100% Agree with Goldbridge here. Good for him.
Pre Match - Spurs (A) - Sat 17:30
- Thread starter Brizzle
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Another thing fans have resigned themselves to lapping up is the excuse used to cover up for this. This protocol that is suddenly a thing because some ridiculous moron on sky sports presents it as a woe is me fact. Let's read it.
[article]
10. If play has stopped and been restarted, the referee may not undertake a ‘review’ except for a case of mistaken identity or for a potential sending-off offence relating to violent conduct, spitting, biting or extremely offensive, insulting and/or abusive action(s).
[/article]
The protocol is that referee cannot undertake a review after the restart. Who the fuck was asking him to undertake a review? A review is the following:
[article]
2. The referee must always make a decision, i.e. the referee is not permitted to give ‘no decision’ and then use the VAR to make the decision; a decision to allow play to continue after an alleged offence can be reviewed.
3. The original decision given by the referee will not be changed unless the video review clearly shows that the decision was a ‘clear and obvious error’.
4. Only the referee can initiate a ‘review’; the VAR (and other match officials) can only recommend a ‘review’ to the referee.
5. The final decision is always taken by the referee, either based on information from the VAR or after the referee has undertaken an ‘on-field review’ (OFR).
6. There is no time limit for the review process as accuracy is more important than speed.
7. The players and team officials must not surround the referee or attempt to influence if a decision is reviewed, the review process or the final decision.
8. The referee must remain ‘visible’ during the review process to ensure transparency.
9. If play continues after an incident which is then reviewed, any disciplinary action taken/required during the post-incident period is not cancelled, even if the original decision is changed (except a caution/sending-off for stopping or interfering with a promising attack or DOGSO).
[/article]
The review happened. It happened before play restarted. We heard the audio of the review. It's done. The law doesn't say that if you lie to the referee about the outcome of your review, then you suddenly have to hold your tongue and the lie stands. Protocol 5 in fact explicitly prevents you from doing that. The referees final decision can only be based upon one of two things, his on field review, or the var review. It can't be based on a mistake due to someone having a hearing problem. Whatever shall we do now.
[article]
Match validity
In principle, a match is not invalidated because of:
Oh dear, they don't seem to have a clause to prevent the match being invalidated when the previous clauses have been broken.
[article]
10. If play has stopped and been restarted, the referee may not undertake a ‘review’ except for a case of mistaken identity or for a potential sending-off offence relating to violent conduct, spitting, biting or extremely offensive, insulting and/or abusive action(s).
[/article]
The protocol is that referee cannot undertake a review after the restart. Who the fuck was asking him to undertake a review? A review is the following:
[article]
2. The referee must always make a decision, i.e. the referee is not permitted to give ‘no decision’ and then use the VAR to make the decision; a decision to allow play to continue after an alleged offence can be reviewed.
3. The original decision given by the referee will not be changed unless the video review clearly shows that the decision was a ‘clear and obvious error’.
4. Only the referee can initiate a ‘review’; the VAR (and other match officials) can only recommend a ‘review’ to the referee.
5. The final decision is always taken by the referee, either based on information from the VAR or after the referee has undertaken an ‘on-field review’ (OFR).
6. There is no time limit for the review process as accuracy is more important than speed.
7. The players and team officials must not surround the referee or attempt to influence if a decision is reviewed, the review process or the final decision.
8. The referee must remain ‘visible’ during the review process to ensure transparency.
9. If play continues after an incident which is then reviewed, any disciplinary action taken/required during the post-incident period is not cancelled, even if the original decision is changed (except a caution/sending-off for stopping or interfering with a promising attack or DOGSO).
[/article]
The review happened. It happened before play restarted. We heard the audio of the review. It's done. The law doesn't say that if you lie to the referee about the outcome of your review, then you suddenly have to hold your tongue and the lie stands. Protocol 5 in fact explicitly prevents you from doing that. The referees final decision can only be based upon one of two things, his on field review, or the var review. It can't be based on a mistake due to someone having a hearing problem. Whatever shall we do now.
[article]
Match validity
In principle, a match is not invalidated because of:
- malfunction(s) of the VAR technology (as for goal line technology (GLT))
- wrong decision(s) involving the VAR (as the VAR is a match official)
- decision(s) not to review an incident
- review(s) of a non-reviewable situation/decision
Oh dear, they don't seem to have a clause to prevent the match being invalidated when the previous clauses have been broken.
