Forest- possible points deduction

[SingYourHeartsOut]

It looks like they are measuring offside before the ball has been kicked by the player making the assist?

One thing I learned arguing about this a while ago (which I don't think most people think) is that the relevant moment is when the player first touches the ball in the passing action, not when he last touches it. How mad to even worry about that, but if it changes the selection by one frame then it can change the decision (although probably not in this case).

 

[old wittonian]

With regard to bias in football, I defy anyone not to show it.
For example I might watch Palace v Fulham and not give two ****s who wins.
However, as the game progresses I will undoubtedly, for one reason or another. e.g. VAR, a player upsets me (Rat Face) or previous results, start to favour one side and hope it wins. IMHO that's just human nature.
It follows that as the VAR watch the whole game similar feelings must creep in and influence decisions.
Hopefully it doesn't but who knows when you see some of the decisions

 

[Mugwump]

That’s not corrupt at all, that’s looking out for his mate and having the referees union. It’s pathetic, embarrassing and totally wrong but it’s not corrupt.

Its everything you say, and i still reckon its corrupt! You cant not give decisions based on doing a mate a favour.

 

[StaffordWolf]

Is there anything to say what the punishment could be for a club making unsubstantiated claims of corruption against the refs?

No good optics for PGMOL, however as far as I'm aware there is no actual evidence that corruption took place.

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

Is there anything to say what the punishment could be for a club making unsubstantiated claims of corruption against the refs?

No good optics for PGMOL, however as far as I'm aware there is no actual evidence that corruption took place.

Well if an Luton fan is involved they have claims but it will get swept under the carpet. Forest will 100% go down now. How dare they question the establishment

 

[Mutchy]

Should we be criticising Forest, or should we be having the guts to add our complaints to theirs and stand with them? Isn't some kind of snowball effect the only way things are going to change?

 

[Perton Wolf]

Should we be criticising Forest, or should we be having the guts to add our complaints to theirs and stand with them? Isn't some kind of snowball effect the only way things are going to change?

Complaints about refereeing standards are fair and legitimate but their statement via X/Twitter was the kind of thing you'd expect someone in the pub to come out with after a few too many. Embarrassing and childish whining. Indulging in conspiracy theories isn't going to improve anything.

 

[Frank Lincoln]

Should we be criticising Forest, or should we be having the guts to add our complaints to theirs and stand with them? Isn't some kind of snowball effect the only way things are going to change?

I said yesterday that other clubs should back Nottingham Forest. Putting their complaints via social media wasn’t the best idea, but the principal stands. Unless the clubs stick together, this will be brushed under the carpet as other awful VAR decisions have been.

 

[Dubwolf71]

Its not as if Atwell overturned the refs decision and gave or turned down 3 penalties. He just backed up the onfield ref.

 

[5150]

Should we be criticising Forest, or should we be having the guts to add our complaints to theirs and stand with them? Isn't some kind of snowball effect the only way things are going to change?

If it were for the dubious decisions, yes , but the "ref is a Luton fan" bit , I would stay well clear of

 

[Black Country Wanderer]

If it were for the dubious decisions, yes , but the "ref is a Luton fan" bit , I would stay well clear of

Yep
Its ok for us fans to throw around the bias and corrupt comments but for a club to officially do so is treading on a slippery slope
I wouldnt be surprised if they get hit with a fine for bringing the game into disrepute

 

[Superted]

I read that it is almost impossible to capture the moment the ball is played, and that a player could move a couple of inches in that time. That couple of inches could mean the Coventry player was actually onside. Was this what VAR was introduced for?

What a total nonsense they have made of what was once a simple and straightforward game.

I've been saying this since VAR was introduced to catch offsides. The system inherently has a margin for error, it has to on the basis of the way video works whether it's 30 frames per second, 60 frames or 120 frames. I believe 120 FPS is what's used for super slo-mo like they use in F1 but VAR I believe is 60FPS.

The system is not accrate enough to be used with the certainty that they're trying to apply precisely because a player could move a significant distance (in terms of being offside or onside) between two frames. Isolating which frame to then use to determine the point of release for the pass becomes critical.

