Is English officiating corrupt?

The offside is judged from the position of the ball not where Salah is so going off that Nunez is ahead of the ball.

Farcical how long it took but the correct decision.

What was concerning was how hard they tried to rule the Jones one out. That was just an example of trying to re-referee the game which needs stamping out.

So the ball isn’t relevant in this case, it’s the position of the last defender, since he is beyond the ball.

So the ball isn’t relevant in this case, it’s the position of the last defender, since he is beyond the ball.

The ball is always relevant but because the defender was also ahead of the ball Nunez needed to be behind the defender

The ball is always relevant but because the defender was also ahead of the ball Nunez needed to be behind the defender

Thanks for that mate, I’m aware the game is pretty pointless without the ball. To clarify for those who need it, the ball wasn’t the deciding factor in the offside decision.

Thanks for that mate, I’m aware the game is pretty pointless without the ball. To clarify for those who need it, the ball wasn’t the deciding factor in the offside decision.

Apologies didn’t mean it come across that way 😂

Glad we’re finally in agreement that it was a var incorrect decision, which was so simple to get correct.

So either there is corruption or bias, or the people running the game, are unaware of the rules 🤷‍♂️

Glad we’re finally in agreement that it was a var incorrect decision, which was so simple to get correct.

So either there is corruption or bias, or the people running the game, are unaware of the rules 🤷‍♂️

The var decision was correct 🤷‍♂️

Apologies didn’t mean it come across that way 😂

Haha all good mate We got there in the end.

It’s funny that we can learn about these little nuances of the game after how ever many years watching football. I would have always thought that if any part of the attacker was beyond the last defender then that’s where the line is if it squared.

Not sure I’m 100% on board with it. A bit like when we got a penalty against us for Robbo making a tackle on the line of the box. Robbo’s foot clearly on the line but far as I could see the attacker was just outside when the contact was made. But if them’s the rules…

Haha all good mate We got there in the end.

It’s funny that we can learn about these little nuances of the game after how ever many years watching football. I would have always thought that if any part of the attacker was beyond the last defender then that’s where the line is if it squared.

Not sure I’m 100% on board with it. A bit like when we got a penalty against us for Robbo making a tackle on the line of the box. Robbo’s foot clearly on the line but far as I could see the attacker was just outside when the contact was made. But if them’s the rules…

Fully agree

The day mane was flagged offside because of his sleeve was the day you knew it had gone to sh*t

https://x.com/paulchr37462032/status/1872611967510458527?s=46&t=_4uI6CiVRqge8WqM7F37Iw


😂

https://x.com/plmatchcentre/status/1872395842675724336?s=46&t=_4uI6CiVRqge8WqM7F37Iw

Nunez is offside

Yep he is offside in that frame. Was he offside in the earlier frame that Kavsnagh had actually selected as the moment Salah passed the ball?
Looking at the position of the ball in that shot there, I suspect he probably was, as the movement of Darwin between the 2 frames was not that much. But the point is - what was Kavanagh doing rolling on the frames, after having chosen one and then zoomed out to draw the lines?

I do not seem to have been the only person to have seen this. Would very much like to see a video recording of this if anybody has it. If I'm wrong it'll show it.

The VAR decision was weirdly correct, just not explained obviously.

The bigger issue I had with the ref yesterday was handing out yellows like candy. Dude seemed like he'd never reffed a match before.

Yep he is offside in that frame. Was he offside in the earlier frame that Kavsnagh had actually selected as the moment Salah passed the ball?
Looking at the position of the ball in that shot there, I suspect he probably was, as the movement of Darwin between the 2 frames was not that much. But the point is - what was Kavanagh doing rolling on the frames, after having chosen one and then zoomed out to draw the lines?

I do not seem to have been the only person to have seen this. Would very much like to see a video recording of this if anybody has it. If I'm wrong it'll show it.

The ball is on Mo’s foot in that frame 🤷‍♂️

The only issue I have is it too so long
If it’s that close then just stick to the decision on the pitch

Yep he is offside in that frame. Was he offside in the earlier frame that Kavsnagh had actually selected as the moment Salah passed the ball?
Looking at the position of the ball in that shot there, I suspect he probably was, as the movement of Darwin between the 2 frames was not that much. But the point is - what was Kavanagh doing rolling on the frames, after having chosen one and then zoomed out to draw the lines?

