Forest vs PGMOL | Page 5 | Vital Football

Forest vs PGMOL

Barry Goldie said:
Well this ain't gonna go away quickly is it.

Further down in the article that now infers either PGMOL or Clattenburg are lieing about what was discussed pre game about atwell. The mail seems to be backing Clattenburg's version of events but I guess they would. Cant really see what Clattenburg has to gain by lieing in this situation.

Hope we string something out against Neville even if there isn't much there to answer to. Make him sweat and stress for a while. Fed up of his condescending attitude and comments to Forest.
Click to expand...
I agree that would be hilarious but he's bang on with the mafia bit and I thought exactly the same myself when I read it.


We simply cannot accept it.
They were warned.
Our patience has been tested multiple times.


These are lines right out of the godfather.
 
weejockmcplop said:
My rule would be if the player is onside in one frame and offside in the next, and its not clear when the ball was actually kicked between the two frames, give the decision to the attacking team.
Click to expand...
That's probably very sensible. I'd have to think about how many pixels of movement there would be in 1/25th second. Not many.
 
in_the_top_one said:
Ok.. I wasn't expecting you to say that.

Having looked into it... I'm still not sure.

"Chorea-acanthocytosis (ChAc) is an autosomal, recessive hereditary disease characterized by striatal neurodegeneration and acanthocytosis, and caused by loss of function mutations in the vacuolar protein sorting 13 homolog A (VPS13A) gene. VPS13A encodes chorein whose physiological function at the molecular level is poorly understood. In this study, we show that chorein interacts with β-adducin and β-actin. "

Put me down as a maybe, but I'm going to start with a beer.
Click to expand...
Basically, how I see every fucking Canadian in my mind. Look for the last line.

 
Skip_4 said:
For me offside is about having an advantage ie being ahead of the last man when the ball is played. I'd prefer it to be something like daylight between them as that is a definite advantage.

The game would be better without VAR. Decisions haven't improved and fans can't celebrate goals properly anymore. It's wank.
Click to expand...
But some subjective assessment of daylight or advantage only leads to more inconsistency. Might as well not have it at all.

I'd also say that you're only taking about degrees of advantage. If they're ahead at all, they're ahead. A hair's breadth makes no material difference, but a foot does. Where do you want the VAR to draw the line between those? Did the speed of the players make a difference? What about their relative speeds?
I get that you personally wouldn't have it at all, but some say that it should be kept but not give marginal offsides. I don't get that.
 
Skip_4 said:
Well probably the torso, that shows you're beyond the last man conclusively enough. The threshold for being 'ahead' right now is just banter.
Click to expand...
I can see a very good argument for it being the chest at, say, badge height.

Legs are particularly problematic because they go back and forth.
 
stenroach said:
Basically, how I see every fucking Canadian in my mind. Look for the last line.

Click to expand...
Well that was a waste of time. Did he say chorin'? As in, he had chores to do?

You'd be better off reading Ingy's back catalogue for comedy.

And what's the relevance? I told you I'm not Canadian, lovely as it is.
 
Richard Key's blog

What else is there to say? You all saw it.

I know. I’m late. I’m sorry, but my problem was knowing where to start after what happened at Wembley this weekend - and I’m not just talking
richardajkeys.com richardajkeys.com

I’ve nothing but sympathy for Forest fans today. I know we haven’t always seen eye to eye, but I’m with you now. What a disgrace that was at Goodison. And not for one minute do I agree with Mssrs Jordan, Souness or Neville (Oh what selective memories some people have) that the club had no right to issue the statement that followed the game. Yes they did.

No team has suffered more from poor decisions this season than Forest. Wolves come close, followed by West Ham. Hold on…..I’d better stop there before I name them all. Fulham. Burnley. See what I mean?

No. After what I saw at Goodison, when I caught up on the weekend’s games, Forest are out on their own.

Let’s be generous - one of the decisions was debatable. But, in truth, all three were pens. And I’ve nothing against Everton, whose fans are both knowledgable and honest. They know, like United, they got away with one.

The reason I don’t have a problem with Forest’s statement is because I happen to know that they warned Howard Webb (showbiz showbiz showbiz) on Friday that appointing Stuart Attwell to VAR was asking for trouble. Attwell is a Luton fan.

