Huddersfield Town v Manchester United FA Cup- 5th Round Match Thread k/o 17:30 BT Spo

A Dub in Glasgo

Ohmeha wrote: »

No the decision wasn't right because any offside has to be viewably conclusive and that the benefit of any doubt is always decided in favour of the attacking party

A kneecap of inches ambiguity with a TV camera angle not in-line and 57 varying wonky 'lines' displayed on TV does not make that at any time a right decision

Benefit of doubt is not in any of the rules yet you say the bit underlined

AidoEirE

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

How is that right when the blue line is behind the Huddersfield player

Because the argument was, is mata offside so the line corresponds with him (mata). Huddersfield's player's knee is past that blue line which means mata was onside....simple enough really

A Dub in Glasgo

Good competent display from Man United to breeze into the next round

Hotblack Desiato

At least the VAR bullshit had no influence on the result.

Decuc500

I would have preferred that performance and result in the league but still, happy days.

BorneTobyWilde

For me that is correct line, the white one. Looks well on .

BorneTobyWilde

The line of the box is straight, so must work off of that and keep an even width along that line when adding a line. And if you do you get above.
Don't get that blue line, half way into huddersfield player and then put ahead of Mata, and gets closer to the line of the box as it goes.
CRAZY

AidoEirE

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

For me that is correct line, the white one. Looks well on .

Theres no doubting that, he's onside on both lines just blue is in line with mata whcih shows him behind the huddersfield player, the white huddersfield. Pointless tit for tat stuff wer'e going over but both agree he's in either way

ctrl-alt-delete

What will VAR do when Microsoft ditch Paint?

BorneTobyWilde

AidoEirE wrote: »

Theres no doubting that, he's onside on both lines just blue is in line with mata, the white huddersfield. Pointless tit for tat stuff wer'e going over but both agree he's in either way

But blue line is on Huddersfield player, not on edge of his knee, it's half way up his thigh .

AidoEirE

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

But blue line is on Huddersfield player, not on edge of his knee, it's half way up his thigh .

Yeah the blue line is doing that which shows mata is behind the huddersfield player when the ball is played

BorneTobyWilde

A World Cup could be decided on these crazy lines. It's mad how they can't use the lines of the box to help them.
Running a line that is on the edge of line of box on one end and a foot away from it on other end is just dumb.

BorneTobyWilde

AidoEirE wrote: »

Yeah the blue line is doing that which shows mata is behind the huddersfield player when the ball is played

I don't get that logic.
Why complicate it. You put line on furthest forward part of Huddersfield players knee. That is where line should start, fullstop.

Ohmeha

BT/Graham Poll still asserting that the decision is correct based on their own black line which is still not anywhere straight

Total utter idiots

A Dub in Glasgo

They are certainly milking this VAR thing on BT Sport

1. It was the correct decision
2. It had no relevance to the outcome of the game

Rekop dog

He was onside on BT line and off on VAR one. Just goes to show the variance on these things.

Also always amazes me how commetators/ people use grass lines to call decisions, it's wildly assuming the groundsman got his lines inch perfect.

AidoEirE

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I don't get that logic.
Why complicate it. You put line on furthest forward part of Huddersfield players knee. That is where line should start, fullstop.

Im not, ive literally posted a pic which most people got the point of, which came off tv analysis. You posted your own with a counter even though the point was the same. Nothing complicated about it

Mr.Crinklewood

Ohmeha wrote: »

BT/Graham Poll still asserting that the decision is correct based on their own black line which is still not anywhere straight

Total utter idiots

It's as if they're trying to justify the VAR decision

Drumpot

Ohmeha wrote: »

BT/Graham Poll still asserting that the decision is correct based on their own black line which is still not anywhere straight

Total utter idiots

Would of been very interesting to see the reaction had it been a Huddersfield equalizer that was disallowed!

Ohmeha

The fact Jake re-asserted again before the ad that the decision is 'correct' suggests BT are toeing the FA line for their TV rights that all is good with VAR to downplay the rightly controversy and we have a happy ending

A Dub in Glasgo

Ohmeha wrote: »

suggests BT are toeing the FA line for their TV rights

You need to get out more if you truly believe that

deaddonkey15

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

The line of the box is straight, so must work off of that and keep an even width along that line when adding a line. And if you do you get above.
Don't get that blue line, half way into huddersfield player and then put ahead of Mata, and gets closer to the line of the box as it goes.
CRAZY

Which would be incorrect.

BorneTobyWilde

Even Bt's line cut through Huddersfield player. Plus when was ball played, can move a frame and he's well on, move a frame more and his knee will be off.

Ohmeha

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You need to get out more if you truly believe that

They are repeating that the decision is correct on their own black line which is not straight! BT are not going to shyte over the integrity of any of their expensive sport coverage

Corholio

Ohmeha wrote: »

and that the benefit of any doubt

A kneecap of inches ambiguity with a TV camera angle not in-line and 57 varying wonky 'lines' displayed on TV does not make that at any time a right decision

Benefit of any doubt doesn't exist in decision making process or rules. There was a faint effort about 10 years ago to introduce a way of thinking but was quickly changed into other forms of rules on the offside. I don't think anything is 100% clear cut, but on the line that was shown he is offside according to the rules. If the line is wrong then that's another thing. The only things thats sure really is all this confusion is another thing for VAR to sort out before it's fully rolled out, if at all.

