspiracy against us. The mere suggestion is absurd. However, there is a lot of ill-feeling towards us out there at the moment. Refs and VAR officials may have their own private opinions about whether we got away with it re: PSR. Is it beyond the realms of possibility that, in addition to not having the unconscious bias that benefits big clubs, there may perhaps be an extra layer of unconscious bias against us because of the perception that we finagled our way out of a points deduction? I'm not sure it can be ruled out.

 

In this case I think the main problem was that the way the cameras are positioned at Selhurst Park meant that the VAR officials did not have a straight-on view of the incident (hence why the image released is from behind the action). They then drew a line from Justin's outstretched boot which extended just in front of Mateta's foot, showing that Mateta's foot was onside. However, they did not factor in the fact that Mateta's knee and upper body were clearly ahead of his foot and very likely over the line they'd drawn from Justin, and as such showed Mateta to be offside. Why didn't they draw the line to Mateta's upper body? Was it because the ill-placed cameras meant they couldn't, or did they just forget to do it? Those are the questions I'd like to see answered.

 

[st albans fox]

18 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Oh MOTD they said it was the right decision and your mate Gary ought to stop moaning !

Well they didn’t really 

They said that if that’s what the tech shows then you have to trust it 

 

im not completely averse to that approach cos its the same for everyone but I still go back to the incorrect freeze frame on this particular incident. 

[ClaphamFox]

18 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Oh MOTD they said it was the right decision and your mate Gary ought to stop moaning !

Shearer and Murphy didn't offer any opinion other than "VAR says it was onside so we have to trust it" - completely ignoring the fact that VAR is completely dependent on human beings drawing the lines (hence why they took an age to make this decision) and is therefore highly fallible. 

Others may choose to blindly trust flawed tech if they want to. That doesn't mean we have to 

[StanSP]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

Shearer and Murphy didn't offer any opinion other than "VAR says it was onside so we have to trust it" - completely ignoring the fact that VAR is completely dependent on human beings drawing the lines (hence why they took an age to make this decision) and is therefore highly fallible. 

Others may choose to blindly trust flawed tech if they want to. That doesn't mean we have to 

Yeah they didn't really offer much value to that particular debate. 

 

100% it's a different conversation if Newcastle or Liverpool involved. Especially the latter whenever Murphy is talking about them. 

[notnow john]

12 hours ago, Wortho said:

Let’s face it, if Palace had scored that offside goal against a top 4 club it would’ve been analysed by Sky for days. 
 

Arteta would have been writing to the PL demanding a replay.

According to todays telegraph,we met with thePGMOL on Monday to discuss the incident and 

have now requested an investigation.

[ClaphamFox]

Just now, notnow john said:

According to todays telegraph,we met with thePGMOL on Monday to discuss the incident and 

have now requested an investigation.

I was literally just reading that article. It sounds like we weren't happy with whatever they said on Monday.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/leicester-step-up-pressure-on-referees-chiefs-over-controversial-crystal-palace-goal/ar-AA1qJKUi?ocid=BingNewsSerp

[katieakita]

Trust the technology? well i run a Post Office so will pass on that. Midweek now and have not seen any photo evidence to show the linesman made a clear and obvious error. Have seen the frame with no JJ and a green line making out he is well onside but any wide screen image including JJ and the guy looks well offside. The failure to produce any evidence just makes it look like the got it wrong