Ann Dan Otherthing
-
Posts
229 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Ann Dan Otherthing
-
-
2 hours ago, Diamonds are Forever said:
She was definitely clipped, you only really see it from one angle though. In real time I would never have thought it was a penalty and even after about 3 replays was still convinced that it wasn't.
This is where they need to decide how VAR is going to be used. In the end it was the correct decision, but by no definition was that a clear and obvious error, it took the VAR team and then the referee about 2 minutes each to spot it, and plenty people still can't spot it. If they want to get every decision right then they are going to get numerous incidents like this a game and it is going to kill the spectacle.
For me the only way it is going to work is a challenge system. You get say one incorrect challenge a half/match, whatever they decide. It would reduce stoppages and end all the protesting and appealing about reviewing it with VAR. They either back themselves with a challenge or shut up.
For me, the England player’s foot came back up, as she prepared to shoot, and that heel caught the defender’s knee. Certainly no pen for me and justice was done.
0 -
1 hour ago, Binos said:
I don't understand the new offside rule
One foot in front can be due to stride pattern at the very moment of pass, something which doesn't give an advantage and previously blissfully unaware of prior to the nonsense of var
There is no ‘new rule’. If any part of the body that can legally play the ball is in an offside position (which it was), when the ball was played by a teammate, regardless of intent or advantage gained, if the player then plays the ball or impacts an opponent, then they are offside. VAR got that one spot on.
2 -
The ref from our game v Argentina was 4th official on the England game and not already back in N.Korea, as I thought she'd be! Provided neither USA nor China (and maybe even Japan) don't get to the final, maybe she's being lined up for that slot...
0 -
My final bit about the timing...
First VAR review took 2:55. Second took 0:12, so there should have been 3:07 for VAR alone. There were 5 substitutions in the second half, 2 Scotland players were cautioned for time wasting and both goes at the pen took an eternity (2:24 for the first and 1:01 for the second). I'd have expected added stoppage time of around 7 mins and she played just over 5.
And now for some good news (unless you were looking forward to more chaos!)...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/487038521 -
38 minutes ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:
There writes someone who has never experienced a pressurised sporting situation. Alexander's nerves and composure were shot thro after the decision to retake the penalty, and I'll hazard that like me, she's probably wondering today how every penalty she's ever seen has passed of without retake - it was a piece of utter shite.
If you doubt what I say, watch that second penalty again - Alexander is so confused she's like a drunk trying to stay on their feet by the time the ball is struck.
What's it got to do with me? She was either off the line or wasn't. She was. As far as that highlighted sentence is concerned, my experience (which you have NO knowledge of) is totally irrelevant.
Yes I agree she was in shock after that and that's understandable.
Re previous history on pens - things have changed and unfortunately VAR has arrived. I've never fancied it and still don't, but it WAS correct. As someone else said - do we need to look back at non sanctioned passbacks to confirm things have changed.0 -
Just for some clarity on this. The total time spent on the 2 VAR reviews was 4:45. On top of that, for numerous substitutions and 2 cards for Scotland time wasting, the ref played a whole 30 seconds more - clearly wrong, but nothing like the 10 mins that some people think should have been played beyond the 90. I was expecting another 3 or 4 mins when it was stopped. But hey, it stopped them scoring or indeed us scoring and still not going through!
The Ref simply wasn't in a position to give the pen. It wasn't stonewall, but was a foul and while a bit over the top, I'd rather they properly considered not giving it for so long, than simply jumping in after 30 secs perusal (which would have upset many on here).
The keeper was off the line, despite an excessive briefing from the ref before the kick was taken. No idea why the ref felt any need to explain the laws to her!
We can't blame Argentina for playing to the whistle when our sub wasn't on, never mind in a defensive position. The Ref whistled to restart - prematurely and that indeed is something that should never happen - that's down to her and the 4th official. They're probably back in N. Korea by now.
Oh and for those saying the standard of officials at this tournament needs looked at - while men are excluded that's always going to be an issue, as (guessing) 90% of refs are excluded!
0 -
3 hours ago, JamieStevenson said:
TAA will surely be caught out eventually.
Certainly was?!?
0 -
46 minutes ago, Iminavest said:
With VAR next season, would that be a red card with the goal disallowed and a pen or would the goal stand and a sending off in the aftermath?
You cannot be serious!
Imagine a last minute goal, that would keep a team up, or promote them, or win something - the goal is disallowed, so that the sending off can happen and a penalty awarded... which could be missed. No way!0 -
38 minutes ago, bc57 said:
Would only have been a throw in! 3rd goal clearly well offside, which, tbf, I was unaware of at the time.
Look again? This was immediately after the pass and for me he’s still onside at this point.
0 -
On 15/01/2019 at 21:54, roseyposey said:
Its a £200 Panasonic out of argos, does not take add on mics etc
Even without an external mic, you can cut down wind noise various ways. Worth a try if it is overly distracting:
https://m.youtube.com/results?search_query=Wind+noise+on+compact+camera+video
0 -
If the cameraperson is reading, a wind muffler around the microphone would help (there will also be settings in camera that can reduce wind noise). You can get them from Amazon or juryrig something.
