The evidence

[Fenrir_]

As I said though that would not make any sense:

1) Not all games are televised. The system is still there. VAR would have still been at Anfield.
2) It's an independently calibrated system by an independent 3rd party (Hawkeye).
3) Hawkeye has to be installed when teams are promoted. If it was a case of telling ITV to shove a few cameras in, every stadium in the country would have VAR.
4) Having other non registered parties interfere with critical systems means the integrity cannot be relied on.

Now here's the interesting part:

How offsides are determined by VAR

See how the Video Assistant Referee uses Hawk-Eye to make offside decisions

www.premierleague.com

Hawkeye has access to supplemental broadcast footage in addition to the VAR operated camera system. It's not "ITV didn't place the cameras".

"Hawk-Eye can also use any broadcast camera to identify the point of contact with the ball by the attacker, and synchronises all cameras for this purpose."

So if the BBC have a camera feed showing it's onside and this is visible, this should have been able to be used by VAR.

This also raises the question on where the feed for that part of the pitch was as part of the official system. Because cameras should cover it - there are 5 of them from VAR + broadcast cameras.

Makes no sense at all, I'm just relaying what was said

Short answer, it's a cop out (or should that be kop out?!). They have VAR... but not for all of the pitch apparently. One pathetic excuse after another until it dies a death and is swept under the carpet forever more

 

[Mutchy]

Wolves want FA explanation for disallowed goal

Julen Lopetegui says Wolves have written to the FA asking for an explanation as to why Toti Gomes' goal against Liverpool on Saturday was disallowed.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Wolves want FA explanation for disallowed goal

Julen Lopetegui says Wolves have written to the FA asking for an explanation as to why Toti Gomes' goal against Liverpool on Saturday was disallowed.

www.bbc.co.uk

I'll save them the trouble

Hi Julen,
The Salah goal is allowed under the current rules as the initial cross doesn't reach him and then he is deemed active when Toti heads it and then he is onside because it is a deliberate act of the defender.

The Toti goal was given offside by the assistant referee. Subsequent footage showed that this was an error, but that angle was not available to Mr Dean of VAR, so he did not have the evidence to overrule the onfield decision.
Best wishes
PGMOL

either that or
Stop whining, did nobody tell you that Liverpool always have a +1 handicap at Anfield.

 

[old wittonian]

I'll save them the trouble

Hi Julen,
The Salah goal is allowed under the current rules as the initial cross doesn't reach him and then he is deemed active when Toti heads it and then he is onside because it is a deliberate act of the defender.

The Toti goal was given offside by the assistant referee. Subsequent footage showed that this was an error, but that angle was not available to Mr Dean of VAR, so he did not have the evidence to overrule the onfield decision.
Best wishes
PGMOL

either that or
Stop whining, did nobody tell you that Liverpool always have a +1 handicap at Anfield.

Only +1 ?

 

[Jefe]

One thing that is bugging me is the missing camera Angles. The below link clearly states that there should be 5 calibrated cameras (both goal lines, 18 yard boxes and main wide angle) - calibrated by Hawkeye before each match. I know this is PL but surely the same rules have to apply in FAC too, in order to use VAR?

How offsides are determined by VAR

See how the Video Assistant Referee uses Hawk-Eye to make offside decisions

www.premierleague.com

Ah, yet another mysterious happenstance. This sort of thing is why people are crying foul. If a main wide angle camera is mandated in every Premier League game, it is surely mandated in an all Premier League cup tie in a Premier League venue. Why on Earth wouldn't it be? Gallagher blaming ITV for costing Wolves the game is asinine referee's union mentality - ITV are not the adjudicators, the buck stops with the officials who did not ensure all the specially calibrated officiating cameras were accounted for before the game. Someone's toes need to be held to the fire.

