Prem Officiating Abomination Journal 24/25

[talking_goldfish]

The VAR Review: Why Timber wasn't sent off for Arsenal vs. Spurs - ESPN

 

Quote

Crystal Palace 2-2 Leicester

Possible onside: Mateta when scoring

What happened: Crystal Palace thought they had found a way back into the game in the 47th minute when Jean-Philippe Mateta turned home a pass from Tyrick Mitchell, but the assistant's flag went up for offside. The VAR, Andy Madley, checked the decision.

VAR decision: Goal.

VAR review: The decision to award a goal to Palace angered Leicester City boss Steve Cooper, as his side were 2-0 up at the time and ended up drawing the game 2-2 after conceding a penalty two minutes into stoppage time.

"I really want to see the absolute offside image of the first goal," Cooper said afterwards. "If it is, no problem, we'll hold our hands up, but we can't be calling offsides on suggestions, which is only what we've seen at the moment. We need to get that image quickly off the Premier League. If it is, I'll accept it."

Cooper's comments are pertinent, as issues visualising offside decisions from tight camera angles have always been problematic with this technology. It will change when semiautomated offside comes in after one of the international breaks in October or November, as we'll get an animation which moves to the offside line to clearly show the position of the players. But at the same time things will change slightly soon (as explained below), though that will be no use to Leicester now.

Until we get semiautomated offside, we are stuck with what we have. And at grounds like Selhurst Park, which don't have great camera angles, it's especially difficult.

 

 

Cooper said he would be asking the Premier League for the "absolute offside image," though we do already have these. The Premier League released two images, one from the regular broadcast camera which includes the ball being passed by Mitchell, and the goal-line camera which is intended to show that Mateta was behind the offside line.

Neither are great and you have to know the intricacies of the system to understand what you're looking at.

If a single green line is displayed, that's only to the defender and tells us that the decision is so close that the tolerance level has been applied. That's basically a 5cm benefit of the doubt to the attacker, who might be offside but the inaccuracies in this technology mean he's given a little bit of leeway. If the lines to the defender and the attacker are touching, the striker is given onside.

 

 

Yet if no line is displayed to the attacker it can add to the confusion. The goal-line camera angle is supposed to be telling us Mateta is behind it, but without a line to him it doesn't really illustrate that.

And then we have the other aspect of semiautomated offside, which effectively creates a two-tier system within the same season. This technology has the tolerance level; semiautomated offside does not due to increased accuracy.

What does that mean? Well, as Mateta was onside within the tolerance level of this technology, he may well be offside with semiautomated. We have a goal for Palace that was ruled onside through VAR in September, yet may well be offside in October.

It raises obvious questions about having two different offside systems in the same season, but the Premier League clubs unanimously voted to bring in the new technology as soon as it's available, rather than wait until next season. Serie A also introduced semiautomated offside midseason in the 2022-23 campaign.

 

[RoboFox]

I'd like to think it's some great conspiracy against the mighty LCFC who wriggled out of PSR punishment infuriating the higher-ups at the Premier League. 

 

But in truth it's just cretinous thick-as-pigshit officials who are fvcking useless at their jobs. 

[st albans fox]

The freeze frame looks wrong - the later the freeze the more extended JJ’s leg is 

[talking_goldfish]

How can it be in the same season a goal could be allowed 1 month, but then with the implementation of new technology half way through a season that same goal would have been disallowed!

[Cadno'r Cymoedd]

If the edge of the rug is the offside line,  is my foot playing someone onside? No, but the image angle from above makes it look as if my foot is over the (rug) line. It was the same with Justin, his leg is in the air but not actually over the line drawn. Bollocks decision. 

[Spiritwalker]

7 minutes ago, Cadno'r Cymoedd said:

If the edge of the rug is the offside line,  is my foot playing someone onside? No, but the image angle from above makes it look as if my foot is over the (rug) line. It was the same with Justin, his leg is in the air but not actually over the line drawn. Bollocks decision. 

You need to tie your laces better or you will trip over.

[Cadno'r Cymoedd]

Just now, Spiritwalker said:

You need to tie your laces better or you will trip over.

Agree. 😂

[Les-TA-Jon]

30 minutes ago, jayfox26 said:

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. 

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?

[fazzyfox]

21 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

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?

Yes, sums it up.

 

They're asking Dermot the wrong question, the question is have the lines been drawn in the right place. We don't need a former referee to point at a picture with two lines and have him say to us  "look at the two lines", we can all see where the lines are drawn, we're asking why they're in line with Mateta's feet when he's clearly leaning forward with his head being the furthest forward part of him.

[StanSP]

What does that mean? Well, as Mateta was onside within the tolerance level of this technology, he may well be offside with semiautomated. We have a goal for Palace that was ruled onside through VAR in September, yet may well be offside in October.

 

 

This also irks me. Almost like having double standards. Perhaps we'll profit from the SAOT in future, but it doesn't strike me as being fair to have technology brought in halfway through a season that could be of benefit to some teams but not others. 

[Ricey]

Very odd that they've released a still image that doesn't show Mateta's line.

