It wasn’t miles over the line tho

1 still defo looked marginally over but we know how deceptive it can be when the whole of the ball must be over the whole of the line

I wouldn’t be comfortable stepping in there when the tech has been correct on the previous 9000 odd occasions

Posted By: SCC 28 on June 18th 2020 at 08:57:39

Message Thread

I’ve seen the Hawkeye statement re that VAR goal but have the refs group (NCFC) - Jim, Jun 18, 08:49:32
- It wasn’t miles over the line tho (NCFC) - SCC 28, Jun 18, 08:57:39
  - Come off it it was clearly over the line, certainly in comparison with the (NCFC) - Jim, Jun 18, 10:22:07
    - Couldn’t see any daylight (NCFC) - SCC 28, Jun 18, 11:10:34
      - He's in the side netting with his hand between the ball and the post (n/m) (NCFC) - Jim, Jun 18, 11:36:49
        
        Yes probably an inch over (n/m) (NCFC) - SCC 28, Jun 18, 12:09:35
    - They should at least have notified the ref of a potential issue. (NCFC) - The Gaffer, Jun 18, 10:27:48
      - There was a break in play shortly after the incident too (n/m) (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Jun 18, 10:32:12
  - There is no defence (NCFC) - Ben, Jun 18, 09:50:15
  - marginal my arse (NCFC) - ghostof barry butler, Jun 18, 09:07:31
    - Yes that’s the split second it looked over (NCFC) - SCC 28, Jun 18, 09:14:47
      - But now we question if those 9000 decisions were correct? (n/m) (NCFC) - Kar1, Jun 18, 10:48:43
        
        They were correct (n/m) (NCFC) - SCC 28, Jun 18, 11:11:06
  - Have to say I agree there - it would be a ballsy VAR to go against it (NCFC) - Yellalee, Jun 18, 08:59:35
    - Presumably they need a better error reporting system that goes to the VAR (NCFC) - Yellalee, Jun 18, 09:01:22
      - Yeah we should have seen the virtual replay (NCFC) - SCC 28, Jun 18, 09:04:26
        
        how would they do that if the cameras can't see the ball? (n/m) (NCFC) - Chris Peacock, Jun 18, 10:13:10
        
        Would be the last moment the cameras could see the ball (n/m) (NCFC) - SCC 28, Jun 18, 10:18:09
- I don't get it (NCFC) - inutero, Jun 18, 08:53:33
  - They have said it wasn't working - all cameras were obscured in that scenario apparently (n/m) (NCFC) - Yellalee, Jun 18, 08:57:07
    - Which is b**locks since there are plenty of camera angles available. (n/m) (NCFC) - Jim, Jun 18, 10:22:41
      - And, I think it isn’t bollocks.... (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Jun 18, 10:31:38
      - For context though, it’s been wrong once in what, 8 years? (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Jun 18, 10:30:03
        
        Don;t disagree. Not having a go at hawkeye. the problem here was VAR not (NCFC) - Jim, Jun 18, 10:43:29
        
        That's not how you statistically calculate error rate. (n/m) (NCFC) - The Gaffer, Jun 18, 10:43:23
        
        Who said it was? (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Jun 18, 11:02:49
        
        You miss the point but that's fine. We can agree to differ. (n/m) (NCFC) - The Gaffer, Jun 18, 12:00:22
        
        That's not the correct context. (NCFC) - The Gaffer, Jun 18, 10:37:18
        
        It is the correct context.... (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Jun 18, 10:39:32
    - Sorry, read your post again and you do mention that! (n/m) (NCFC) - Yellalee, Jun 18, 08:57:53

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.