this looks sooooo weird, look at the vitality dog in the first and the second picture. Can the perspective really be this deceiving????

6 minutes ago, azpi28 said:

they just moved jota back in the second image 

on the first one the liverpool player on the left appears to be in front of the forrest #3, in the second picture he is roughly in the same line or even a bit behind the forrest #3 (so the perspective change, all else being equal, put the liverpool players even further behind the forrest #4) which means if it was perspective that has changed you would expect Jota to be even further offside 

Is anyone going to address the elephant in the room.... look at the advertising hoardings, the images are taken at different times. Why?

1 minute ago, Jackbuchanan said:

Is anyone going to address the elephant in the room.... look at the advertising hoardings, the images are taken at different times. Why?

it's not different times because the stewards are also in different position, it's really confusing and all the players are in same body shape

it just doesn't look right

The VAR can freeze the frame at any point he likes to give a decision, roll it forward or back to fit an agenda to favour or harm any team they like.

The referees in this country are the worst in Europe.

I’m not saying the Forest one was a clear penalty for them but it more of a penalty than the one Liverpool got given against Crystal Palace!

But unsurprising both decisions went in Liverpool’s favour.

Just now, azpi28 said:

it's not different times because the stewards are also in different position, it's really confusing and all the players are in same body shape

it just doesn't look right

Yeah I know, I just reviewed and spotted that. It's really confusing. But from the original angle looked so offside. And to be honest I am still not convinced it wasn't.

Either way that pen incident from my point of view was as clear as night and day.

4 minutes ago, azpi28 said:

they just moved jota back in the second image 

on the first one the liverpool player on the left appears to be in front of the forrest #3, in the second picture he is roughly in the same line which means if it was perspective that has changed you would expect Jota to be even further offside 

Look how thick the line is, its as wide as Jotas boot, do they use crayons ?

9 minutes ago, azpi28 said:

this looks sooooo weird, look at the vitality dog in the first and the second picture. Can the perspective really be this deceiving????

its an illusion....

i probably don't understand perspective but it's very confusing 

jota himself thought he was offside ffs

 

 

Edited March 20, 20224 yr by azpi28

I really don’t want to play Liverpool if we make it to the FA Cup final.

Any goal we score against Liverpool would have to be absolutely clear of any controversy or any VAR intervention, it’s the equivalent scoring 3 goals to win a match against a normal team.

2 minutes ago, 2211 said:

I really don’t want to play Liverpool if we make it to the FA Cup final.

Any goal we score against Liverpool would have to be absolutely clear of any controversy or any VAR intervention, it’s the equivalent scoring 3 goals to win a match against a normal team.

Yep, just look at how Kovacic and Pulisic's goals against them were given the lengthly VAR check. Everybody was mocking them and Tuchel was clearly getting pissed off with it. It's like they are looking for a reason to disallow a goal scored against Liverpool.

7 minutes ago, 2211 said:

I really don’t want to play Liverpool if we make it to the FA Cup final.

Any goal we score against Liverpool would have to be absolutely clear of any controversy or any VAR intervention, it’s the equivalent scoring 3 goals to win a match against a normal team.

Why I wanted them in the semis.

Having reviewed this further. I think it is onside. The perspective from the initial image is really deceptive. But if you look, the alignment of the heads on both images line up to the same place on the advertising hoarding. So there is nothing dodgy happening with freeze frames at different times, image doctoring etc etc.

11 minutes ago, Jackbuchanan said:

Having reviewed this further. I think it is onside. The perspective from the initial image is really deceptive. But if you look, the alignment of the heads on both images line up to the same place on the advertising hoarding. So there is nothing dodgy happening with freeze frames at different times, image doctoring etc etc.

but if they wanted to make it offside they would have just used the first picture and draw the lines in that one, without us ever seeing the different angle

17 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Why I wanted them in the semis.

I just feel any goal you score against Liverpool has to be a clear yard onside, you can’t make any risky challenges as the chances are they will be given a penalty or a free kick in a dangerous position.

It may seem like subtle differences but they are generally match changing decisions that always go in Liverpool’s favour.

 

2 big decisions in today’s match, 3 possible outcomes:

1 - one goes Forest’s way one goes Liverpool’s way

2 - both go Forest’s way

3 - both go Liverpool’s way

Surprise surprise it ended up being outcome number 3.

With outcome number 2 Forest possibly win if they tuck the penalty away.

It’s always outcome number 3 with Liverpool!

 

Like I said subtle but game changing VAR decisions.

I fancy our chances of winning fair and square against City if VAR was involved in any major decisions.

Edited March 20, 20224 yr by 2211

I have no problem giving a goal that is centimeters offside, it's about not having a clear advantage. The problem is we get ours ruled out and others don't.

34 minutes ago, Jackbuchanan said:

Having reviewed this further. I think it is onside. The perspective from the initial image is really deceptive. But if you look, the alignment of the heads on both images line up to the same place on the advertising hoarding. So there is nothing dodgy happening with freeze frames at different times, image doctoring etc etc.

I’m not sure what you’re showing here, but the two blue lines point to different places in both images and there are two stewards in the second that I can’t find in the first.

3 minutes ago, sonic90 said:

I have no problem giving a goal that is centimeters offside, it's about not having a clear advantage. The problem is we get ours ruled out and others don't.

Indeed. By the new way it should be that Jotas is ruled onside. As should have Roms.

1 hour ago, Scott Harris said:

Since Lukaku was given offside for his goal in the final, I have seen about 10 goals scored that were pretty much the same situation. The only difference is that when VAR checked them, they gave a goal every single time. The whole thing is a joke.

I've been banging that drum for some time now. 

It's fixed. Obviously so...

italy got done by Macedonia and won't go to the world cup 

 

Edited March 24, 20224 yr by azpi28

13 hours ago, azpi28 said:

italy got done by Macedonia and won't go to the world cup 

 

Mental stuff. But very happy about this; Italy's arrogance after their Euro win was revolting. This has firmly put them in their place. 

 

this was a nice goal 

I hate the International break

1 hour ago, Kinkladze1871 said:

I hate the International break

It's even worse than the off season, at least in the summer there's transfer gossip for our amusement.

 

The Canadian player was sent off for this. 

Sometimes, it's understandable why countries like the US don't like football. The amount of cheating they see in the game is much worse than what we see here in Europe.

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMLHu1pGR/

 

😊😊