AUDIO RELEASED:

[Red Shift]

So who’s going to explain to me why the result can’t be changed to 2-2?

[DaveT]

11 minutes ago, CapeRed said:

Thanks . Always liked Hackett. Many years ago ,when I decided to ref on Sundays, I went to a refs night where he was speaking. Aside from some stories the one thing he pressed home was the use of common sense when applying the laws of the game and how in certain situations you don’t comply with the recommendations because it doesn’t ruin the game or cause further problems. I am still mystified as to why Hooper was not clear in communicating with the VAR team ? Simply saying “Lads the goal has been called offside and let me know if it was on or offside” would have resolved anything.

Just thinking the same myself. This wasn’t a straightforward human error. FOUR people fucked up massively here, the linesman’s mistake being the more forgivable.  On a major decision, in a high profile match game already containing some controversy, the ref didn’t take the trouble to ask a very simple question for the sake of total clarity - was he offside/do I disallow it? It just can’t be written off as a simple human error and move on. Hooper doesn’t face any recriminations for this, or his overall performance?!Jeez.

[Trumo]

So much to dissect with this one:

 

- nobody clarified from the beginning what the on-field decision was

- the VAR team didn't seem to be aware that Diaz had been flagged, the goal had been ruled out and that play had re-started with a free kick to Spurs. Were the VAR team even watching the match?

- it took a VAR tech to point out that the goal had been ruled out on the pitch already

- play had been going on for several seconds before it dawned on not one but THREE VAR officials that they'd made a right balls-up of the situation

- the matey nature of the conversion

- the referee was not aware the VAR had fucked up until half time

 

I'm not saying that they get reviews 100% right in rugby and cricket, but the review discussions are shared openly, clarifying the initial on-pitch position, the review, the rule in that situation, and the final outcome. It gives every impression that they are being fair and thorough. The football variant looks slapdash and incompetent.

[joeyk]

Meanwhile 10 years ago, in a sport that only went professional in 1995…. 
 

 

[No2]

I think they're deliberately trying to smudge this one and make it about communication. While the need is there to confirm the onfield the decision was offside, we do have 4 different people looking at 52" HD screens of a lad with a flag in the air and Luis Diaz looking fairly disappointed. 

 

How have they missed it remains the question, the answer is the UAE, either because -

A: they were bolloxed from flying in and out or

B: something more sinister.

 

The questions need to be asked around that. Did the UAE ask for a group of officials or did they request specific officials? Why was Michael Oliver not refereeing last weekend? Was it because he had a gig to do in UAE on Thursday or the other way around? When did the request come in? A full record needs to be provided of previous trips unrelated to UEFA or FIFA competition. Who gets the money? The officials or the PGMOL?

[Babb'sBurstNad]

1 hour ago, Red Shift said:

So who’s going to explain to me why the result can’t be changed to 2-2?

 

Because it'd set a precedent that would destroy the sport.

 

If people think VAR has taken away the momentary joy of football, what do you think knowing a result could be amended days later would do?

 

A mistake was made. Not the first, not the last. If you think it was corruption, then it needs to be proven, and the club could sue. But amending results, null and void shouts, give us the point etc. makes us look small time whingers, acting like we're the first to ever be monumentally shafted by a horrendous decision.

 

There is no way, on God's green earth, Klopp would want that point now. The game is over, the fallout is about the process, and making sure we're not a soft touch in the future; it's not about getting a point back.

[Tenfolder]

38 minutes ago, joeyk said:

Meanwhile 10 years ago, in a sport that only went professional in 1995…. 
 

 

 

Another great highlight of everything missing from the released audio, An explanation of what the ref was questioning, clear and concise communication between the ref and one person in the video review room and a double check that the try can be given once the decision was made, where as you have the mess that is that audio where it sounds like a bunch of mates having a half arsed chat about it all.

 

Howard Webb could literally watch this video and see 2 or 3 improvements(amongst the many needed), there is absolutely no reason this cant or shouldn't be the way things are done but I assume with the arrogance of PGMOL it'll never be a step taken as then they'd have to admit they have faults.

[BeefStroganoff]

There were no mistakes in that audio.