The only way it could possibly work accurately is if the width of the lines identifying the position of the attacker and defender are dynamic and are set by the position of the players in the two frames before and after the point of release. If there is any overlap of the lines then the attacker is onside, otherwise they're offside. This would remove the ambiguity around identifying the point of release and would be able to account for the relative speeds of the attacker and defender.

 

[old wittonian]

If it were for the dubious decisions, yes , but the "ref is a Luton fan" bit , I would stay well clear of

But many on the Mix have wrongly complained that one official, forget his name, we get is a Villa fan and should be nowhere near our games
Let's not forget it is three decisions which are being questioned not just one.

 

[Scallywolf]

Should we be criticising Forest, or should we be having the guts to add our complaints to theirs and stand with them? Isn't some kind of snowball effect the only way things are going to change?

We are a democratic country and free speech is a given right. That includes praise and criticism where relevant and Forests criticism is justified imo.

What's the alternative? Just say nothing and let things carry on as they are now!

VAR, in its current state, is not fit for purpose and raises more questions then the answers being given. Officials operating it are regularly criticised (quite rightly imo) and walk away after matches without one word of explanation, not one. Why is this allowed to happen? Why can't they be interviewed after matches just like players and managers? Why do we have to listen to the pundits explanations? Why do the so called Big 6 seem get away with decisions that go against lower clubs?

So many questions, but no answers!

 

[Thank you Sir Jack]

Its not as if Atwell overturned the refs decision and gave or turned down 3 penalties. He just backed up the onfield ref.

There is a natural bias in favour of backing one of "your own". However, there needs to be a shift in thinking, such that having a decision overturned is not seen as a "black mark". The VAR officials can see things that an on field referee couldn't be expected to see.

 

[Rednal Wolf]

Having seen MoTD I think they should have had at least one stonewall penalty. The other two are subjective calls. And I agree, those calls usually go the way of bigger clubs. Forest were in their rights to complain about the VAR appointment before the game. They were ignored. What else can they do? PGMOL are arrogant and autocratic. Clubs can either accept it or organise for change.

I'm all for the organise for change aspect but let's do it correctly like professional clubs not like a pub team

 

[Mutchy]

If it were for the dubious decisions, yes , but the "ref is a Luton fan" bit , I would stay well clear of

But if they did raise concerns before the game, that were rejected, and then are on the receiving end of those decisions... what if we'd been in an equivalent position? The outcry on here would be deafening. It often is with less than that.
I think we could join forces without entirely condoning the way they've gone about it. Something has to give

 

[Jefe]

Should we be criticising Forest, or should we be having the guts to add our complaints to theirs and stand with them? Isn't some kind of snowball effect the only way things are going to change?

I agree totally. Some of the responses on this thread to Forest's predicament have been disappointing, given where we were week-in week-out with officials not so long ago. The collective hatchet job against us only stopped because it reached national media attention. If you criticise the refereeing in England, they double down and screw you harder - we know this better than most. Forest have been complaining for weeks just like we did, and their reward is to be denied two stonewall penalties in the biggest game of their season so far. Yet, some are laughing and calling them an excrement stain of a club.

This sort of tribalism, where we complain when referees shaft us but celebrate when it happens to clubs we don't like, is precisely why VAR will remain in place. Only with a united front of fanbases, players and coaches causing overwhelming pressure, can it be challenged. Given the VAR official drew the offside line over Wan-Bissaka's foot and not at the point of it, I would seriously consider legal action were I the Coventry chairman. That moment of 'incompetence' has cost Coventry millions of pounds, as well as a glorious final.

 

[wolfslair]

Did they say he cheated though. They pointed out he was a Luton fan (I believe he is) and had asked for him to be removed. If I were Attwell I'd have removed myself and, IMHO, the PGMOL should have removed him as well so as to avoid the sort of tweet Notts Forest put out.
The PGMOL will never admit he's an horrendous official.
The Independent panel will likely say all three decisions were correct.

They 100% inferred that he wasn’t impartial and was biased against them, which would benefit his club..

So they implied he wasn’t able to do his job and cheated them to save Luton.

They were stupid by sending the message, but legally sooooooo clever with the wording used to convey quite a serious libel against the referee

 

[wolfslair]

But if they did raise concerns before the game, that were rejected, and then are on the receiving end of those decisions... what if we'd been in an equivalent position? The outcry on here would be deafening. It often is with less than that.
I think we could join forces without entirely condoning the way they've gone about it. Something has to give

I think we need to join them and so do others in the community of prem clubs to show just how poor the referees are and the real world ramifications of their bad execution.