0 -
54 minutes ago, surely not! said:
Regarding offside. The definition applied by referees nowadays when working out if a player has influenced play when a defender deliberately plays the ball ( as opposed to making a block or ball rebounding of them) is a phrase known as ‘playing distance’ .
This essentially equates to the attacker either making contact with the defender or being close enough to make contact through one movement ( essentially within a six foot/two yard range).
The onus is now on defenders to trust the officials rather than attempt to play the ball and perhaps misjudge it or misplay it. I don’t agree with the rule but the officials are only implementing the rules as directed by fifa. The big issue is that so many involved in the game ( players, coaches and fans) don’t know this and then abuse the official for actually making the correct decision - which he didn’t do on this occasion.
What he said!
1 -
I’m clearly not gonna name a source, who strongly disagrees with the refs decision, albeit with the benefit of a video replay. Sorry.
We’re just going to have to agree to disagree. I saw that and thought never an offside, ran it by him and he agreed with me:
“Not offside for me as he's not clearly interfering with play or an opponent, not close enough to be active.”
A Dunbar supporter (presumably) doesn’t even see him as in an offside position (way wrong for me!). The only fact is, it was given. Other than that you, presumably not a ref, disagree with one who is up to date with current application of offside. Long gone are the days where being in an offside position means the decision is given. Yes the Lovren one is a cartoon, but for me perfectly set out the situation, but if you prefer, here’s a screenshot of Kane’s offside position. because of where he was Lovren panicked and only scuffed the ball to him, Kane was then brought down by the keeper, or dived and no offside was given.
0 -
13 hours ago, GordonS said:
You left off the final two bullet points of that part of the law.
His position forces the defender to make an attempt to play the ball, that's how he interferes with the opponent. The only reason the defender attempts to play the ball is because of the player behind him.
I don't believe anyone really thinks that wasn't offside, tbh.
Oops so I did, unintentionally., which says ‘clearly intending to play the ball which is close... or.. impacts on the opponent’s ability to play the ball’.
I’d have added nope for those also, as the Dunbar player is too far away to be counted as ‘close’.
I accept that the defender did panic because of him. But having since picked the brains of a senior Ref, the consensus is that’s not enough nowadays. A bit like the mishit by Lovren v Spurs last season, when he hurried and mishit a clearance, because a Spurs player was behind him (in an offside position and even closer to the Liverpool defender that the Dunbar player was to the Rose defender on Saturday)
See:
0 -
Looks like the Rose benefited from one decision and one non-decision.
Firstly, not offside for me:A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or (Nope)
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision (Nope) or
challenging an opponent for the ball (Hardly - he was 4 / 5 yards away, admittedly 'loitering with intent', but I read somewhere that 'being in an offside position is not in itself an offence')And the number 9 who appeared to be getting away with dissent at the throw-in (which looks right), then talking himself into the book, was lucky not to pick up a second yellow later!
1 -
Moonlight, last night. Dev Patel was robbed of the Best Supporting Actor Oscar! This for me was so so. May have been better if we could have understood more of what was said. The camera focus was also out at times (maybe deliberate though, as short depth of field was also used a lot!). 5/10. Some good performances and a decent story.
0 -
As a so called referee you are simply clueless in questioning the sending off. If your 'all levels' includes Champions League stuff then can we have some of the drugs you must be on, as that was clearly denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Check the laws of the game - they have changed since the seventies. E.g. Did you know the keeper can only hold the ball for 6 seconds and can't pick up pass backs?!?Congrats to Thistle for a brilliant job well done. Went to the match on a whim, and had a great day, but why did Collum have to spoil things with that ludicrous sending off? Ok, he seemed to have a reasonable performance, but, let's face it, the man simply cannot referee, and that's all there is to it. Oh, and for the record, I have refereed at all levels for over 35 years, so I have an idea what I'm talking about. Anyway, congrats again and best of luck!
0 -
Films 12 & 13 of the year last night, with It Follows disappointing, especially after glowing tributes from Film 2015 and Mark Kermode and a 5.0 for me. Very Halloweenish, from boogie man/woman to music. Second of my double bill was just a bolt on, as my wife had girlies in - The Wedding Ringer was brilliantly funny, even if somewhat derived from other comedies. Had a Hangover feel to it at times, with LOLs all the way through - an unexpected 8.0 and a must see if you liked Hangover or I Love You Man.
0 -
Any highlights available for Hurlford's away win at Edinburgh Uni?
0
Semi Finals
in Misc Other Fitba Chat
Posted
Doesn't matter how tight it is, the part of the body is either offside or it's not (in line is not). She was offside last night and while it's possible a lino would get that call wrong (the so-called benefit of the doubt), VAR got it right.