 

[Southdownswolf]

As I said though that would not make any sense:

1) Not all games are televised. The system is still there. VAR would have still been at Anfield.
2) It's an independently calibrated system by an independent 3rd party (Hawkeye).
3) Hawkeye has to be installed when teams are promoted. If it was a case of telling ITV to shove a few cameras in, every stadium in the country would have VAR.
4) Having other non registered parties interfere with critical systems means the integrity cannot be relied on.

Now here's the interesting part:

How offsides are determined by VAR

See how the Video Assistant Referee uses Hawk-Eye to make offside decisions

www.premierleague.com

Hawkeye has access to supplemental broadcast footage in addition to the VAR operated camera system. It's not "ITV didn't place the cameras".

"Hawk-Eye can also use any broadcast camera to identify the point of contact with the ball by the attacker, and synchronises all cameras for this purpose."

So if the BBC have a camera feed showing it's onside and this is visible, this should have been able to be used by VAR.

This also raises the question on where the feed for that part of the pitch was as part of the official system. Because cameras should cover it - there are 5 of them from VAR + broadcast cameras.

It does make sense....

1) all PL games are recorded by TV companies, not necessarily broadcast live or in the UK though
2) Yes it's independantly calibrated.
3) Correct it is installed when in the PL - nothing to do with ITV/SKY/BBC etc. This is software, hardware and 5 cameras that are calibrated/synced together as a permanent fixture in the stadium.
4) Non-registered parties do not "interfere" - haweye software is able to be used to synch any suitable camera being used by the broadcaster. This is a very simple process whereby you have the 5 pre-calibrated/synched camera synch the broadcasters camera frames. This is where ITV/SKY/BT/BBC/Amazon come in - they provide the extra cameras.

For a camera to be used for VAR then it must be calibrated by Hawkeye, however that does not mean all cameras in the stadium provided by the broadcasting company are calibrated. And it also does not mean that the broadcasting company has cameras covering all of the pitch at all times of the match. On Saturday, it very much was a case of ITV placing or not placing cameras. Ultimately it should be down to the PGMOL to determine where they want cameras and insist on the broadcasting company supplying the correct amount of cameras in the correct place.

 

[DasWolf]

It does make sense....

1) all PL games are recorded by TV companies, not necessarily broadcast live or in the UK though
2) Yes it's independantly calibrated.
3) Correct it is installed when in the PL - nothing to do with ITV/SKY/BBC etc. This is software, hardware and 5 cameras that are calibrated/synced together as a permanent fixture in the stadium.
4) Non-registered parties do not "interfere" - haweye software is able to be used to synch any suitable camera being used by the broadcaster. This is a very simple process whereby you have the 5 pre-calibrated/synched camera synch the broadcasters camera frames. This is where ITV/SKY/BT/BBC/Amazon come in - they provide the extra cameras.

For a camera to be used for VAR then it must be calibrated by Hawkeye, however that does not mean all cameras in the stadium provided by the broadcasting company are calibrated. And it also does not mean that the broadcasting company has cameras covering all of the pitch at all times of the match. On Saturday, it very much was a case of ITV placing or not placing cameras. Ultimately it should be down to the PGMOL to determine where they want cameras and insist on the broadcasting company supplying the correct amount of cameras in the correct place.

Then where is the magic camera footage coming from? The BBC pointed out it was broadcast footage made available to them. You know, by the people who were broadcasting it. It's amazing how this footage has come out of nowhere from non existent cameras that were never set up.

You've also misrepresented what I said. I said, correctly, that the VAR camera system is independent. It is. If there were no broadcasters in the universe, VAR would still have 5 cameras that they run. ITV do not touch it. BBC do not touch it. Sky do not touch it. No one other than Hawkeye touches it. It is not a case of "silly ITV not setting the VAR cameras", because that's not how it works. So where are the wide VAR angle, the 6 yard VAR angles, and the goalline VAR angles? 5 cameras total. Plus whatever broadcast footage there is, and we know there is some.