They could cost a club their status in the league.



Mike Dean on VAR using the next season handball rule in the Burnley game during the resumption after covid, stopped us getting Europe for a second time, that meant we lost the likes of Jota and Doc….. real sliding doors moment for us that was!!!

Let’s be honest the armpit “handball” in our city game effectively won Man City the league that season……

So VAR errors have already had two significant says on a title and European qualification…..

But it costing a team their premier league status due to how the weekend went down for Forest….. that will get messy and fast!

 

[old wittonian]

They 100% inferred that he wasn’t impartial and was biased against them, which would benefit his club..

So they implied he wasn’t able to do his job and cheated them to save Luton.

They were stupid by sending the message, but legally sooooooo clever with the wording used to convey quite a serious libel against the referee

I agree that was the inference but it appears to be factually correct.
As regards your last statement it seems it wasn't an angry seat of the pants tweet but put out there after some sort of legal advice.

 

[wolfslair]

I agree that was the inference but it appears to be factually correct.
As regards your last statement it seems it wasn't an angry seat of the pants tweet but put out there after some sort of legal advice.

I agree, it stinks to high heavens.

Worrying that the PGMOL put anyone affiliated as a fan/home town/birth place to clubs in fixtures that can directly affect the teams rivals to safety/title/europe……..

The fact it was flagged and not actioned shows a massive amount of arrogance and misplaced trust by Howard Webb, who seems to want to make his job more untenable by the week….

 

[Slothmonkey]

 

[wolfslair]

View attachment 42108

That is EPIC levels of ****housery and I am all for it!!!!

 

[WolvesAndCows]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1782053079967322549

 

[WW1963]

If it were for the dubious decisions, yes , but the "ref is a Luton fan" bit , I would stay well clear of

If we associate ourselves with Forest's tweet, we associate ourselves with paranoia and conspiracy.

Forest would get a fine and we'd get a 20 point deduction.

 

[Mutchy]

If we associate ourselves with Forest's tweet, we associate ourselves with paranoia and conspiracy.

Forest would get a fine and we'd get a 20 point deduction.

....

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

We are a democratic country and free speech is a given right. That includes praise and criticism where relevant and Forests criticism is justified imo.

What's the alternative? Just say nothing and let things carry on as they are now!

VAR, in its current state, is not fit for purpose and raises more questions then the answers being given. Officials operating it are regularly criticised (quite rightly imo) and walk away after matches without one word of explanation, not one. Why is this allowed to happen? Why can't they be interviewed after matches just like players and managers? Why do we have to listen to the pundits explanations? Why do the so called Big 6 seem get away with decisions that go against lower clubs?

So many questions, but no answers!

Well I'll try a few......

Praise and criticism are allowed, but 'free speech' is a much misused phrase, you don't have a write to slander or libel someone. Can Atwell no longer be involved in any game involving a club fighting relegation? How far does that principle stretch?

There was a brief time when refs explained their decisions, basically it amounted to 'it's not easy you know'!

they are evaluated and go up and down the lists according to performance.

Our grievances this season are again Man U, Newcastle, Sheff U, Luton, Fulham, West Ham hardly screams big 6 bias. Ironically Sheff U were singing about PL corruption just before they got a dodgy pen. There's a lot of incompetence for sure, but mostly the issue has been the 'high bar' and the way it moved during the season. All three in Everton v Forest were pens for me, were any of them 'clear and obvious errors', who knows, maybe the last one?

 

[Very Proud (AKA Still Proud)]

I love how the media (Sky Sports and Neville in particular) are closing ranks behind their fellow cartel members PGMOL right now.

How dare Forest challenge the integrity of PGMOL and it's officials!!!

It's not like they have any left Gary, and they've done that all by themselves.

 

[Jefe]

I love how the media (Sky Sports and Neville in particular) are closing ranks behind their fellow cartel members PGMOL right now.

That's because, if you believe the insinuations of Richard Keys (corroborated by Keith Hackett), they are afraid of losing their jobs if they don't.
It is a cartel, and like all cartels, it is held together by fear and the threats of those in power.