That’s not news - we all know that now. Forest knew it on Friday and asked for Attwell to be removed - quietly and without going public. Good call. Why not?

Nobody at Forest was suggesting that Attwell would adversely affect the game. I don’t believe any ref ever sets out to make bad decisions, but there’s always the risk of a game turning out the way it did - with controversial decisions being made - and a stench to follow.

I’ve argued this so many times when Anthony Taylor gets games between Man City/United and Liverpool. Of course he won’t make bad decisions intentionally, but why run the risk of him making a genuine mistake that backfires on him? Why? It’s stupid. It’s also arrogant and stubborn for the PGMOL to continue this practice. It’s bitten them badly with Attwell. I feel for the guy. I really do. It’s not his fault, although you could argue that he should’ve recused himself.

Webb was fully aware of the dangers. He should’ve stood Attwell down. Referees wanted to play a bigger role on match days. They wanted to be professionals. They wanted to be taken seriously. Well with those things comes accountability and scrutiny. I’m sorry, but that’s how it is now. We all live in that world.

If the small number of us that keep asking questions and pointing out failings don’t keep up that work nothing will change. I’m with Forest on this one.
 
If there was some subconscious bias from the prem and officials you'd really wonder why wouldnt you? lolol
 
I watched the Leeds game last night. Mowatt does a superb sliding tackle. Gets the ball a good yard before then catching the man. Ref books Mowatt for intent dangerous play. All those Stuart Pierce tackles are now illegal. It didn’t matter that he clearly got the ball, it was that he got the man and was dangerous.

Young’s tackle on CHO was from behind and if as Taylor states he did get the ball, why wasn’t it a foul as he clearly took his ankles and was dangerous. Particularly with CHO Achilles issues. The consistency is lacking. Not that he touched the ball?

Minimal contact? Got the ball?

If football is to survive we need to know when it is handball and when it is accidental. We need to know is it getting to ball or is it intent or in control after the ball so not dangerous. We need to know if the smallest trip is a foul or little contact. This isn’t just Taylor, Attwell or Jones. It is every ref, pundit and fan. Clarity is required. Let’s hear the discussion between ref and VAR and why they decide what they do. Let’s hear them decide frame by frame so we can see when there was contact and why that contact was deemed sufficient or not. Other sports can do it, why not football.
 
in_the_top_one said:
Agree with all this except the bit about a gnat's cock offside.
I haven't googled it but I'm guessing a gnat's cock isn't very long or wide (maybe even smaller than AdebolaCornflakes', who knows?) but if it's offside, surely it's offside. That's one area where VAR can be fairly accurate and consistent, so long as they draw the lines right.
I get frustrated with people saying, it was only a toe, give them the benefit of the doubt. Well, if it was clearly a toe, then it has to be offside. You can't draw any other arbitrary lines.
Click to expand...
It's where the lines are drawn, the thickness and at what point the frame is stopped (has the ball actually been kicked, etc.) we are looking at pixels here.
Instead of VAR looking for reasons to disallow a goal, they should be just looking for clear and obvious errors. The Covvy one has underlined that.
 
It should just be drawn to the attackers leading foot. If a player's upper body is "offside" because they've anticipated/reacted to a through ball quicker and started to lean into the run, that's superb timing in my opinion. Provided the feet are onside then it's all good for me.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
One of the most appalling things has been seeing the "pundit refs" rally round in panic to defend their mates

https://twitter.com/x/status/1782368595512574209
Click to expand...
That's laughable.

Haven't got any time for his explanations he took a job and gets paid to explain the tough calls but as this points out he's rarely consistent. Always backing his mates unless it's a grade A clanger.

He refers to a movement in tolerance of contact. If these are things / decisions taking place mid season you would expect there to be announcements to clubs about that but seemingly they just use that line by way of excuses without having communicated. It's not transparent and it causes confusion, this at best given there probably had been no actual decision documented and made to change the tolerance anyway.
 
I think the club should release a video reel on social media, of all the shit decisions we have had to take up the ass!
Boly sending off
Liverpool game
Ivan toney moving the ball
Everton game.

Thats just off the top of my head, sure there are others.

Fully support what the club are doing,

Its not pretty, but we have tried working with the powers that be and doesn't seem to make any difference!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.