The PL also does not mention anything about every camera being calibrated, only Hawkeye cameras are professionally calibrated. However broadcast cameras can be used as additional footage/evidence. The Hawkeye system synchronises them to help with this, but going through a piece of footage frame by frame is not some magic process, it is trivial.

You can easily see by eye in the broadcast footage that magically doesn't exist despite being published by broadcasters that Nunes is onside, VAR could have taken that frame as proof.

 

[Southdownswolf]

Makes no sense at all, I'm just relaying what was said

Short answer, it's a cop out (or should that be kop out?!). They have VAR... but not for all of the pitch apparently. One pathetic excuse after another until it dies a death and is swept under the carpet forever more

The reason that VAR only have a few cameras (5) is that broadcasters require better quality cameras than VAR needs - so 5 cameras are in the stadium as part of a calibrated system. Then broadcasters cameras which will likely be a better quality for transmission purposes are installed as needed for TV production, which are then calibrated/synced to the original 5 cameras.
As broadcast technology moves on (4k - 8k etc) then the broadcast company will provide these, the 5 permanent calibrated VAR cameras will remain.

 

[Fenrir_]

The reason that VAR only have a few cameras (5) is that broadcasters require better quality cameras than VAR needs - so 5 cameras are in the stadium as part of a calibrated system. Then broadcasters cameras which will likely be a better quality for transmission purposes are installed as needed for TV production, which are then calibrated/synced to the original 5 cameras.
As broadcast technology moves on (4k - 8k etc) then the broadcast company will provide these, the 5 permanent calibrated VAR cameras will remain.

Very valid query then for Wolves to ask where the hell the correct images were!

 

[Southdownswolf]

Then where is the magic camera footage coming from? The BBC pointed out it was broadcast footage made available to them. You know, by the people who were broadcasting it. It's amazing how this footage has come out of nowhere from non existent cameras that were never set up.

You've also misrepresented what I said. I said, correctly, that the VAR camera system is independent. It is. If there were no broadcasters in the universe, VAR would still have 5 cameras that they run. ITV do not touch it. BBC do not touch it. Sky do not touch it. No one other than Hawkeye touches it. It is not a case of "silly ITV not setting the VAR cameras", because that's not how it works. So where are the wide VAR angle, the 6 yard VAR angles, and the goalline VAR angles? 5 cameras total. Plus whatever broadcast footage there is, and we know there is some.

The PL also does not mention anything about every camera being calibrated, only Hawkeye cameras are professionally calibrated. However broadcast cameras can be used as additional footage/evidence. The Hawkeye system synchronises them to help with this, but going through a piece of footage frame by frame is not some magic process, it is trivial.

You can easily see by eye in the broadcast footage that magically doesn't exist despite being published by broadcasters that Nunes is onside, VAR could have taken that frame as proof.

I didn't misrepresent what you said at all, I agree that the VAR system is independant. However BBC/ITV/Sky etc have to have their cameras calibrated with the Hawkeye system before the match. This isn't something that just happens when needed.
This does not mean that all cameras are calibrated, there is no rule that all cameras provided by the broadcaster has to be part of the Hawkeye system. The "magic camera footage" is from a non calibrated camera within the stadium.
The footage published that shows Nunes onside is most likely from a camera that is not calibrated, so can not be used by the VAR system.

 

[DasWolf]

More to the point, why can the mandatory 5 VAR cameras have massive blind spots. Every single inch of the pitch should be visible from multiple camera angles.

 

[Sussex Wolf]

I doubt any of us are surprised that they're all closing ranks. We've seen it all before. Hope Wolves continue to press the issue.

Remarkable isn’t it how little we’ve heard from the former refs on this. Heads down, looking away, whatever you want to describe it. Old boys know their friends are in the wrong, and want the whole thing just to be forgotten about. Even Liverpool fan sites acknowledge they got away with one. Wolves should seek nothing less than a public apology and admission of failure from PGMOL and the officials responsible. Madley and Dean should never be involved in a Wolves game again.

