never clear and obvious in a million years.
And it was a pen
Printable View
never clear and obvious in a million years.
And it was a pen
Knee on knee contact prior to ball touch.Quote:
Originally Posted by WES
They **** us off, every time...
Yup :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by WES
Is there a stat on VAR over turning decisions by team?
Shirley we?re top of the league
Not a second of doubt in my mind which way that would go. Var is hopeless.Quote:
Originally Posted by WES
Eggsactly, contact was before he touched the ball - penQuote:
Originally Posted by IUFG
Well it certainly isnt a clear and obvious error however you look at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by WES
They should remove that phrase. Refs simply don't know what it means.
If it looks like a foul. And it is a foul. It is a pelanty. Shirley?Quote:
Originally Posted by WES
His explanation. The player plays the ball.Quote:
Originally Posted by IUFG
Yes, we know that. But he takes the man first you ****ing pillock.
Even the explanation is bull****
The Gyokeres one was a penalty in all. Refs are bent it's nothing to do with VAR it's the bent spastics watching the screens. We need an AI intervention.
It was a foul, but not enough of a foul, apparently...Quote:
Originally Posted by John Bunnell
Not a clear and obvious error, I assume..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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
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 IUFG
How did Fulham have an XG of 0.44 with ZERO shots on target?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Or are these stats *******s? ��
Generous, perhaps. But I've always felt that decisions should punish, anyway, NOT reward, brainless play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
These stats are *******s.Quote:
Originally Posted by IUFG
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 IUFG
So the whole thing is just a posh, pseudo-learned way of saying "Should've"? A stat for stats' sake?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult
Indeed. How does one multiply the quality of chances and produce an overall number? Nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by redgunamo
Oh, I agree, but surely should have is a fairly decent synonym for expected in many regards?Quote:
Originally Posted by redgunamo
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.
That's just it, NORMAL people would simply say "Should've scored."Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult
Oh, I'm totally with you if you want to replace xG with shS - should have scored. Much better to say we shS 2.3 instead of we had an xG of 2.3.Quote:
Originally Posted by redgunamo
"We got 3 points but didn't have it entirely our own way as Fulham shS 0.44 goals."
I think we should make than an Awimb rule - xG is banned, from now on shS only.
What annoyed me was that the Fulham player didn't even complain as he knew he'd fouled him firstQuote:
Originally Posted by WES
Same at Newcastle. The keeper didn't complain at all, he knew he'd fouled him.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSRB