The official, though undoubtedly misunderstood or derided, 24/25 VAR thread

[City Fan]

Overturning a decision based on inconclusive evidence sniffs of a conspiracy. Expect a lot of these against us this season.

 

[pork pie fox]

The part I can't get my head round is that it was overturned.

 

[City Fan]

That’s a 2 point deduction sorted. Only about 8 more to go.

Honestly, **** the Premier League.

 

[Volpone]

That’s a 2 point deduction sorted. Only about 8 more to go.

Honestly, **** the Premier League.

They won't stop until we are in the bottom 3 and relegated.

 

[SilverFox]

Overturning a decision based on inconclusive evidence sniffs of a conspiracy. Expect a lot of these against us this season.

That shouldn’t be the case, but you can’t help think it.

 

[Brown Nose]

I'm not having conspiracy theories about us and the PL.

If VAR has demonstrated anything over the last few years, it is that they don't have the first idea what they're doing.

It's beyond credibility that there is a concerted effort to pick on us.

It's incompetence, plain and simple.

 

[pork pie fox]

I'm not having conspiracy theories about us and the PL.

If VAR has demonstrated anything over the last few years, it is that they don't have the first idea what they're doing.

It's beyond credibility that there is a concerted effort to pick on us.

It's incompetence, plain and simple.

I agree. Listening to fans of various teams, you'd think the whole league was against every team. I don't think referees are biased/corrupt etc, I think they're just capable of making shit decisions.

 

[H T B]

Selhurst park is the worse ground for camera angles, apparently.

If this fact is well known, then the decision should have been made beforehand, that if evidence was not conclusive to over turn a ref’s or ref’s assistant decision, then go with their call.

There is no way, you can say there was conclusive evidence to over turn the flagged offside decision.

 

[Robin127]

I BN is correct in the post match thread that this was the image they used (albeit cropped here) to determine the call, there is no way Mateta was onside.

 

[jb5000]

To believe that the people running football are engaged in a conspiracy against your club is to believe that the people running football are capable of planning and delivering on an objective, and doing so with the upmost secrecy.

 

[Jeff]

I BN is correct in the post match thread that this was the image they used (albeit cropped here) to determine the call, there is no way Mateta was onside.

View attachment 18976

That's the only image I've seen that makes him look like he might be onside. Justin's toenail could be playing him on.

 

[pork pie fox]

That's the only image I've seen that makes him look like he might be onside. Justin's toenail could be playing him on.

For me, it’s more that I can’t see how they can accurately pinpoint the location of the various body parts, given the angle they’re using.

 

[Jeff]

For me, it’s more that I can’t see how they can accurately pinpoint the location of the various body parts, given the angle they’re using.

Yep. No way they can say anything for certain from that picture. Got to go with the original decision, the lino was in a much better position to see it than the camera.

 

[Robin127]

That's the only image I've seen that makes him look like he might be onside. Justin's toenail could be playing him on.

I drew a line on top of the pecked one that is shown on the original photo coming from JJ's foot, I then transposed the line to Mateta. Offside easily, knee, head or hand.

 

[Mike - True Blue Tinter]

Shite decision. VAR was always sold as intervening when there was a ‘Clear and Obvious Error’. So the difference may be millimetres and within error margins.
So it is not a clear and obvious error.

 

[Jeff]

VAR was always sold as intervening when there was a ‘Clear and Obvious Error’.

They've never said that for offsides. It either is or it isn't, there's supposed to be no room for doubt. Unless it's about whether someone is interfering with play or not.

 

[pork pie fox]

They've never said that for offsides. It either is or it isn't. Unless it's about whether someone is interfering with play or not.

That’s the problem, though, in this instance. It doesn’t look like they can draw a line that accurately demonstrates whether it is or isn’t.

 

[Robin127]

Therefore the linesmans decision should have stood.

 

[DillyDing22]

I’m sorry but several people in the match thread were adamant that every angle was clearly onside.

 

[H T B]

Why did they take Mateta’s position from his knee?
Looks like his head is further forward,
Most people run with their head further forward, not like Forrest Gump!