 

[DasWolf]

I didn't misrepresent what you said at all, I agree that the VAR system is independant. However BBC/ITV/Sky etc have to have their cameras calibrated with the Hawkeye system before the match. This isn't something that just happens when needed.
This does not mean that all cameras are calibrated, there is no rule that all cameras provided by the broadcaster has to be part of the Hawkeye system. The "magic camera footage" is from a non calibrated camera within the stadium.
The footage published that shows Nunes onside is most likely from a camera that is not calibrated, so can not be used by the VAR system.

There is no requirement for cameras to be calibrated if they are from broadcasters, nor does this happen. The broadcast footage is itself evidence, particularly when it is visible by eye that Nunes is onside. It is not drawing an offside line down to 1cm which is when the calibration is needed.

As an analogy, it's like getting a speeding fine. You can be caught on the professionally calibrated camera accurate to 0.001mph. But if there's dashcam footage of you driving 150mph then the fact it is not professionally calibrated is immaterial, it's still evidence that will hold up in court.

The broadcast footage cannot be used for drawing offside lines. It can be used to see Nunes was no way near being offside because by eye he isn't. There is nothing in VAR that stops it from being used for this purpose. The PL even explicitly state that they can use broadcast footage for this.

 

[molineux man]

Biggest mystery for me is that I thought the reason linemen are now told to not raise the flag until a goal is scored, is to give the goal a chance to be given in case the offside decision is wrong. So the default decision is goal first (as the goal is scored before the offside decision is given), and then VAR can disallow the goal if need be - if there's no clear evidence to disallow it, it should stand.

 

[Big Saft Kid]

Remarkable isn’t it how little we’ve heard from the former refs on this. Heads down, looking away, whatever you want to describe it. Old boys know their friends are in the wrong, and want the whole thing just to be forgotten about. Even Liverpool fan sites acknowledge they got away with one. Wolves should seek nothing less than a public apology and admission of failure from PGMOL and the officials responsible. Madley and Dean should never be involved in a Wolves game again.

But you know that hell will freeze over before that happens. It is now clear the officials are incompetent or corrupt or possibly both. However, they know it's just Little Old Wolves ---- they haven't got a Klopp or a Guardiola marking their homework --- so it doesn't matter one iota. In fact Klopp's weasel words when he knows the decision to rule out Toti's goal was completely wrong shows him up for the poor specimen of humanity he is.

 

[Southdownswolf]

There is no requirement for cameras to be calibrated if they are from broadcasters, nor does this happen. The broadcast footage is itself evidence, particularly when it is visible by eye that Nunes is onside. It is not drawing an offside line down to 1cm which is when the calibration is needed.

As an analogy, it's like getting a speeding fine. You can be caught on the professionally calibrated camera accurate to 0.001mph. But if there's dashcam footage of you driving 150mph then the fact it is not professionally calibrated is immaterial, it's still evidence that will hold up in court.

The broadcast footage cannot be used for drawing offside lines. It can be used to see Nunes was no way near being offside because by eye he isn't. There is nothing in VAR that stops it from being used for this purpose. The PL even explicitly state that they can use broadcast footage for this.

The broadcast cameras do have to be synced (calibrated) so that the frames are at the same time as the permanent VAR cameras. As for the broadcast footage that shows Nunes is onside, they would argue if presented at the time that it is not conclusive.


I would like to point out at this stage that although it may appear I am defending them, I am completely against VAR, and don't think what has happened is excusable, but I can see why.

Edited to include -

From the PL website "
Hawk-Eye can also use any broadcast camera to identify the point of contact with the ball by the attacker, and synchronises all cameras for this purpose.

The broadcast cameras operate with 50 frames per second, so the point of contact with the ball is one of those frames inside the 50 per second."


Therefore, for those cameras to be synced they have to have been linked to the Hawkeye system prior to the match. Whilst this does not mean that they can be used for line drawing, it does mean that they can be used for assisting VAR. Any camera that was not synced before the match will not be valid for VAR purposes.

