• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

*Official OMT* - The day before a cup semi vs Chelsea and no OMT?

Man of the match


  • Total voters
    54
  • Poll closed .
skysports-chelsea-tottenham_4541159.jpg


skysports-kane-offside-tottenham_4541143.jpg


It's a bit strange that they don't draw the line and have it sort of cut upwards as well (as they do sometimes). If you're going to use technology like this, then have it work properly.

Looks to me like the picture Chelski is using is slightly behind the VAR picture though (although difficult to say exactly). The line drawn by Chelski also looks slightly dubious, in my opinion.
 
I've finally seen some highlights that included the Son chance, and it really looks as though Christensen grabbed his arm then made sure Sonny couldn't get to the ball. Surely a red card offense? I think the ref bottled it as it was so early in the game. On 80 minutes, that's got to be a sending off.

No mention on the BBC text commentary about it being reviewed. Does anyone know for sure whether VAR was used for that one?

If like to see that as it looked clear as to me

My mate watching on TV said it was being reviewed
 
skysports-chelsea-tottenham_4541159.jpg


skysports-kane-offside-tottenham_4541143.jpg


It's a bit strange that they don't draw the line and have it sort of cut upwards as well (as they do sometimes). If you're going to use technology like this, then have it work properly.

Looks to me like the picture Chelski is using is slightly behind the VAR picture though (although difficult to say exactly). The line drawn by Chelski also looks slightly dubious, in my opinion.

The lien that Chelsea drew is after the ball was struck and doesn’t run parallel with the half way line

My 5 year old could do it like that
 
skysports-chelsea-tottenham_4541159.jpg


skysports-kane-offside-tottenham_4541143.jpg


It's a bit strange that they don't draw the line and have it sort of cut upwards as well (as they do sometimes). If you're going to use technology like this, then have it work properly.

Looks to me like the picture Chelski is using is slightly behind the VAR picture though (although difficult to say exactly). The line drawn by Chelski also looks slightly dubious, in my opinion.

Incomprehensible that in 2019 we should be talking about lines drawn at different angles.

It is anything but rocket science to have a software programme that computes the respective distance of the players from the camera and establishes their exact position on the pitch at the time of the pass...
 
Incomprehensible that in 2019 we should be talking about lines drawn at different angles.

It is anything but rocket science to have a software programme that computes the respective distance of the players from the camera and establishes their exact position on the pitch at the time of the pass...

Yep, the point I was trying to make! :)
 
Incomprehensible that in 2019 we should be talking about lines drawn at different angles.

It is anything but rocket science to have a software programme that computes the respective distance of the players from the camera and establishes their exact position on the pitch at the time of the pass...
Isn’t that what VAR are using? Seems like Chelsea are using Microsoft point.
 
They are supposed to review all incidents involving possible penalty situations with or without a request from the ref AFAIK, and from the angle shown on the BBC, you can clearly see him locking arms with Son and going to ground, so it's a mystery to me why it wasn't taken further.

So IF it was looked at by VAR it is yet another one they got wrong.
 
So IF it was looked at by VAR it is yet another one they got wrong.

Did it start outside the box? If so, they might say not a penalty decision per se, therefore all other bets off and potential red card offence irrelevant. I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that's how it worked.
 
Just seen that in sours website
Clear foul IMO
Arm pulled and his right leg take sonny’s left

That is how i saw it, now i have heard some say VFR looked at it ( i have no idea if they did) and IF they did they got that wrong as well. So much for making the game better.
 
That is how i saw it, now i have heard some say VFR looked at it ( i have no idea if they did) and IF they did they got that wrong as well. So much for making the game better.

Unless they were sticking to a deliberately narrow set of criteria (has to be a yes-or-no decision on a penalty first) and that was what gave them the excuse to dismiss it.* As I said, I don't know that was the case, but it wouldn't surprise me.


* You know, sort of like a Government Enquiry or Royal Commission.
 
Last edited:
The foul on Son was outside the box, seemed to release him by the time they were in the box? I think it just shows that var doesn't take away interpretation. And the 'clear and obvious' thing means you could say the foul wasn't massively obvious. If it was the Ref would have seen it! Which begs the question, why bother having VAR at all? Our pen would have stood without var too, aparently the linos are told to raise their flag in such var situations and he didn't look like he would have raised it otherwise.

Alonso paid off the family of said girl to avoid doing jail time.
 
Back