Danny Murphy seems to have a good point about the whole thing. The linesman fucked up massively, he’s not supposed to flag unless it’s really blatantly offside.
Can’t remember the exact distance stated but it was large, so that gives the expectation that the goal had been given by the VAR guys some explanation.
Can’t remember the exact distance stated but it was large, so that gives the expectation that the goal had been given by the VAR guys some explanation.
On the audio its sounds like the VAR is saying its offside immediately, before Diaz has a shot.
The red then says 'give it' I dunno what that means.. give it as a goal? give the offside?
They then pull the office n VAR says checking.
So the above just doesn't add up at all
hmmm, maybe knew then. It’s such a mess
The linesman first says delaying (meaning his flag, he won't raise his flag until the goal goes in). The other linesman then says give it (meaning raise your flag for offside). The first linesman then raises the flag and tells the VAR and ref that he's coming back to them for the offside. The VAR then checks the offside. It's not the clearest communication, but they all know the score.
When the cunt says check complete, he is genuinely intending to confirm the onfield decision as offside, that was his decision. The operator kid doesn't know what "check complete" means, so it doesn't register to him that these two blind idiots have decided it's offside. The very second he sees the free kick taken he says "wait wait", whilst the two VAR refs are unmoved. This can only make sense if they gave it as offside.
Then the poor kid tells is asking them if they're happy with the image, it's onside. He tells them the onfield deicison was offside, the assistant VAR tells him yeah. Let me transcribe this correctly rather than the BS they put on the video:
Tech: Onfield decision was offside. You happy?
AVAR: Yeah
Tech: You happy with this?
AVAR: Offs- [gets cut off, but is repeating back offside, to confirm he knows the onfield decision is offside, what's your problem]
Tech: Onf- [gets cut off, but is repeating that onfield decision is offside]
AVAR: Goal, yeah [he has clocked on now, after looking at the image and says goal, as in oh fuck it's a goal]
AVAR: That's wrong, Daz [so he's telling the VAR that they got it wrong]
Then rest of the audio is the tech guy telling them the image is onside, someone mentions left-back, playing him on, and then the cunt says "oh fuck". The audio I transcribed above is garbled, but PGMOL presented it as
AVAR: offside, goal, yeah
Which is total bullshit, and hides what actually went down.
If they'd just been honest about them being utter blind incompetent idiots incapable of discerning a picture with a big white line on it, then this would just be a VAR error where an apology would suffice and that's the end of it. Their pride wouldn't allow for that however. That's why they've concocted this stupid fairy tale about not knowing the onfield decision. In doing so, they've admitted to a procedural mistake that never actually happened, but has opened the door for us to sue the shit out of them. That's what we ought to do.
Ange Postecoglou when asked about letting Liverpool score an uncontested goal following the VAR incident last week: "I just don't see that. In that moment, if somebody could tell me that they could explain everything that went on within the prism of 30 seconds. I have to make a decision and it wasn't going to happen "It's different if it's something clear. It was a bad error through a lack of communication but it wasn't something that was easily explainable. If it was easily explainable, I would assume there would have been uproar than there was."
Because the process they used was so fucking vague there's a lot of different interpretations you can make up. I don't think it's very compelling, but I'm sure you've got 100% confidence in it, or rather, that no confidence is required, because it's purely logical, and I look forward to you claiming it as fact from now until the end of time.
They're playing on from a free kick as the tech is asking them are you happy with this. The AVAR sits there and says "yeah", whilst tottenham are bringing the ball into our half. In what universe do you think it's a "fact" that his decision was onside?
Even PGMOL know that it's implausibly dumb. They changed the story they leaked to the press to the following:
[article]
"The image created showed that Luis Diaz was clearly onside, without the need for the insertion of a second line. In a lapse of concentration and loss of focus in that moment, the VAR lost sight of the on-field decision and he incorrectly communicated “check complete”, therefore inadvertently confirming the on-field decision. He did this without any dialogue with the AVAR [Assistant VAR].
https://www.premierleague.com/news/3718057
[/article]
So their story is that he lost sight of the onfield decision "in that moment". Because in every other moment he has perfect sight of the onfield decision. But please, continue to delude yourself, it will serve you well in life to be so easily lied to, avoid a lot of arguments and potential divorce proceedings and so forth, so that's all good.