 

[Bill S Preston Esq.]

Was posted well before the offside.

Was he offside yes, was it the correct call in the eyes of this muppets of the PGMOL yes

But it was against the spirit of the game and stole one of the greatest fa cup comebacks from the history books.

The powers that be have killed football….,

That's the thing innit? If that goal was given and then after the game the pundits dissect the decision and decide it was a toenail offside, no one and I mean NO ONE will claim a huge miscarriage of justice, not even the most one eyed United fan.

These are not the decisions VAR was bought in for. This is NOT what the fans thought they were getting.

I've said it before... strikers gaining an advantage by being marginally offside while appearing onside is a skill and a quality that should be celebrated. I wonder how many great off the shoulder strikers of yesteryear would have their goal tallies ravaged by modern day rules?

Off the top of my head; Ian Rush, Ian Wright, Tony Cottee, Andy Cole, Stevie Bull. **** VAR.

 

[SuperGran]

Can Atwell no longer be involved in any game involving a club fighting relegation? How far does that principle stretch?

Neither us or Bournemouth are in a relegation battle but let’s say he decides to send one or two of our players off on Wednesday so they couldn’t play on Saturday against Luton? You can stretch the principle as far as you want

 

[Ned]

? that’s corrupt

From the Journal of Philosophy of Sport 2023"
"Whereas officials can act corruptly, they cannot cheat. In contrast, sports participants, since they occupy two roles, can do both. I argue that although acts of cheating are acts of corruption, not all corrupt acts by competitors are acts of cheating".

Rightly or (probably) wrongly I’m taking corrupt to mean the decision makers have a vested interest in one of the sides winning/losing. Possibly financial gain, etc.

 

[wolfslair]

I love how the media (Sky Sports and Neville in particular) are closing ranks behind their fellow cartel members PGMOL right now.

How dare Forest challenge the integrity of PGMOL and it's officials!!!

It's not like they have any left Gary, and they've done that all by themselves.

They have Howard very close to them and giving them access no one else can.

People at the worst case hate watch his show on the TV and YouTube. So it gets eyeballs on them that cannot go elsewhere for the exclusive.

They are protecting that link for dear life.!!!

 

[Bill S Preston Esq.]

With regard to bias in football, I defy anyone not to show it.
For example I might watch Palace v Fulham and not give two ****s who wins.
However, as the game progresses I will undoubtedly, for one reason or another. e.g. VAR, a player upsets me (Rat Face) or previous results, start to favour one side and hope it wins. IMHO that's just human nature.
It follows that as the VAR watch the whole game similar feelings must creep in and influence decisions.
Hopefully it doesn't but who knows when you see some of the decisions

They need a system in place where VAR decide if a potential foul or handball needs reviewing...

The clip is then prepared, removing all discernable colour and detail (sponsors and such), crowd visuals and audio removed...

It's then passed to the decision panel in a sealed room to deliver their verdict. If multiple games are being played, they won't even know what game the incident they are viewing is from. It's the only way to remove bias.

Do I think this system could be delivered in a timely manner, say under 60 seconds? Yes I do. Utilising modern technology and AI I do think it could be done.

Do I think it could be delivered by the current clown show at the PGMOL? No ****ing chance. Useless ******s.

 

[Jefe]

Praise and criticism are allowed, but 'free speech' is a much misused phrase, you don't have a write to slander or libel someone. Can Atwell no longer be involved in any game involving a club fighting relegation? How far does that principle stretch? There was a brief time when refs explained their decisions, basically it amounted to 'it's not easy you know'!

they are evaluated and go up and down the lists according to performance.

Our grievances this season are again Man U, Newcastle, Sheff U, Luton, Fulham, West Ham hardly screams big 6 bias. Ironically Sheff U were singing about PL corruption just before they got a dodgy pen. There's a lot of incompetence for sure, but mostly the issue has been the 'high bar' and the way it moved during the season. All three in Everton v Forest were pens for me, were any of them 'clear and obvious errors', who knows, maybe the last one?

You and I have chewed much cud on the limits of free speech of course, but libel is no easy thing to prove from a legal standpoint. The league does have referees step down if there is a potential conflict of interest because the referee supports a particular club. Last season, a League One referee was set to officiate an Ipswich game but was replaced when it turned out he was a Sheffield Wednesday fan (Ipswich's rival for promotion). A Luton fan officiating a Premier League relegation six-pointer is exactly the same principle, so I think there is a strong argument that Atwell should not have been involved.

