Yes you are right apologies.Think it was Hull?
would you just need to put them on the outside of the post and on the corner flag to scan along that line?It needs two sensors put either end of the line. For goalposts this is fine, for the touchline it would need to be corner flags at opposite ends of the pitch unless I’m mistaken.
Let's just say, it's far more inconclusive than many of the decisions that have gone against us.
View attachment 32575
Ref does walk straight to Lino on the side so probably needed to ask the question.In this video, the ball looks clearly to be in play.
Nowt for Plymouth to whinge about.
Watch this video on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/
Huge risk for himHe’s not going to sign though, that’s clear. And we’ve moved on from him as a side with no obvious place in the team for him.
Not really, if he is available at the end of the season someone will take a punt on him on past reputation aloneHuge risk for him
Huge risk for him
Thanks! Saves me some time.Boosh.
It's possible I guess, looking at all the angles you wouldn't be 100% sure and obviously we have the luxury of replay that they don't have.That was out but there was no clear view from the Lino and the ref wasn’t sure.
My take:
There was a clear clear handball in the first half which the ref and Lino missed and possibly the 4th official saw.
During their half time chat this might have come up and human nature suggests they may have thought “if there’s a chance of balance” or whatever then they’d have that in mind.
With it not being 100% clear in real time if the ball has crossed, they balanced it in our favour.
I think had they had not missed the pen in the first half, they might have given the goal ball as out.
The foul on Sims when through after the goal that was not given was also a strange one. Balance?
I would feel angry if I was a Plymouth fan but anyway.
I suppose if you change it for all lines does that mean only part of the ball needs to be over the line for it to be a goal or are they treated differently.Let's be honest, for decades that was universally accepted as out of play, then we had that silly arc of the ball bollocks at the world cup and now people are debating incidents like this!
I suppose if you change it for all lines does that mean only part of the ball needs to be over the line for it to be a goal or are they treated differently.
I think so, whoever was feeding the ball through took to long to release him.Anyone with a decent view tell me if wright was offside first half?
That incident was against Hull when the ball was clearly over the goal line but the technology didn't work.It needs two sensors put either end of the line. For goalposts this is fine, for the touchline it would need to be corner flags at opposite ends of the pitch unless I’m mistaken.
The Bidwell one looked well in, and we would of scored from that move.There is no debate it was over the line and oddly various camera angles aren’t the view the official has. The same official gave them a throw earlier when Bidwell had the ball and it was far closer to the line than that
Being a ref is not easy and they get more decisions right than wrong. How many fans and players even know the rules. Try being an official and see how good or crap you are.The ref was shite though, if anyone else was that bad at their jobs they'd be in trouble
Also was it an obvious mistake? I don't know, the Japan one in the WC looked equally out but was shown not to be.
Most refs give last nights out but so far there are no angles that show it to e 100% out.
another account? sad, byeBeing a ref is not easy and they get more decisions right than wrong. How many fans and players even know the rules. Try being an official and see how good or crap you are.
It's not new - surely the rule has always been "whole of the ball over the whole of the line"? We've just got lots of cameras and technology now to judge it.Let's be honest, for decades that was universally accepted as out of play, then we had that silly arc of the ball bollocks at the world cup and now people are debating incidents like this!
It's not a photo. It's the system's graphical representation of where it calculates the ball to have been.Did the EFL systems CGI that image for illustrative purposes, mind? Looks an awfully perfect image?
I think some kind of VAR is here to stay and it’s inevitable that more and more technology will creep into the game as technology advances and the financial implications of a mistake become more massive.The Bidwell one looked well in, and we would of scored from that move.
The officials were absolutely useless yesterday, for both sides.
however, as atrocious as they were, that’s football and I will take that over VAR any day of the week.
Managed to watch most of the game last night and thought the following:
* The goal did look like it came from the ball being out. That said, it's hard to definitely say without a 'down the line' view. Although the linos were pretty poor all game, it's hard to blame them for that one as his obstruction would've been be blocked by the players. Not sure how the refs view was though.
* The 3 lads we've got from Barnsley (well, one from Burnley but you know what I mean), all seem to be developing into a strong and impressive unit at the back. Kitchings presence and range of passing is great.
* I thought Bidwell was quietly excellent last night. Some great deliveries into the box - he's definitely preferable to Da Silva.
* Really pleased for Wright. Yes he makes some what look like simple errors but he's still very early on in his Cov career and Gyo took ages to get proper firing for us. If you'd have said at the start of the season that he'd have 5 goals from his first 10 games, we would've taken it.
* Gooden was quiet and ineffective last night. But he's still a goal threat when he's got a chance. Just an off night from him last night. I'd keep the same starting line up on Saturday as Ipswich. We've got two wins with that line up so assuming Tats is ok, I'd go with the same again.
* I don't get the 'happy for CO'H to go in January' malarkey. I get the contract situation but that aside, he was quite clearly and important part of our team before he got injured. He's not going to be up to speed for a couple of months (at least). He's a quality player and one we should most definitely be looking to tie down on a new contract.
But after such an injury, I don't think someone is going throw a few million at him. Not in January anyway. I think our results improved more because of Gyo/Hamer stepping up - less so the team just doing better generically with O'Hare out of the team.I agree with every one of your points until the last one.
We saw last year how having some better end product in midfield kicked us on a level, I really don't think he's up to that and despite some people saying we would be relegated, we did better without him in the team and almost got promoted.
This season it is unfair to judge him as he has been out a long time, but I cannot really see at the moment where he fits in. If someone does want to throw a few million at him, at this second it doesn't seem like such a stupid decision. Whilst he is a really good player who adds something different, and I also like him in general, his lack of end product is a massive issue and I've banged that drum for a while. We've got some money now, no reason why we cannot put some towards some more lethal attacking midfields/wingers.
But after such an injury, I don't think someone is going throw a few million at him. Not in January anyway. I think our results improved more because of Gyo/Hamer stepping up - less so the team just doing better generically with O'Hare out of the team.
When he was fully fit, he was a key player for us. Given our injury record of the years (including that of his apparent replacement, Palmer), I definitely keep him on - if he signs a contract. He's going to be a couple of months away from performing at that level again - IMO anyway. 'If' he can perform like he did pre-injury, he's most definitely an asset to have.
2bf we won last time we went there
And proved itTbf if that was all he did I'd agree with a poor rating, but he was our main goal threat all game regardless.
The ball didn’t cross the line in either incidentT
That incident was against Hull when the ball was clearly over the goal line but the technology didn't work.
Here’s a good still from our very own unseen video. Ball was definitely not out. It shows Lino had a good view too.It's not new - surely the rule has always been "whole of the ball over the whole of the line"? We've just got lots of cameras and technology now to judge it.
(I think that was probably out of play last night though!)
I normally like your posts JB but not sure if this one is tongue in cheek or not?!Here’s a good still from our very own unseen video. Ball was definitely not out. It shows Lino had a good view too.
Ok I’ll concede that. I was looking at his positioning and maybe missed line of sight. Also see now that the video was posted earlier. I’m still convinced it was in play.Here’s a good still from our very own unseen video. Ball was definitely not out. It shows Lino had a good view too.
Yup was just thinking this. Same fans that are ayIng it's in would be saying the refs hate us if other way roundI was in line with it - it was over the line and everyone was assuming it wouldn’t be allowed
The linesman was hopelessly poor all game
I don’t understand why fans desperately try and justify clearly awful decisions when they go for us and try and justify the other way round when they go against us - we’d be very angry if that was the other way round
Mocking celebrities to enhance your post/like ratio is a bit pathetic.Where are the usual array of greggs threads this week I wonder?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?