[Bob]

1 hour ago, DaveT said:

Just thinking the same myself. This wasn’t a straightforward human error. FOUR people fucked up massively here, the linesman’s mistake being the more forgivable.  On a major decision, in a high profile match game already containing some controversy, the ref didn’t take the trouble to ask a very simple question for the sake of total clarity - was he offside/do I disallow it? It just can’t be written off as a simple human error and move on. Hooper doesn’t face any recriminations for this, or his overall performance?!Jeez.

Hooper was diabolical overall but his part in this shittest is minor. He didn’t ask anyone to review anything, he was told by VAR to delay and he delayed. He was told check complete and he cracked on.
 

He is shit and possibly biased or bent, and his refereeing on the day was appalling but that fuck up isn’t on him.

[Pidge]

Why does he say "off"? 

 

He's not misunderstanding what he's checking, he's coming to the wrong conclusion...

[joe_fishfish]

20 minutes ago, Tenfolder said:

 

Another great highlight of everything missing from the released audio, An explanation of what the ref was questioning, clear and concise communication between the ref and one person in the video review room and a double check that the try can be given once the decision was made, where as you have the mess that is that audio where it sounds like a bunch of mates having a half arsed chat about it all.

 

Howard Webb could literally watch this video and see 2 or 3 improvements(amongst the many needed), there is absolutely no reason this cant or shouldn't be the way things are done but I assume with the arrogance of PGMOL it'll never be a step taken as then they'd have to admit they have faults.

One of the big problems people have with VAR is how long it takes, this kind of check would make it take even longer.

 

Can get away with it more in rugby because it's more of a stop-start game to begin with, plus you can drink during the match so the fans don't even notice it half the time anyway.

[CapeRed]

1 hour ago, Trumo said:

So much to dissect with this one:

 

- nobody clarified from the beginning what the on-field decision was

- the VAR team didn't seem to be aware that Diaz had been flagged, the goal had been ruled out and that play had re-started with a free kick to Spurs. Were the VAR team even watching the match?

- it took a VAR tech to point out that the goal had been ruled out on the pitch already

- play had been going on for several seconds before it dawned on not one but THREE VAR officials that they'd made a right balls-up of the situation

- the matey nature of the conversion

- the referee was not aware the VAR had fucked up until half time

 

I'm not saying that they get reviews 100% right in rugby and cricket, but the review discussions are shared openly, clarifying the initial on-pitch position, the review, the rule in that situation, and the final outcome. It gives every impression that they are being fair and thorough. The football variant looks slapdash and incompetent.

Try or no try often sorts things out. Goal or no goal seems straightforward.

[Pidge]

If people understand that there is a reason for a wait they will wait. Waiting while in the dark about what is being discussed is a pain, understanding or trusting that the rationale behind a decision is being discussed is fine.

[gkmacca]

8 hours ago, an tha said:

Problem is PGMOL have now in their eyes dealt with it and that seems to be it. 

 

 

Yes, but it's not up to them to declare that to be it. Sure, all such parties try it; it's a standard strategy in crisis management. But it's up to others to keep it going or finish it.

 

Trump's team always try to shut stuff down. Governments try to shut stuff down. Every celeb caught in a controversy issues a statement and declares the matter over. The Paris police kept trying to tell us it was over two years ago.

 

But if the media don't want it over, it's not over, and even if the media don't care, it's up to the other party to decide. If the club don't see it as over, it won't be over. I hope they pursue it.

 

(Oh yes: And that FA fine for £25000. We should announce we're paying it to the organisers of food banks, not the FA.)

[Denny Crane]

2 hours ago, Red Shift said:

So who’s going to explain to me why the result can’t be changed to 2-2?

 

What I'd like to know is why they didn't get both managers in at half-time and explain what happened. By then the officials would have contacted Webb possibly!. If the reports are accurate their first response was subterfuge and liase with Sky over the footage -- instead of speaking to the teams involved. 

 

There are lots of blanks to be filled in we shouldn't get distracted by the audio. 

 

 

[Bobby Hundreds]

The idea its too late is bullshit. United penalty after the final whistle players brought back onto the pitch that's not too late... after the game itself has fucking finished.

[Jimmy Hills Chin]

1 hour ago, joeyk said:

Meanwhile 10 years ago, in a sport that only went professional in 1995…. 
 

 

Can’t he do footy

[Brownie]

1 hour ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

 

Because it'd set a precedent that would destroy the sport.

 

If people think VAR has taken away the momentary joy of football, what do you think knowing a result could be amended days later would do?