However, it is now being reported that Forest did not officially request Atwell be replaced. Forest say they warned the Premier League of Atwell's allegiance to Luton, so who knows who is telling the truth? I am not inclined to believe anything that emanates from the Premier League after their hoodwinking the EFL over cup replays, but it could also be sour grapes from Forest.

I think the handball and the foul from behind were easy enough to miss in real time from the referee's respective positions, which is precisely why they should be considered, "clear and obvious" errors.

 

[fleck1]

I don't think its corruption, if you look across the league every team has suffered at the hands of these morons to some degree. With so many decisions being subjective (this being the whole issue with VAR) its easy to have an unconscious bias towards the big clubs in these moments when the pressure is on, or the home team when the crowd is up. The main problem is none of them want to upset their mate and aren't prepared to step in and say have a look mate it think you are wrong, so we end up going around in circles with referees naturally making mistakes as you'd expect with the pace of the game but the technology that is there to help them is just compounding the issue by agreeing with them.
There is no problem for me with Forest coming out and condemning VAR and the officials , as I think every club should and more like Moyes and Antonio calling them out after being on the right side of one would be ideal. But its totally unprofessional to be calling the VAR a Luton fan, it comes across as childish and bitter. Takes away from the valid point they had about poor officiating.

 

[Perton Wolf]

But if they did raise concerns before the game, that were rejected, and then are on the receiving end of those decisions... what if we'd been in an equivalent position? The outcry on here would be deafening. It often is with less than that.
I think we could join forces without entirely condoning the way they've gone about it. Something has to give

Clubs shouldn't be able to decide who they don't want refereeing their games, so the PGMOL was right to not bow to any such request. Would open a whole can of worms.

 

[WW1963]

You and I have chewed much cud on the limits of free speech of course, but libel is no easy thing to prove from a legal standpoint. The league does have referees step down if there is a potential conflict of interest because the referee supports a particular club. Last season, a League One referee was set to officiate an Ipswich game but was replaced when it turned out he was a Sheffield Wednesday fan (Ipswich's rival for promotion). A Luton fan officiating a Premier League relegation six-pointer is exactly the same principle, so I think there is a strong argument that Atwell should not have been involved.

However, it is now being reported that Forest did not officially request Atwell be replaced. Forest say they warned the Premier League of Atwell's allegiance to Luton, so who knows who is telling the truth? I am not inclined to believe anything that emanates from the Premier League after their hoodwinking the EFL over cup replays, but it could also be sour grapes from Forest.

I think the handball and the foul from behind were easy enough to miss in real time from the referee's respective positions, which is precisely why they should be considered, "clear and obvious" errors.

Which is why we cannot involve ourselves with Nottingham Forest, regardless of suffering similarly terrible decisions all season long.

They cannot be trusted.

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

We can't stand with Forest because they're pathetic and a disgrace with how they behave.

They are completely unreasonable and it stems from the owner. If you even briefly follow Greek football, you will see what Marinakis is like. Just look at some of the things levelled at him in the past.

More importantly, the claim about Luton is ridiculous. Luton wanted a draw. So their claim is incredible considering they were playing a relegation rival. It would make no sense for Luton to want Everton to win. Now, they're going to struggle to catch them. With goal difference, Luton are going to need six points from four games just to make Everton play again. For a side that's picked up 25 points in 34 games, that's not likely to happen. So now, instead of having two teams they could catch, they realistically only have one.

Obviously an Everton win was preferable to a Forest win for Luton, but they without doubt wanted a draw, so Attwell denying Forest a penalty didn't help Luton at all.

Then we have the hypocrisy of Forest.

This is a club who were promoted by poor decisions and they mocked Huddersfield for complaining as they sung 'we love VAR'.

Does that mean they should suffer forever? Absolutely not. And, whilst not to our level (let's not forget they scored a goal against us last week that was inexplicably not disallowed), they have been on the receiving end of poor calls this season.

However, the fact they benefited from awful decisions in the biggest game in their modern history should give them a bit of understanding and a level-head when assessing these things.