 

[Zico]

They can and will defend the position that they didn't have a camera angle. What I'm more interested in is why the referee indicated for the flag to go up.

 

[VancouverWolf]

It does make sense....

1) all PL games are recorded by TV companies, not necessarily broadcast live or in the UK though
2) Yes it's independantly calibrated.
3) Correct it is installed when in the PL - nothing to do with ITV/SKY/BBC etc. This is software, hardware and 5 cameras that are calibrated/synced together as a permanent fixture in the stadium.
4) Non-registered parties do not "interfere" - haweye software is able to be used to synch any suitable camera being used by the broadcaster. This is a very simple process whereby you have the 5 pre-calibrated/synched camera synch the broadcasters camera frames. This is where ITV/SKY/BT/BBC/Amazon come in - they provide the extra cameras.

For a camera to be used for VAR then it must be calibrated by Hawkeye, however that does not mean all cameras in the stadium provided by the broadcasting company are calibrated. And it also does not mean that the broadcasting company has cameras covering all of the pitch at all times of the match. On Saturday, it very much was a case of ITV placing or not placing cameras. Ultimately it should be down to the PGMOL to determine where they want cameras and insist on the broadcasting company supplying the correct amount of cameras in the correct place.

A lot of this I didn’t know…..thanks

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

Ultimately VAR now isn’t fit for purpose both due to

- sufficient cameras

- cheating refs

 

[sedgwolf1980]

One other thing no one I don’t think has mentioned but if there truly was missing footage, ie, part of the pitch not covered by VAR, does anyone seriously think it would have taken until the goal for the officials to be made aware of that. Of course it wouldn’t.

When you factor in the ref instructing the linesman to flag it makes all this very murky indeed.

I will be really disappointed if we don’t take this as far as we can. That social media post today has annoyed me to be honest, almost making a joke out of it. This is potentially really serious stuff.

 

[WolfPaul]

It does make sense....

1) all PL games are recorded by TV companies, not necessarily broadcast live or in the UK though
2) Yes it's independantly calibrated.
3) Correct it is installed when in the PL - nothing to do with ITV/SKY/BBC etc. This is software, hardware and 5 cameras that are calibrated/synced together as a permanent fixture in the stadium.
4) Non-registered parties do not "interfere" - haweye software is able to be used to synch any suitable camera being used by the broadcaster. This is a very simple process whereby you have the 5 pre-calibrated/synched camera synch the broadcasters camera frames. This is where ITV/SKY/BT/BBC/Amazon come in - they provide the extra cameras.

For a camera to be used for VAR then it must be calibrated by Hawkeye, however that does not mean all cameras in the stadium provided by the broadcasting company are calibrated. And it also does not mean that the broadcasting company has cameras covering all of the pitch at all times of the match. On Saturday, it very much was a case of ITV placing or not placing cameras. Ultimately it should be down to the PGMOL to determine where they want cameras and insist on the broadcasting company supplying the correct amount of cameras in the correct place.

Lots of interesting information here which I had no idea about before, so thanks. A couple of questions:

a) If it's simple to sync the broadcast cameras to hawkeye, why don't they sync all of them as standard practice?

b) If there are 5 dedicated VAR cameras, one of which is for the 18 yard line and one for the goal line, why did none of these provide a view for the offside?

 

[Southdownswolf]

a) most cameras will be, but some may be deemed as not necessary ie; they are going to be used for more close up footage such as players close to the sideline or fan reaction. These would not necessarily need to be included for VAR as other cameras *should* have incidents covered.

b) no idea... it certainly should be

What I will say is that the World Cup certainly had every angle covered..!

 

[Eastyorksyeltz]

a) most cameras will be, but some may be deemed as not necessary ie; they are going to be used for more close up footage such as players close to the sideline or fan reaction. These would not necessarily need to be included for VAR as other cameras *should* have incidents covered.

b) no idea... it certainly should be

What I will say is that the World Cup certainly had every angle covered..!