Auroras_encore

Woeful performance, mourinho won't last playing that vomit

BorneTobyWilde

I thought all along that the furthest forward part of each player would be where line would be drawn. That never happened in any of the several versions of this decision, so I have no clue what rules are.
Everyone including BT put line through Huddersfield player, but in front of Mata except for his Knee.
All a coverup if you ask me. They needed to cut the line into Huddersfield player to justify the decision.

eagle eye

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You need to get out more if you truly believe that

I'm of the same opinion about it as him. I think you try too hard to not believe in conspiracy theories.

The big change in their view between halftime and 10 minutes into the second half is just too odd and it's very unlike a tv station to go that way.

I'm not sure what their reasons were for softening their viewpoint so much so quickly but there is something to it.

Beasty

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Even Bt's line cut through Huddersfield player. Plus when was ball played, can move a frame and he's well on, move a frame more and his knee will be off.

Just working through the maths. Usain Bolt can move at >10m/s. Say a footballer can move at half that speed. The ball can move faster than Bolt. I don't think you can say precisely when the ball is passed as it's in touch with the foot for a fraction of a second

At 24fps the player can move >20cm between frames. The ball can move more than twice that. Half those distances at 48fps. Either way I don't think there was anything conclusive with Mata's position when the ball was played based on that footage

I guess it keeps the talking points but the disruption to the game was my major concern about this. Line decisions are, theoretically, the "easy" ones. Give us back the old way. I prefer those human errors to risking technological errors.

AidoEirE

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I thought all along that the furthest forward part of each player would be where line would be drawn. That never happened in any of the several versions of this decision, so I have no clue what rules are.
Everyone including BT put line through Huddersfield player, but in front of Mata except for his Knee.
All a coverup if you ask me. They needed to cut the line into Huddersfield player to justify the decision.

Never happened of any version of this discussion, did we not have a discussion about it only a few hours ago 😕

A Dub in Glasgo

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm of the same opinion about it as him. I think you try too hard to not believe in conspiracy theories.

Good luck with those conspiracy theories

Rekop dog

Rekop dog wrote: »

United so far resemble a conference team who took a shock lead and are holding on for their dear lives.

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Mourinho is a big mole on the face of the beautiful game.

They'll win it but everyone will just hate them a bit more by the end.

I read these among the first few posts in the thread, then decided not to venture any further.

Sure how would you even attempt to genuinely discuss a match in the match threads, they're long gone to fúck.

Minderbinder

Can a defender’s hand keep a forward onside or must it be a part of the defenders body that can play the ball?

Giggsy11

Deleted User wrote: »

I read these among the first few posts in the thread, then decided not to venture any further.

Sure how would you even attempt to genuinely discuss a match in the match threads, they're long gone to fúck.

Better these are contained in single thread which no one reads.

Unearthly

Unearthly wrote: »

I'm sure the game will suddenly matter to you if the score swings around

So true.

Not a meg out of them now :P

Rekop dog

Rekop dog wrote: »

United so far resemble a conference team who took a shock lead and are holding on for their dear lives.

Ah lads, the material is getting weak

Harry Palmr

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Mourinho is a big mole on the face of the beautiful game.

They'll win it but everyone will just hate them a bit more by the end.

Another doozy :P

LuckyLloyd

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Another doozy :P

Do you think Mourinho garners love for Utd generally?

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Do you think Mourinho garners love for Utd generally?

Do you think he is akin to a mole on someone's face?

Morzadec

Minderbinder wrote: »

Can a defender’s hand keep a forward onside or must it be a part of the defenders body that can play the ball?

I had the same question yesterday and was told (as I suspected) that the hand does not count (not a part of the body that can legally play the ball).

It's therefore very clearly offside, as the line is the Huds player's knee. Mata's head and right knee are clearly ahead of it.

So 100% correct decision, not that it really mattered in the end.

Beasty

Morzadec wrote: »

I had the same question yesterday and was told (as I suspected) that the hand does not count (not a part of the body that can legally play the ball).

It's therefore very clearly offside, as the line is the Huds player's knee. Mata's head and right knee are clearly ahead of it.

So 100% correct decision, not that it really mattered in the end.

I really cannot see how anyone can be 100% certain either way in this example given the distance the ball and players can travel between frames.

You would need at least 2 frozen frames to be conclusive and I've only seen one (and that was blurry)

Photo finish cameras work at up to 10000 fps. TV operates at 24 fps

pjohnson

Morzadec wrote: »

I had the same question yesterday and was told (as I suspected) that the hand does not count (not a part of the body that can legally play the ball).

It's therefore very clearly offside, as the line is the Huds player's knee. Mata's head and right knee are clearly ahead of it.

So 100% correct decision, not that it really mattered in the end.

