Jump to content

Five Ken McNaughts

Full Member
  • Posts

    454
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Five Ken McNaughts

  1. I’ll stick to my opinion that the goal-line camera gives the truest view of offsides in the box and should be the go-to option when applying lines. I’ll also stick to my opinion that it shouldn’t be sometimes shown / sometimes ignored. Yes, my opinions on those things are consistent.
  2. (Might be helpful if I quote @S-Platt for those images of the Jota goal from a couple of pages ago).
  3. The two images for the Jota goal are on p.255 of this thread. They demonstrate rather neatly that... once the camera angle switches from around the edge of the box to the goal line... of any two given players, the one further away from the camera is revealed to be deeper lying than they originally appeared. And, conversely, the one closest to the camera is revealed to be less deep lying than they originally appeared. The greater the “vertical” distance between them (on the 2D screen), the greater the reversal of their positions (look, for example, what happens to the not-involved Liverpool player at the top there – on the right edge of the box – the same longitude as Coufal for the Watkins goal). You both, @bobzy and @a m ole, appear to be saying that the camera on the goal line CAUSES my mind to be tricked for the Watkins goal, but STOPS it being tricked for the Jota goal. My opinion is consistent – the camera on the goal line offers the most accurate view of the players’ positions.
  4. I would have to respectfully disagree with you there. Are you saying you don’t see the improved depth and perspective offered by the second angle? The way it shows the full 18-yard box and allows you to make a more accurate judgement of players’ positions within that, and relative to each other? The reason the Watkins example is so apt is that the two camera angles almost perfectly match the ones surrounding the Jota goal at Forest, except the opposite one was deemed the “right” one. With that in mind, can I take it you think VAR should have drawn lines on the first angle of the Jota goal (that made him look offside) and ignored the one they ultimately used? Because that second one that showed Jota to be onside – the camera in line with the goal line – is the exact same angle you have just sad “tricks the mind” in the Watkins example.
  5. In light of Jota’s goal at Forest, I have a question... Why did VAR move heaven and Earth to find Ollie Watkins offside when he equalised against West Ham last season... ....when a simple check of the alternative angle (as happened for Jota’s goal) would have shown he was onside? I mean, just look at the amount of real estate between Coufal and the 18-yard line compared to the Ogbonna / Watkins tussle! There’s simply no way any lines are finding an offside now. Goal stands. 2-2. That second image was never shown by VAR or Sky (hmm...). I found it on West Ham TV’s in-house version of the highlights. So when the PGMOL tell you that VAR will always show you the “best” image for determining an offside, just remember this – they are laughing in your face. VAR officials choose when to show that alternative angle. And they choose when to keep it a secret. And any system that has such capacity for manipulation designed into it is, in my opinion, murky as hell. If VAR / the PGMOL actually wanted to embrace impartiality, accuracy and truth, they would use a step-by-step process to determining offsides and show every stage (like an LBW review in cricket), as opposed to including or excluding evidence on a whim. (Spoiler Alert: it’ll never happen).
  6. I’m on the same page, mate. VAR is currently allowed a pic ‘n’ mix approach to how they present their offside evidence that reeks of a lack of transparency. Lines / no lines, behind-play camera / in-front of play camera, passer in shot / passer out of shot – the outcome of any marginal decision is effectively whatever they want it to be. Just look at the Lukaku goal chalked off against Liverpool at Wembley. One terrible camera angle, no lines, and ruled out within 10 seconds – totally different to yesterday. The official answer will always be “We show you the angle that gives the best view” but that is also just another way of saying “We’ll decide which image to keep behind our back.” The whole thing is a classic case of smoke and mirrors, if you ask me. The public will get the proof they’re meant to get. As an aside, an ESPN journalist (Dale something) was saying on Twitter yesterday that the reason no line was shown coming down from Jota’s shoulder was that – get this – it had been done in private by VAR, it overlapped the defender’s line, and the official policy is now not to show the second line if there is an overlap. Eh??? Just one more example of the lack of transparency that permeates VAR from top to bottom.