View attachment 32405

And that was just for the security sweep to spot people with rainbow bobble hats.

 

[Bill McCai]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1612815215397146625

 

[AndyY]

Ultimately VAR now isn’t fit for purpose both due to

- sufficient cameras

- cheating refs

And rules that are not fit for purpose in the VAR era

 

[lobodelsur]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1612815215397146625

Most of what he posts is irrelevant.
VAR will check every goal, therefore whether the ref indicated to the lino to raise his flag or not becomes irrelevant.
VAR should then have checked to see if there was any obvious error by the officials. As VAR had no evidence that Nunes was offside (lack of camera !) the goal should have stood.

 

[SE10 Wolf]

They can and will defend the position that they didn't have a camera angle. What I'm more interested in is why the referee indicated for the flag to go up.

Has this ever happened before? I can’t recall seeing it but I wasn’t looking out for it.

 

[Superted]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1612815215397146625

Ok, yes it is only a few seconds but the fact is the linesman didn't raise his flag until the ref signalled for him to do so.

I've never seen that before and I don't understand why this would happen and that's what frustrates me.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I just don't like it that I don't understand and can't make sense of it. There may be a perfectly rational explanation and the ref may have misinterpreted something and/or made a mistake but we'll never know that.

This is compounded by the lack of evidence to correct the mistake. If VAR had worked properly we wouldn't be having this nationwide discussion it would just be a footnote in the match report.

 

[NewOrder306]

Biggest mystery for me is that I thought the reason linemen are now told to not raise the flag until a goal is scored, is to give the goal a chance to be given in case the offside decision is wrong. So the default decision is goal first (as the goal is scored before the offside decision is given), and then VAR can disallow the goal if need be - if there's no clear evidence to disallow it, it should stand.

That !!!!!

 

[geowolf]

I think the ref simply decided that the off-side decision should be based on the first header (linesman says close but probably off-side) rather than the second (linesman says definitely on-side). That’s the ref’s decision, and VAR would only have overturned if evidence of on-side at the first header – they wouldn’t get into a technical discussion about how the off-side law should be interpreted, same with the Salah goal. Delay would have been the ref explaining his decision to the linesman. Obviously a fuzzy area and lots of referees would have given the opposite decisions imv both for this and the Salah goal.

 

[Rauls Headband]

You can watch that footage over and over numerous times, it still doesn't look any better.

PGMOL have had 4 days now to forensically examine this, speak to the ref and linesman, possibly listen to any audio that's available and come up with some BS excuse for the decision (as was quickly done for the Salah goal) but there has been absolutely stonewall silence on this, and that's simply because there isn't an excuse and the peculiar behaviour of the officials during that moment makes things worse.

Putting aside the more serious suggestions of match fixing (and it's more difficult to be flippant about that now with the spot fixing allegations from the Oxford/Arsenal game) at best the match officials have been completely incompetent and at a level that has cost a team progressing to the next round of the FA Cup. Something in-between would be allegations of bias.

My thought is the silence will continue to the replay, and would suggest the reason for this is that the ideal outcome for PGMOL is that Wolves win the replay because potential repercussions and/or alleged consequences, criticism will be less, and it'll be easier for them to sweep it under the carpet and let it be forgotten as 'justice will be done'.

Liverpool win, and it puts PGMOL in a much more awkward PR position.

I hope the club continue to pursue this through the official channels, and maybe with things leaking through unofficial ones, as the whole VAR mess if completely ruining the game and is in fact doing the opposite of what we were all told it was intended to do, that is to reduce controversy.