[article]
"The image created showed that Luis Diaz was clearly onside, without the need for the insertion of a second line. In a lapse of concentration and loss of focus in that moment, the VAR lost sight of the on-field decision and he incorrectly communicated “check complete”, therefore inadvertently confirming the on-field decision. He did this without any dialogue with the AVAR [Assistant VAR].
https://www.premierleague.com/news/3718057
[/article]
So their story is that he lost sight of the onfield decision "in that moment". Because in every other moment he has perfect sight of the onfield decision. But please, continue to delude yourself, it will serve you well in life to be so easily lied to, avoid a lot of arguments and potential divorce proceedings and so forth, so that's all good.
I don't think it's a fact. Who are you quoting when you say "fact"?
I don't think I can look at this set of facts and come to an understanding, with absolute certainty, about what they were thinking. That's kind of the nature of subjectivity.
I find the idea that they thought it was onside more plausible than yours. For instance, you take a lot out of the fact that they say "checking the offside" as a confirmation that the ruling was offside, where it could easily mean, without straining credulity at all, checking whether or not it is offside, but that's another example of language that is embarassingly ambiguous in the he context of no real process.
They managed to fuck up a process that is entirely binary, and speak about it in a way where the evidence available to us can have multiple interpretations. That's the problem. If this process didn't have that ambiguity of language, we wouldn't be talking about it, we'd be laughing at Tottenham as we should be.
Your brain can't accept that sort of imprecision. I would genuinely like you to go manage those clowns, your powers are wasted on us.
Yes it's binary. So the two potential facts are either they thought it was onside or offside. That fact is resolved the moment play kicks off, they both say nothing, and it takes several seconds and repeated statements by the tech before they say oh fuck there's a problem. The tech is trying to convince them it is onside. If the alternative fact were true, they would be having zero dialogue with the tech, and be expressing their sheer horror that Tottenham have taken their free kick. There is no doubt about vague language or nuance or uncertainty here. One fact is true, the other fact cannot possibly be true. It is from this that the rest of the audio and decision making must fall into line with that one true fact.
The tech is obviously trying to convince them it's onside, but I think they thought they had indicated it was onside. Someone had to point out their idiocy, this does happen in life. The whole process is untrained, and they are obviously shit at their jobs.
If they had indicated onside, they would have been swearing the instant play resumed. They were not. The tech is the one who was flipping out. After several seconds, the AVAR realises the tech is right. Then after several more seconds, the VAR realises he is right. If they thought they had indicated onside, then why the fuck are they backchatting to the tech going yeah, what, what, pardon, and so forth, whilst Tottenham have played on and are knocking it around. If they thought they were indicating onside, they'd be slightly perplexed at the lack of a goal and a free kick being taken for offside, unless they lost sight of the basic concept of what a goal is in football "in that moment"?
Let's look at the audio when the cunt VAR realises it's onside
Tech: Yeah, it's onside, the image that we gave them is onside
Unknown: Played _____ left back [this is probably the other tech guy in the background saying he's played on by the leftback]
AVAR or Tech: He's played ___ he's gone offside [must be referring to the left back playing him onside]
VAR: loud sigh oh fucking hell
So you can see it has absolutely nothing to do with the referee playing on with a free kick. It's to do with the tech telling them to look at the image again. And that's why he is so adamant he can't do anything. Because he's made a decision. It's wrong. He doesn't want to retake that decision now. He's hardly a stranger to getting things wrong. But, if he had simply miscommunicated his decision, then he would absolutely be trying to correct that, that'd be his first reaction.
Tech: Yeah, it's onside, the image that we gave them is onside
Unknown: Played _____ left back [this is probably the other tech guy in the background saying he's played on by the leftback]
AVAR or Tech: He's played ___ he's gone offside [must be referring to the left back playing him onside]
VAR: loud sigh oh fucking hell
So you can see it has absolutely nothing to do with the referee playing on with a free kick. It's to do with the tech telling them to look at the image again. And that's why he is so adamant he can't do anything. Because he's made a decision. It's wrong. He doesn't want to retake that decision now. He's hardly a stranger to getting things wrong. But, if he had simply miscommunicated his decision, then he would absolutely be trying to correct that, that'd be his first reaction.
There are a few assumptions there. I think the var techs think he's given the wrong call, when in his head he's given the right one, ambiguously.
But ok, let's go with your way, what difference does it make? "I'm sorry officer, I couldn't have been hacking into that lady with pruning shears, I was in fact raping a baby, as you'll see in this here video."
The point is that this transcript has ambiguity and shouldn't, and that's because their process is amateurish, and ripe for any fucker who likes prop betting.
