VAR is about to f*ck us here again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IUFG

It was a foul, but not enough of a foul, apparently...

---

Not a clear and obvious error, I assume..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

Not a clear and obvious error, I assume..

---

I suppose it is just like when they do, or don't, make player take throw-ins from the correct place.

It just seems that when they interpret every decision that could go in our favour, it rarely does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IUFG

I suppose it is just like when they do, or don't, make player take throw-ins from the correct place.

It just seems that when they interpret every decision that could go in our favour, it rarely does.

---

I thought the penalty was generous but rhat doesn't make it an error. Really poor use of var, again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

I thought the penalty was generous but rhat doesn't make it an error. Really poor use of var, again.

---

How did Fulham have an XG of 0.44 with ZERO shots on target?

Or are these stats *******s? ��

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

I thought the penalty was generous but rhat doesn't make it an error. Really poor use of var, again.

---

Generous, perhaps. But I've always felt that decisions should punish, anyway, NOT reward, brainless play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IUFG

How did Fulham have an XG of 0.44 with ZERO shots on target?

Or are these stats *******s? ��

---

These stats are *******s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IUFG

How did Fulham have an XG of 0.44 with ZERO shots on target?

Or are these stats *******s? ��

---

I don't remember it happening but if you spooned it over from three yards with the goal gaping a few times, you'd have no shots on target but a decent xG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

I don't remember it happening but if you spooned it over from three yards with the goal gaping a few times, you'd have no shots on target but a decent xG.

---

So the whole thing is just a posh, pseudo-learned way of saying "Should've"? A stat for stats' sake?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redgunamo

So the whole thing is just a posh, pseudo-learned way of saying "Should've"? A stat for stats' sake?

---

Indeed. How does one multiply the quality of chances and produce an overall number? Nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redgunamo

So the whole thing is just a posh, pseudo-learned way of saying "Should've"? A stat for stats' sake?

---

Oh, I agree, but surely should have is a fairly decent synonym for expected in many regards?

But I don't really agree with it so I haven't looked into it enough to see how they work it out. DxGoes it take into account where all the opposition players are, how much time they had to control it and pick their spot etc? I think it's *******s, but I can see how you could have no spots actually on target but a high xG? Imagine you have ten shots all of which hit the woodwork. No ****s on target but you'd feel unlucky not to have had a comfortable win.