 

[Munich_Wolf]

I normally watch Ref Watch on a Monday but because Sky didn’t have the footage Gallagher wasn’t on .I was listening to Talksport last night and he came on .
His take on the ‘winning goal’ was when the Wolves player headed the ball (he didn’t know his name) out to the winger (again he didn’t know his name ) the AR immediately raised his flag .
Like many others I have seen various clips and no he bloody didn’t .Selective memory ,myopia or just sticking to the party line Gallagher?
We have just been patted on the head and told go away and be good boys .It bloody stinks.

This is the thing though, people repeat what are blatant lies (this is a proven lie) and others in the media just repeat it elsewhere in match reports etc. - "the linesman raised his flag and the goal was disallowed". When it's fact that the linesman initially kept his flag down and was heading towards the halfway line but seemingly changing his mind and raising it.

It all reeks to high heaven.

 

[Rauls Headband]

Madley and Dean should never be involved in a Wolves football game again.

IFYPFY

 

[Jefe]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1612815215397146625

Hmm, you know what might stop the "tin-foils"? Open and transparent communication from the officials. Why the linesman thought Matheus was offside, citing the relevant sub-clause of the offside law, why the hand gesture from the referee to the linesman was appropriate, why there was no basic camera angle available showing the full width of the pitch despite it being a requirement in Premier League games. The stonewall silence from PGMOL, the gaslighting from the Daily Mail, and the mental gymnastics from refereeing old boys like Gallagher only fuel the conspiracy theories!

 

[Jonzy54]

Hmm, you know what might stop the "tin-foils"? Open and transparent communication from the officials. Why the linesman thought Matheus was offside, citing the relevant sub-clause of the offside law, why the hand gesture from the referee to the linesman was appropriate, why there was no basic camera angle available showing the full width of the pitch. The stonewall silence from PGMOL, the gaslighting from the Daily Mail, and the mental gymnastics from refereeing old boys like Gallagher only fuel the conspiracy theories!

I wonder if Madley gestured to the AR because Dean had communicated to him ?

 

[wolvesjoe]

I wonder if Madley gestured to the AR because Dean had communicated to him ?

Thats my view. Dean is the most experienced character here, and the one with the worst history of game-changing decisions.

He worked out the only way to do this was by creating an on the field decision.

But in all the tricks and flicks of the refs' cartel, this is the most risky one, the loaded gun in a locked drawer. Its the one that leaves traces, that are difficult to deny.

(Both in terms of the communication from Stockley Park to the referee, and then the physical indication, plus possible audio, from the referee to the linesman. )

So you have a blatantly incorrect call, evidenced by numerous pieces of photographic and video evidence, and visual and possibly audio evidence of setting up the only scenario which could allow for the goal to be cancelled. Followed by the mysterious absence of the relevant video angles for the VAR ref to make a correct call.

I cannot recall a situation where the corruption of the ref. cartel has been as clear and provable as this one.

Wolves must stand their ground.

 

[Boss Hogg]

One of the best aspects of the game in my day was the simplicity of the rules - the same simple rules could be applied on a parks pitch as a top flight game. The changes to VAR and the offside rules has destroyed the enjoyment of the game in my opinion.

 

[Frank Lincoln]

One of the best aspects of the game in my day was the simplicity of the rules - the same simple rules could be applied on a parks pitch as a top flight game. The changes to VAR and the offside rules has destroyed the enjoyment of the game in my opinion.

An opinion that I totally agree with. I have been against VAR from its inception and nothing has changed my mind about it.

VAR has taken the heart and soul out of football.

 

[wolvesjoe]

An opinion that I totally agree with. I have been against VAR from its inception and nothing has changed my mind about it.

VAR has taken the heart and soul out of football.

Thats undoubtedly true. However it is also worth recalling that the decision on Saturday and many others like that would have not been open to recall and discussion without VAR. It is VAR that reveals the corruption at play.

(of course, video evidence would still exist if VAR was absent, but it is VAR that makes it clear that the officials are being biased through their refusal to impose the correct decision).

 

[lobodelsur]

I wonder if Madley gestured to the AR because Dean had communicated to him ?

I would put good money on that.