I do not seem to have been the only person to have seen this. Would very much like to see a video recording of this if anybody has it. If I'm wrong it'll show it.

But when they nit pic on the other side of the coin. i.e.' he was off side as his toe was 2 cm ahead of the defenders elbow.' Then the reverse is also valid. Darwins right arm and shoulder are behind the ball. So clearly on side.
You don't need the whole of your body aligned to be judged off side, so clearly, you don't need the same to be judged on side.   

The ball is on Mo’s foot in that frame 🤷‍♂️

The only issue I have is it too so long
If it’s that close then just stick to the decision on the pitch

This is a point I've made before about illusion of precision with VAR - there will be multiple frames showing the ball on the passers foot, so which one do you pick?

However that is beside the point here. The point is that once an official has zoomed in and selected his frame to use as the moment when the ball was kicked he can't, after zooming out so that he can see the recipient of the pass, then change his mind and wind forward a  few frames before drawing his lines. It doesn't matter whether those later frames still show the ball next to the passer's foot.

We had nearly 70% possession but only got 5 fouls given against us. By contrast Leicester had 30% with us giving away 17. With the naked eye you could see how farcical many of those free kicks given against us were.

Darren Bond is a pathetic little twerp of a referee. And F**k me, he needs to sort out his hair. Looked like some pervy Fonz

This is a point I've made before about illusion of precision with VAR - there will be multiple frames showing the ball on the passers foot, so which one do you pick?

However that is beside the point here. The point is that once an official has zoomed in and selected his frame to use as the moment when the ball was kicked he can't, after zooming out so that he can see the recipient of the pass, then change his mind and wind forward a  few frames before drawing his lines. It doesn't matter whether those later frames still show the ball next to the passer's foot.

They can use any frame they deemed to be the correct one

Multiple times they have gone through more than one frame to see what is the best one to use

This is a point I've made before about illusion of precision with VAR - there will be multiple frames showing the ball on the passers foot, so which one do you pick?

However that is beside the point here. The point is that once an official has zoomed in and selected his frame to use as the moment when the ball was kicked he can't, after zooming out so that he can see the recipient of the pass, then change his mind and wind forward a  few frames before drawing his lines. It doesn't matter whether those later frames still show the ball next to the passer's foot.

Yes and no......the standard cameras used are not optically precise enough, nor do they run at a sufficient frame rate to accurately determine when a ball leaves a foot, the technology exists, but it would be too expensive to use. Also note the thickness of the line used on the monitor (which is so we can see it) if scaled back to the pitch would be about 2 foot wide, and so pointless to factually establish accuracy.

However your example is not quite right as all frames (analog or digital) have a unique frame count, and so if the VAR operator decides a ball leaves X's foot on frame 2541, he can roll the film forward or back, pan, track, zoom etc. to any other frame....fix the frame the player is offside (or not) and cross reference the frames....if the player is forward of any defender after frame 2541 then he must be offside....behind the defender...onside.

We had nearly 70% possession but only got 5 fouls given against us. By contrast Leicester had 30% with us giving away 17. With the naked eye you could see how farcical many of those free kicks given against us were.

Darren Bond is a pathetic little twerp of a referee. And F**k me, he needs to sort out his hair. Looked like some pervy Fonz

Stop using facts those sitting on the fence are getting splinters. Corrupt or inept result is dodgy decisions

We had nearly 70% possession but only got 5 fouls given against us. By contrast Leicester had 30% with us giving away 17. With the naked eye you could see how farcical many of those free kicks given against us were.

Darren Bond is a pathetic little twerp of a referee. And F**k me, he needs to sort out his hair. Looked like some pervy Fonz

There was a lot of throwing themselves to the ground by Leicester once they went ahead

Not sure they commited too many to the tackle when we had possession because they were sitting deep - anytime we lost possession we pressed agressive and that’s where the fouls came from when they threw themselves to the ground

Yes and no......the standard cameras used are not optically precise enough, nor do they run at a sufficient frame rate to accurately determine when a ball leaves a foot, the technology exists, but it would be too expensive to use. Also note the thickness of the line used on the monitor (which is so we can see it) if scaled back to the pitch would be about 2 foot wide, and so pointless to factually establish accuracy.