 

A mistake was made. Not the first, not the last. If you think it was corruption, then it needs to be proven, and the club could sue. But amending results, null and void shouts, give us the point etc. makes us look small time whingers, acting like we're the first to ever be monumentally shafted by a horrendous decision.

 

There is no way, on God's green earth, Klopp would want that point now. The game is over, the fallout is about the process, and making sure we're not a soft touch in the future; it's not about getting a point back.

Bang on, this.

 

Prepare to be called a shithouse mate.

[No2]

22 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

The idea its too late is bullshit. United penalty after the final whistle players brought back onto the pitch that's not too late... after the game itself has fucking finished.

The Utd decision was technically correct, it's happened in Germany aswell. Even though the final whistle went there hadn't been a stop and restart since the actual offence occurred. 

[Bobby Hundreds]

1 minute ago, No2 said:

The Utd decision was technically correct, it's happened in Germany aswell. Even though the final whistle went there hadn't been a stop and restart since the actual offence occurred. 

The game had stopped.

[Simbo]

1 hour ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

 

Because it'd set a precedent that would destroy the sport.

 

If people think VAR has taken away the momentary joy of football, what do you think knowing a result could be amended days later would do?

 

A mistake was made. Not the first, not the last. If you think it was corruption, then it needs to be proven, and the club could sue. But amending results, null and void shouts, give us the point etc. makes us look small time whingers, acting like we're the first to ever be monumentally shafted by a horrendous decision.

 

There is no way, on God's green earth, Klopp would want that point now. The game is over, the fallout is about the process, and making sure we're not a soft touch in the future; it's not about getting a point back.

 

4 minutes ago, Brownie said:

Bang on, this.

 

Prepare to be called a shithouse mate.

Pair of fuckin’ shithouses.

[No2]

Just now, Bobby Hundreds said:

The game had stopped.

But not restarted, the last play was an offence, spotted only after the whistle has gone. I think we can all agree only Utd would have been brought back out but that's not the point, technically it was within the rules, just as technically England was correct that rules didn't give him any options once play at restarted. This is actually a beef I have with players when they know they have handled or committed a foul, who never see them trying to get the game restarted before teh ref asks them to wait.

[El Rojo]

I'll be fucking honest here - I prefer Ole at the wheel to Oli at the wheel. 

[Lario]

51 minutes ago, Pidge said:

Why does he say "off"? 

 

He's not misunderstanding what he's checking, he's coming to the wrong conclusion...

 

I'm getting old, but when I was watching the game the other day, I clearly remember saying to myself that they never bothered to draw the fucking lines.

But now in the footage being shown, the lines are there?!

Also, some poster on here made the argument that the VAR don't see the graphics of the incident being "investigated"; that it's the broadcaster that puts that up for the viewers.

But now in the footage being show, the graphics are there!

 

Also also, when Diaz is through on goal, the VAR pipes up with "possible offside Diaz".

 

The linesman says "Coming back for the offside mate", with the VAR replying "Just checking the offside, delay, delay".

So the VAR is obviously watching the play, offered "possible offside Diaz" before the flag was raised, then hears the lino bring it back for offside, then says to delay the game because he's checking for offside. Lines are drawn on the screen with the "checking disallowed goal - offside" graphic in the corner, and the lines so clearly show Diaz onside that there's no need for a second line to show his position.

And we're supposed to believe, after all that, he mistakingly decided to go with the onfield decision with Spurs lining up a freekick 40 yards from goal?

 

Absolute bollox.

[gkmacca]

"what do you think knowing a result could be amended days later would do?"

 

It's a manipulation of the issue to ask how we'd feel if we knew a result could be changed several days after. If one was to ask the more specific 'How would we feel if we knew a result could be changed if there had been an obvious and exceptional reason for such a change to happen' it might be worth discussing.

 

I'm not in favour of this particular result being changed, because I'd rather see other reprisals, but I don't like this all-purpose rejection of the principle. If Man City, for example, are finally found guilty of corruption, I'd be in favour of them being stripped of the relevant titles. Who 'benefits' from that I don't care. It's about the punishment.

 

Would you leave Lance Armstrong with his titles just because the runners-up don't fancy a retrospective change in the honours list? They can react how they like, I guess, but it's not for them to oppose the punishment of someone else who deserves it.

 

It's a false fear that's been planted here.