His head isn't offside anyway, you may be able to claim that his right kneecap may be just beyond Schindlers knee but its ridiculously tight. What DOES matter is VAR is supposed to help decide these issues, at best it was inconclusive and in reality it had slanted wobbly lines to judge the offside.

Morzadec

Beasty wrote: »

I really cannot see how anyone can be 100% certain either way in this example given the distance the ball and players can travel between frames.

You would need at least 2 frozen frames to be conclusive and I've only seen one (and that was blurry)

Photo finish cameras work at up to 10000 fps. TV operates at 24 fps

Taking the assumption that the frame is taken at the exact moment the passer makes contact with the ball to strike it into Mata's path, then he is 100% offside and there is no debate.

You raise the fact that the above assumption may be wrong - not something I've given a lot of thought to but is an interesting point. Who decides when the frame is stopped? Is this always correct? It's not something I know anything about. It could be fascinating to see this broken down and if the frame is taken here is a split second after the passer truly passes the ball (or if this is in any way up for debate when he exactly passes it) then you have to of course re-appraise the whole situation.

I've always just taken it for granted that the frame is accurate (or as close to accurate as can be reasonably be expected) to the moment the pass is made when appraising offside decisions. Is there anything to suggest there could be significant errors here across the board, or any studies that have looked into this?

Morzadec

pjohnson wrote: »

His head isn't offside anyway, you may be able to claim that his right kneecap may be just beyond Schindlers knee but its ridiculously tight. What DOES matter is VAR is supposed to help decide these issues, at best it was inconclusive and in reality it had slanted wobbly lines to judge the offside.

Agree that there should be a definitive line so there is 0 chance for subjectivity (for the record though I do think at least half of his head is ahead of that knee :pac:)

I'm not a big fan of VAR but offside is one area where I think it should be used as it is the only area where there really should be no degree of subjectivity. Get the lines, the frames, the angles right, and you should definitively have an objective answer for every offside decision, because even if it's just centimetre of a nose that's ahead of the line, that's still offside.

I maintain that the officials definitely got that decision right (if we assume that the stoppage of the frame is correct), but I totally agree that the squiggly lines that are not even in line with the offside line do nothing to instill confidence in VAR or clarify anything for the viewer at home!

I also think broadcasters should take the delay to explain the specifics of the offside rule clearly to the punters on screen (a bit like in rugby where they explain what penalties are given for) - it always shocks me how many seasoned watchers of football don't truly know what the offside rule is and talk about "daylight" or "benefit of the doubt".

Royale with Cheese

Morzadec wrote: »

it always shocks me how many seasoned watchers of football don't truly know what the offside rule is and talk about "daylight" or "benefit of the doubt".

That really should be the rule though. It would be quite hard to define exactly where to draw the line, but a centimetre of your nose being ahead of the last defender should never lead to a goal being ruled out. Without VAR the definition didn't need to explicitly state this, as allowing for human error you wouldn't need ever need to define the rule this exactly. If you're going to have VAR for offside from now on then I think the definition of exactly what is and what isn't offside will need some updating.

Morzadec

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

That really should be the rule though. It would be quite hard to define exactly where to draw the line, but a centimetre of your nose being ahead of the last defender should never lead to a goal being ruled out. Without VAR the definition didn't need to explicitly state this, as allowing for human error you wouldn't need ever need to define the rule this exactly. If you're going to have VAR for offside from now on then I think the definition of exactly what is and what isn't offside will need some updating.

That's a fair enough opinion to hold, but the current rule is as is so decisions shouldn't be up for opinion.

Any other rule that might be more attacker friendlt is going to have extreme borderline cases too (eg more than half the body ahead of the ball = offside). There does need to be some clear line drawn in the rules so I think there will always be these edge cases where it seems very harsh.

The thing is is that no one has a problem with goal line tech, even if one tiny sliver of the ball isn't over the line they accept it and never talk about "benefit of the doubt". We should be able to get the frames frozen, the angles correct and the lines drawn in such an objectively correct and undebatable manner so as to have the same faith in these offside decisions.

Though I do kind of think it might be better all round to just scrap it altogether and take the rough with the smooth with regards to marginal incorrect calls

Beasty

Just wait until we see one where a player's hairstyle influences a decision. Fellaini may need to shave his head to avoid inadvertently playing someone onside :pac:

Morzadec

Beasty wrote: »

Just wait until we see one where a player's hairstyle influences a decision. Fellaini may need to shave his head to avoid inadvertently playing someone onside :pac:

Could happen and I suppose it would be fair enough! Aguero scored one with his hair this season!

Maybe mandatory bald heads is the answer to avoid any controversy?

Beasty

Morzadec wrote: »

Maybe mandatory bald heads is the answer to avoid any controversy?

Skullcaps, FTW.

osarusan

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

If you're going to have VAR for offside from now on then I think the definition of exactly what is and what isn't offside will need some updating.

I agree, and I also agree with Morzadec that if VAR is going to work for offsides, then it needs to be made as simple and there for as objective as possible - if any part of the body (apart from the arms) is beyond the VAR line, even an inch, then it will be considered offside.