However your example is not quite right as all frames (analog or digital) have a unique frame count, and so if the VAR operator decides a ball leaves X's foot on frame 2541, he can roll the film forward or back, pan, track, zoom etc. to any other frame....fix the frame the player is offside (or not) and cross reference the frames....if the player is forward of any defender after frame 2541 then he must be offside....behind the defender...onside.

Responding to your first paragraph: the problem there is not that the technology is not precise enough. The problem is that reality does not consist of discrete instants. So eg kicking a ball, like everyting else, takes time. It occurs over a continuum. The more precise your technology is, in fact, the MORE possible "instants" (frames, in the case of TV cameras) that the contact between foot and ball will be spread over. So your problem of which one to choose actually gets worse. It would actually be easier if cameras only ran at 3 frames a second or something. Then there would probably only be one frame as the outstanding candidate to be the moment the ball was kicked, and you could draw your lines in that frame only. (Obvously it would be murder to watch football at that frame rate haha.)

Anyway, the point is the problem of a lack of absolute precision is not a technological problem. Or a problem of human subjectivity. Reality is a flow and so has inherent limits on the precision with which it can be measured. This is also why you have the uncertainty principle in physics. Our footballing example is essentially a variation on the same thing. (So when people say somebody is either offside or they're not, it actually depends. Most offsides, the margin is big enough that they definitely are or not. But for tight enough calls, it will actually be the case that the runner will be onside for part of the time the passer's foot is in contact with the ball, and then offside for part of the time. It will actually be the case. So more precise technology just increases your choice of which one to pick.

Which brings us to your second paragraph:

Because there is an inherent arbitrariness and subjectivity on which frame gets picked as "the" frame, once the official has picked a frame to be the one , that's the one that the lines have to be drawn in. So if he has picked frame 4561, he CAN'T, having zoomed out to see the receiving player, then start winding it forward and drawing lines in frame 4565 or whatever. If he'd picked 4565 first, yes. But he can't go "this is the one we're using", zoom out, and then go "hmm, it's not clear if he's offside in this one, I'll wind forward until he definitely is"!

Because there is an inherent arbitrariness and subjectivity on which frame gets picked as "the" frame, once the official has picked a frame to be the one , that's the one that the lines have to be drawn in. So if he has picked frame 4561, he CAN'T, having zoomed out to see the receiving player, then start winding it forward and drawing lines in frame 4565 or whatever. If he'd picked 4565 first, yes. But he can't go "this is the one we're using", zoom out, and then go "hmm, it's not clear if he's offside in this one, I'll wind forward until he definitely is"!

And that is potentially what happened. There were two frames frozen. The on side one, then that was moved up to the off side one.
The first one was clearly the first interpretation of when the ball was struck. It seems didn't reach the expected outcome, so was moved on until it did.
I think it was clear to everyone watching, how the two positions unfolded.

Disgraceful how much digging went on from VAR last night, how far back in play did they go to try and cancel the goal, shame on you corrupt bas**rds

And that is potentially what happened. There were two frames frozen. The on side one, then that was moved up to the off side one.
The first one was clearly the first interpretation of when the ball was struck. It seems didn't reach the expected outcome, so was moved on until it did.
I think it was clear to everyone watching, how the two positions unfolded.

It certainly looked to me like he advanced the frame. Whether Darwin would have been onside in the original frame I don't know. But he clearly shouldn't be drawing the lines in a later frame to the one he had selected to represent the moment the ball was kicked.

The only question is - did he actually do that? I thought that's what I saw, and yourself and a couple of others seem to be saying you saw it too. I was expecting some others might say that's not what happened (and I'll happily admit I'm wrong if it's not what happened). But I'm pretty amazed anybody is saying that if it did happen that's ok!

It certainly looked to me like he advanced the frame. Whether Darwin would have been onside in the original frame I don't know. But he clearly shouldn't be drawing the lines in a later frame to the one he had selected to represent the moment the ball was kicked.

The only question is - did he actually do that? I thought that's what I saw, and yourself and a couple of others seem to be saying you saw it too. I was expecting some others might say that's not what happened (and I'll happily admit I'm wrong if it's not what happened). But I'm pretty amazed anybody is saying that if it did happen that's ok!

It was pretty simple from my view. He selected the frame where the ball was contacted ... put his line in and it was marginal onside ... close but onside. So it was simply shifted forward a frame or 2 ... marginal offside ... clear as day. But as per nobody in the media questions it ... now if it had gone the otherway you would never of heard the last of it and it would be talked about endlessly.