GENTLEMAN Posted January 26, 2021 Share Posted January 26, 2021 28 minutes ago, darrenm said: Any better? I don't have a proper point of reference for the line in the middle and I think it should even be more of an angle leaving more of Ollie's knee off. Like I said, it doesn't matter, it's just an interesting thought exercise for me. The ‘reference point’ would be the 18 yard line. You run other measurement lines parallel to this datum. At least that’s how I would do it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_avfc Posted January 26, 2021 Share Posted January 26, 2021 (edited) 16 minutes ago, KentVillan said: To be fair to Moss, it isn't his mistake. His lino has made a mistake, but understandable in the circumstances. The VAR mistake is poor, but still somewhat understandable. What is unforgivable is the doubling down, and getting Peter Walton to backtrack on live TV, and then briefing Sky that the same rule had been applied in the Newcastle game, and then this bullshit face saving exercise. **** pathetic. I'd hold Moss partly responsible for this mistake too. Its a bit different to a normal offside call in that Rodri was so far offside that even the linesman from the other end of the pitch could have flagged it. They're all mic'ed up to each other so between that referee team not a single one of them thought that this was offside. That to me highlights the problem that we have with the standard of officiating . In that article from Sky Sports it also says this. However, if for example, an attacking player in an offside position receives the ball from a misplaced pass or miskick by an opponent, that attacking player will not be flagged offside - a situation which Aston Villa benefitted from against Newcastle on Saturday, when Fabian Schar's attempted clearance fell to Ollie Watkins, who scored with a header. If we are going to persist with this interpretation of the rules applying to Schar's attempted block of a cross then I foresee another rule clarification to be on its way in a couple of weeks time when they realise how ridiculous this makes the game of football too. Admittedly Watkins is onside when the ball is played but as soon as goal is given that would have been offside because of a touch like Schars we can expect these rules to be "interpreted differently" going forwards. Edited January 26, 2021 by tom_avfc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisVillan Posted January 26, 2021 Share Posted January 26, 2021 1 minute ago, GENTLEMAN said: The ‘reference point’ would be the 18 yard line. You run other measurement lines parallel to this datum. At least that’s how I would do it. Would you also do it in a fat crayon? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post sharkyvilla Posted January 26, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted January 26, 2021 14 minutes ago, nepal_villan said: They also said that Watkins goal was fine because Shar was not impeded by Watkins when touching the ball. So does that mean that if Shar left the cross alone, it would have been an offside? That makes no sense to me, as it would basically encourage a defender to back-off if he thinks there is an offside. Anyway - I thought Watkins was onside because he was behind the ball when it was crossed. That does seem ludicrous to me, making it so a defender has to work out whether someone behind him is just about on or offside and decide whether to try and intercept it. I think Watkins was just about onside but it was very tight, if he was actually offside when the cross came in and got played onside by the defender trying to cut out the cross it would be almost as daft as the decision over the Rodri tackle imo. As for our goal against Sheffield United last season, that was an error with technology, not stupid human interpretation of the laws of the game. I guess it's just used by other fans to troll us and to be fair we would probably do the same to other fans. 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Follyfoot Posted January 26, 2021 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted January 26, 2021 34 minutes ago, darrenm said: Any better? I don't have a proper point of reference for the line in the middle and I think it should even be more of an angle leaving more of Ollie's knee off. Like I said, it doesn't matter, it's just an interesting thought exercise for me. Who would of thought a couple of years ago sensible grown men would be getting rulers and pens out on stills of football matches. Bizarrely it reminds me of spot the ball and goes to show how bonkers the game has become now and how quickly this becomes 2nd nature 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted January 26, 2021 Share Posted January 26, 2021 7 minutes ago, GENTLEMAN said: The ‘reference point’ would be the 18 yard line. You run other measurement lines parallel to this datum. At least that’s how I would do it. The left line is over the top of a pitch cutting line so I'm using 2 reference points. What I'm saying is there's no exact reference point of what exact angle to make the line through the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted January 26, 2021 Share Posted January 26, 2021 5 minutes ago, Follyfoot said: sensible grown men speak for yourself buddy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENTLEMAN Posted January 26, 2021 Share Posted January 26, 2021 10 minutes ago, ChrisVillan said: Would you also do it in a fat crayon? Yes sir I would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted January 26, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted January 26, 2021 2 minutes ago, darrenm said: speak for yourself buddy Would be have a go myself but do not think I could avoid the temptation to draw large appendages on the players and other puerile shenanigans 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rightdm00 