But ok, let's go with your way, what difference does it make? "I'm sorry officer, I couldn't have been hacking into that lady with pruning shears, I was in fact raping a baby, as you'll see in this here video."
The point is that this transcript has ambiguity and shouldn't, and that's because their process is amateurish, and ripe for any fucker who likes prop betting.
Time stamps might help:
0 sec: free kick taken
2 sec: tech flips out
10 sec: avar admits that its wrong
20 sec: var sighs and swears
Not really an assumption. The difference it makes is they have lied to us. Their dishonest version is actionable in court. The true version is just an incorrect decision that is covered already by their rules. So we take court action based on procedural errors, or they revert to their true version and then we take the alternative action of them lying and do them for match fixing or corruption. It matters to understand what happened, so that we take the right legal strategy.
If memory serves, when Dermot Gallagher trotted out their fairy tale version, he said the VAR realised the moment the free kick was taken, by which time it was too late. This was plausible before the audio came out. With the audio, it's out the window, and PGMOL have changed their explanation to the statement about "in the moment". We should not let this go and get played. We must make them pay. I couldn't give a shit about their amateur hour process.
0 sec: free kick taken
2 sec: tech flips out
10 sec: avar admits that its wrong
20 sec: var sighs and swears
Not really an assumption. The difference it makes is they have lied to us. Their dishonest version is actionable in court. The true version is just an incorrect decision that is covered already by their rules. So we take court action based on procedural errors, or they revert to their true version and then we take the alternative action of them lying and do them for match fixing or corruption. It matters to understand what happened, so that we take the right legal strategy.
If memory serves, when Dermot Gallagher trotted out their fairy tale version, he said the VAR realised the moment the free kick was taken, by which time it was too late. This was plausible before the audio came out. With the audio, it's out the window, and PGMOL have changed their explanation to the statement about "in the moment". We should not let this go and get played. We must make them pay. I couldn't give a shit about their amateur hour process.
Why are you so confident we are suing them because we sent a strongly worded message?
I'm not confident, I fully expect this to be forgotten about by Monday, and for me to add it into my internal reservoir of rage and hatred that I will draw on at a future date. What I am confident of is that this particular passage was written intentionally by our lawyers:
[article]
It is clear that the correct application of the laws of the game did not occur, resulting in sporting integrity being undermined
[/article]
Because a breach of the laws of the game is the thing we're going to argue about in court, because without that there is no remedy and nothing to litigate over. So that was intentional. Then PGMOL walked right into it, because their lawyers are morons, and have come up with an insanely weak story and laughable interpretation of the protocol. It's like Jessica Alba stripping naked and bending over in front of our lawyers. So maybe, for that reason, there is some small hope that we'll follow through. I doubt it though. We'll come out as LGBTQ+ and ask Ms Alba to get dressed.
I am pleased to report that Vlad's Quiff is alive and well. Currently absorbing Sangria in Lisbon.
He just got tired of abuse from obnoxious twats. I wouldn't dream of encouraging him to come back for more.
That would assume VAR officials have no current live visual monitors Which would be ridiculous. The linesman was clearly shown flagging (am I flagging) offside.
Good to hear it - a life well lived ! When are you going to join him over there?
Who abused Vlad?
why? He was always fantastic!!
Indeed. Why did he flag such an obviously onside goal in the first place? Because he knows he has VAR backing him up, so there's no need for him to work on his fitness during the week so that he can bust a gut to keep up with play. Listen to the audio, the guy is gasping for air and on deaths door as he utters a few words about delaying. They've all used VAR as an excuse to turn into lazy, complacent overpaid alcoholic obese pricks. Look at the sheer size of the gut on Hooper for fucks sake. Then when you put these same pricks into the VAR booth, what do you expect to happen, they're now in the habit of being lazy, not really having to pay attention, and not giving any fucks. The threat of financial ruin through the courts is needed to make them pull their fingers out.
Fucking unreal.
Glad to hear he's well.
Does he know almost all the obnoxious twats have gone?
Sure, peter came back, and fake dantes is annoying, but these days our twats come mostly in retard flavour.
That's true that. Though there's multitudes of them.
Are we getting closer to the point where we accept we’re not the first team to be badly affected by a wrong call and just move on - it’s happened, it’s not going to be reversed or replayed, no-one’s going to be charged with anything and this is not ending up anywhere near a court.
This nonsense is starting to be more annoying that the actual decision.
This nonsense is starting to be more annoying that the actual decision.
- Status
Similar threads