 

The main issue here though is that they've clearly drawn the lines from the wrong frame. You can see that the ball has already left Mitchell's foot. On the frame before Justin doesn't have his leg extended.
 

 

[Foxdiamond]

10 minutes ago, StanSP said:

What does that mean? Well, as Mateta was onside within the tolerance level of this technology, he may well be offside with semiautomated. We have a goal for Palace that was ruled onside through VAR in September, yet may well be offside in October.

 

 

This also irks me. Almost like having double standards. Perhaps we'll profit from the SAOT in future, but it doesn't strike me as being fair to have technology brought in halfway through a season that could be of benefit to some teams but not others. 

Bottom line is Var bloke should have advised can't really tell so go with original decision. 

[ClaphamFox]

This was the view from the other side of the pitch.

 

Edited Monday at 12:18 by ClaphamFox

[Foxdiamond]

1 minute ago, ClaphamFox said:

This is apparently the view from the other side of the pitch.

 

If that is correct then for crying out loud that is offside 

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, Ricey said:

Very odd that they've released a still image that doesn't show Mateta's line.

 

The main issue here though is that they've clearly drawn the lines from the wrong frame. You can see that the ball has already left Mitchell's foot. On the frame before Justin doesn't have his leg extended.
 

 

I think the explanation re no mateta line is that if the striker line is within 5cms of the defensive line then it doesn’t show the striker line. But surely there should be a drop down line from him that shows just how close it is ?  Then we can see what part of his body they used 

[st albans fox]

Just now, Foxdiamond said:

If that is correct then for crying out loud that is offside 

You can’t tell 

that’s why we’re supposed to have the tech show us 

but if the freeze frame is also wrong then what are they showing us ??.

[ClaphamFox]

4 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

If that is correct then for crying out loud that is offside 

This was shown on TV on the live broadcast overseas. Interestingly, however, it didn't make it into MotD's highlights and the PL declined to use it in their tweet explaining the decision.

 

You can use the lines of the mowing pattern of the pitch to draw a line from Mateta's upper body to the touchline. Do you see Justin's foot anywhere near that line? No. The decision to rule it onside was an absolute joke.

Edited Monday at 11:59 by ClaphamFox

[trugerkem]

So to summarise .. we are Leicester City and no one likes us 

[Foxdiamond]

27 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

This was shown on TV on the live broadcast overseas. Interestingly, however, it didn't make it into MotD's highlights and the PL declined to use it in their tweet explaining the decision.

 

You can use the lines of the mowing pattern of the pitch to draw a line from Mateta's upper body to the touchline. Do you see Justin's foot anywhere near that line? No. The decision to rule it onside was an absolute joke.

If Chilwell was offside in cup final(he was) then this was even more so. Assistant was right so at least he is blameless 

[AKCJ]

59 minutes ago, Ricey said:

Very odd that they've released a still image that doesn't show Mateta's line.

 

The main issue here though is that they've clearly drawn the lines from the wrong frame. You can see that the ball has already left Mitchell's foot. On the frame before Justin doesn't have his leg extended.
 

 

The second image makes it look like Justin does play him onside but there's no way it's by a yard or two like the first image suggests.

 

It's ridiculous that they haven't released the first image with the lines that show he was onside.

[ClaphamFox]

1 minute ago, AKCJ said:

The second image makes it look like Justin does play him onside but there's no way it's by a yard or two like the first image suggests.

 

It's ridiculous that they haven't released the first image with the lines that show he was onside.

The second image clearly shows Mateta leaning over the green line - ie, offside. 

[Les-TA-Jon]

1 hour ago, Ricey said:

Very odd that they've released a still image that doesn't show Mateta's line.

 

The main issue here though is that they've clearly drawn the lines from the wrong frame. You can see that the ball has already left Mitchell's foot. On the frame before Justin doesn't have his leg extended.
 

 

4 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

The second image makes it look like Justin does play him onside but there's no way it's by a yard or two like the first image suggests.

 

It's ridiculous that they haven't released the first image with the lines that show he was onside.

 

2 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

The second image clearly shows Mateta leaning over the green line - ie, offside. 

 

Think there's an optical illusion here though right? If you compared the positions/silhouettes of Mateta, Faes and Okoli, between the 2 pics, they're all in the same position. The line looks a lot closer to all 3 of them in the wider shot than in a closer shot. 

 

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

This was the view from the other side of the pitch.

 

This new angle looks dodgy AF though! 

[ScotFox1]

So the Vardy penalty v Villa and now the offside against Palace.  That's 3 points so far, so just another 6/7 to go!!

[Les-TA-Jon]

2 minutes ago, ScotFox1 said:

So the Vardy penalty v Villa and now the offside against Palace.  That's 3 points so far, so just another 6/7 to go!!

Think most people agree that was fine. Tielemans got the ball. The 2nd one, the ref gave it, but Vardy was offside

[coolhandfox]

That's basically a 5cm benefit of the doubt to the attacker, who might be offside but the inaccuracies in this technology mean he's given a little bit of leeway.

 

It should be scrapped on this basis alone.