  7. Yes, I agree with most of that. What I would say though, is the fact the VAR decisions are allowed to be presented differently in every match (sometimes using the original camera angle, sometimes not, sometimes drawing lines from shoulders, sometimes not, sometimes choosing a frame with the ball already in motion, sometimes not etc.) means, effectively, that VAR always has wriggle room of about plus-or-minus 8-10 inches as they put together the visual evidence they are gong to present. And, naturally, they get to decide which team gets the benefit of that moveable margin.
  8. The most advanced part of Jota is clearly his right shoulder / sleeve line yet VAR decided not to draw a line down from it
  9. According to Arsenal fans we are looking at a straight red card offence here... Wow.
  10. Dived like lightning to his left. Dived like treacle to his right. Trying to remember previous goals – is this a recurring theme?
  11. Indeed. Does Gerrard aspire to be an in-game problem solver (I see little evidence so far – and sulking in his seat is not a good start), Or does he aspire to be a manager who turns up at the rich owners’ door and says “I want him, him, him and him”? I like the former type. Don’t think much of the latter.
  12. 1/10 for effort. And that’s being kind. On a day we wore black armbands for a Villan who gave everything – for a very modest wage – our current millionaires made it look as if turning up to play football at a packed Villa Park was just one massive inconvenience to their weekends.
  13. Yep. Jimenez never shows his studs, never raises his boot, never lunges, never even breaks stride... There is literally no action that could be deemed an offence, let alone a yellow card. If there is any foul in that collision it is Meslier “protecting himself” by making sure his right elbow hammers Jimenez in the stomach.
  14. Another peach of a finish into the roof of the net from this guy last night. Keeps Newport in the automatic promotion spots. Amazing how many Villa loanees are becoming fans favourites at their new clubs. Love to see it.
  15. Like the one that spotted an apprentice hairdresser at Biggleswade Town who we might sell for £8-10 million once he gets Forest promoted .
  16. In principle I agree with you. I would like nothing more than to see a Villa player who understands the dark arts of retribution giving it back to the opposition with interest. The unknown factor is whether VAR performs another flip – we’ve had “We see everything” and “We see nothing” so I guess we’re due another spell of “We see everything” given the random nature of the VAR circus. Retribution can definitely be a game changer, but not always the way you want.
  17. Not much point being on VillaTalk then, is there? Or even VillaTalk existing at all? I lived in Manchester for a while during the Fergie years and this whole “What do we know? The boss knows best” line was the standard response whenever any brave soul questioned formation / selection / recruitment etc. I always thought it was kind of belittling to muzzle every alternative opinion – even with a manager who won the league most years. Pretty sure we’re allowed to question Villa bosses.
  18. If Dawson smashes Chambers in the face with his forearm while both are stationary, it’s an instant red card. Yet – somehow – if he takes a 5-yard run-up then does exactly the same with added momentum... it’s not even a foul?!? Premier League officiating at its finest. The fact this latest muppet failed to even give Rice a yellow for VERY obviously giving Coutinho what Vinnie Jones used to call a “reducer” right in front of him... (and seemingly had to be told by a lino that it was even a free-kick)... told me all I needed to know about him. Villa, yet again, assigned a referee wildly out of his depth.
  19. Hope we smash the dirty cat-kicker and his apologist pals 8-0, ceremonially strip them of their right to wear claret & blue, hack the PA system and replace the club song with “I’m forever kicking Tiddles” so they can forever wallow in their shame... That or a jammy 1-0.
  20. Given our comedy wall against Kieran Trippier’s effort... Yep.
  21. Thought he was excellent tonight and am delighted Forest got their 95th minute equaliser – I want to see Keinan in the play-offs. Apart from a wayward right foot shot and not quite capitalising on an interception (that he had forced himself) he could easily have had two assists but for some poor finishing from teammates. Also denied a stonewall penalty when a Sheff Uto defender practically ripped his shirt off to stop him prodding in at the far post. Looked strong, poised, intelligent (and quick footed) in all he did. Can see why they love him at Forest.
×
×
  • Create New...
Â