Posted January 26, 2021 Share Posted January 26, 2021 4 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said: That does seem ludicrous to me, making it so a defender has to work out whether someone behind him is just about on or offside and decide whether to try and intercept it. I think Watkins was just about onside but it was very tight, if he was actually offside when the cross came in and got played onside by the defender trying to cut out the cross it would be almost as daft as the decision over the Rodri tackle imo. As for our goal against Sheffield United last season, that was an error with technology, not stupid human interpretation of the laws of the game. I guess it's just used by other fans to troll us and to be fair we would probably do the same to other fans. Exactly. They can't be serious. Schar only plays the ball because Watkins is behind him. That's a text book definition of affecting play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 26, 2021 Share Posted January 26, 2021 (edited) Presumably they drop the charges again Smith now Edited January 26, 2021 by tonyh29 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted January 26, 2021 Share Posted January 26, 2021 These two city idiots still not admitting they’ve got it wrong all because the article says “the PGMOL are still adamant the right call was made” then WHY did they change it days later? their opinion: “because people moaned” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 26, 2021 Moderator Share Posted January 26, 2021 10 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: Presumably they drop the charges again Smith now Would be nice wouldn't it? However, under the new guidance notes issued by the PGMOL today, even if the referee is in fact a "f****ng p**ck" managers are still liable for punishment if they refer to him as a "f****ng p**ck" as all rules are administered and subject to continual review by the f****ng p***ks at the FA. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rightdm00 Posted January 26, 2021 Share Posted January 26, 2021 Do they realize they are compounding their error if they persist with this bogus interpretation of the Watkins goal. My goodness the amount of words that have to be uttered to cover up for what would have been a one sentence mea culpa. Why is it reporters have to write these articles second hand from a PMGOL spokesman. Why can't they just come out and clearly explain it themselves. It just further clouds everything. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG_Villa_Fan Posted January 26, 2021 Share Posted January 26, 2021 Classic 'we're right even when we're wrong'. What's funnier is everyone on twitter/message boards lecturing people who rightly thought this was in fact offside. At least with that clarification now everyone can say they were indeed ... right what a mess. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shomin Geki Posted January 26, 2021 Share Posted January 26, 2021 (edited) Hmmmm, this is all mildly scandalous is it not? The instincts of an operation rather reveal the morality at play here wouldn't you say? Particularly depressing is just how many hollowed-out 'football people' this teases out of the woodwork to march in lockstep with those that lay down the law and shout the loudest. All conducted with a barely suppressed, but nonetheless deeply insecure, righteous, sadistic glee. Nary a thought about the 'beautiful game' or some lip service to an idea of a foundational ethics supposedly essential to the English game, just the brute gratification of hollering with self-satisfaction at the Big Boy Table. Sign of the times I guess. May Jack dance around the sweaty, beleaguered lunges of their banality! Edited January 26, 2021 by Shomin Geki 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted January 26, 2021 Share Posted January 26, 2021 11 minutes ago, BG_Villa_Fan said: Classic 'we're right even when we're wrong'. What's funnier is everyone on twitter/message boards lecturing people who rightly thought this was in fact offside. At least with that clarification now everyone can say they were indeed ... right what a mess. If you check my tweet above city fans still think it was onside and right because of the statement made today by the PGMOL. The faceless organisation that doesn’t even have its own website or info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post El Zen Posted January 26, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted January 26, 2021 3 hours ago, darrenm said: Shocker Waddayaknow! We were right. Who’d have thought? «Them’s the rules» my arse. Stupid, stupid, stupid people. There really ought to be an official apology from someone. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junxs Posted January 26, 2021 Share Posted January 26, 2021 2 hours ago, Rightdm00 said: What is this madness! It's like Trump has broken truth in 2021. Does Sky think people are that dumb? It's clear why the Watkins goal stood and it wasn't because of desperate deflection from a Newcastle defender. Just admit you got it wrong. Dean is a class manager. He will accept the apology and move on. Enough said. Apparently BBCs Match of The Day drew the offside line from Matt Targetts standing leg, so they could convince people of their narrative that we benefitted from the same rule by showing Watkins slightly ahead of the defender. They don't even know if a player is behind the ball then he can't be offside, or they were banking on people just falling for it. Can they really not know the basics of the offside law? I'm glad I haven't paid the TV licence for 15 years. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacbuddies Posted January 26, 2021 Share Posted January 26, 2021 The game should be replayed. No argument! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts