Central Coast Mariners vs Ziggy Gordon's winning club.

[Wombat]

Cummings is pretty good

Product of Scottish Football and he is not good enough just yet.

 

[Coastalraider]

The most annoying thing about the press conference is is was announced during the game Monty would be addressing the situation. Commentary wouldn’t have mentioned it without being advised by the club.Then his address was ‘I’ve already answered that. He won’t be travelling this week for personal reasons’

Bizarre to say would would address it, then get defensive when asked.

 

[marinermick]

The most annoying thing about the press conference is is was announced during the game Monty would be addressing the situation. Commentary wouldn’t have mentioned it without being advised by the club.Then his address was ‘I’ve already answered that. He won’t be travelling this week for personal reasons’

Bizarre to say would would address it, then get defensive when asked.

To be fair it was only Ben Homer that said it would be announced after the game and he is a scum loving douche canoe.

 

[Kripple]

Definitely onside. The ball was crossed back.

Ball was played forward and the Wanderer was in front of the last defender. Should have been checked.

 

[Luke]

Speaking of weird narratives what's this whole Oli supporter club thing? Most of the people asking on fb arent his mates or pushing an agenda, they dont have inside info or lurk on forums they just follow their club and see our most experienced, expensive player and former captain left out entirely. Easy to ignore when we are winning but when we get thrashed by Sydney of course those questions are going to get louder.

The ones that started the bombardment were deffinitely his mates and that has been confirmed and sorry, but there is a clear agenda. If i was wearing a tin foil hat I would say they have been encouraged to smash the club and cause a scene which has worked...good thing I have my hat off though. We're now seeing others jump on the "we demand answers" bandwagon because of them.

 

[turbo]

We're now seeing others jump on the "we demand answers" bandwagon because of them.

Or you know its because we support the mariners and we dont get nice things or expensive players very often so their absence is rather obvious. If it was started by his mates that's one thing but it's not unreasonable for the average fan to want answers. They wont get them though because the club isnt going to air dirty laundry and start a slinging match. Unfortunately that leads us towards conspiracy about money because its us.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Ball was played forward and the Wanderer was in front of the last defender. Should have been checked.

Agree that the ball was played forward (though direction it's played in doesn't actually matter....except if it goes back and he's only running forwards then he can't be off)

He was in front of the 2nd last line of defence, but he also needs to be in front of the ball. Looks onside to me, though it's a bit best-guess with the angle we have.

Anyway, VAR is required to check this - they would have checked. That's how VAR works.

Sure, I agree it looks close and this comes back to the argument of better communication - it wouldn't hurt for us to even get the Hawkeye still on broadcast.

 

[AuzDutchy]

Agree that the ball was played forward (though direction it's played in doesn't actually matter....except if it goes back and he's only running forwards then he can't be off)

He was in front of the 2nd last line of defence, but he also needs to be in front of the ball. Looks onside to me, though it's a bit best-guess with the angle we have.

Anyway, VAR is required to check this - they would have checked. That's how VAR works.

Sure, I agree it looks close and this comes back to the argument of better communication - it wouldn't hurt for us to even get the Hawkeye still on broadcast.

this is the same VAR that looked at Millers incident and thought it worth looking at again to upgrade it, so assuming they must have looked at it=there wasnt anything wrong doesnt sit too well, its entirely possible that they looked at the offside and still got it wrong

im not saying it was on or offside, i didnt have a good enough replay to look at, but lack of evidence of a check doesnt mean evidence they checked it and it was ok

 

[iggythump]

Most of the people asking on fb arent his mates

See, that's where you are wrong

 

[iggythump]

The narrative his little supporter club bombarding the clubs facebook don't want you to know...

I think his echo chamber on Facebook supports what Ollie thinks about himself, that he is the most important player in the team and well above anyone else. That mirrors his thoughts on what he thinks he deserves pay wise and contractually.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

this is the same VAR that looked at Millers incident and thought it worth looking at again to upgrade it, so assuming they must have looked at it=there wasnt anything wrong doesnt sit too well, its entirely possible that they looked at the offside and still got it wrong

im not saying it was on or offside, i didnt have a good enough replay to look at, but lack of evidence of a check doesnt mean evidence they checked it and it was ok

True, and we've all seen cases where the lines have clearly been drawn from the wrong position on the body.

But at least offside is mostly objective, rather than this YC/RC one.

The VAR protocol states:

• The VAR automatically ‘checks’ the TV camera footage for every potential or actual goal, penalty or direct red card decision/incident, or a case of mistaken identity, using different camera angles and replay speeds

I think we need to get past this idea of 'oh, the commentators weren't talking about VAR checks/there wasn't the logo on the screen so the VAR didn't actually look at it'. No, VAR looked at it and decided it didn't warrant intervention. People say it all the time with penalties and things 'oh, VAR didn't even look at it'. No, they did, just didn't think it warranted intervention.

When there's only 1 thing to look at...yes, VAR checked it. VAR will check many, many more things than we see as fans (which is part of the reason why they can have aVAR too).

Where I have no faith - and again, communication - is when you have multiple incidents in one play - eg and while they should, for instance, be reviewing the potential offside in the leadup to the penalty they're reviewing, I feel that's an area of concern - and again, communication is needed. Or when you have several potential incidents prior to a goal - we can assume they checked the buildup, but if you have 3 potential fouls, the VAR may only really have noticed and checked 2.

But, did I mention, communication?

I'm sure those on here who think it was offside would actually prefer to be proven wrong, rather than carrying the frustration of thinking we got screwed over another goal.

Though the broadcast editing this season is utterly atrocious, far, far worse than anything under Foxtel. Key incidents often don't get a second look by the broadcasters. I don't think that's conspiracy - it's just absolute incompetence.

We always had that problem to some extent with Foxtel, but it's increased tenfold now. It's like the editor doesn't know the sport at all.

 

[turbo]

See, that's where you are wrong

I know some of the people that have asked/commented personally, they have no connection to him. My old man who barely ever uses social media has asked me whats going on with Oli. This stuff isnt rocket science - we generally have something like 3-4 players over 25 on the pitch at once so it's really obvious when the old blokes aren't around especially the one that used to wear the armband and helped drag us off the floor last season. His mates may have stirred up some commotion but lots of people were thinking it anyway.

 

[Melange]

Definitely onside. The ball was crossed back.

Stop spoiling my refereeing rage!

 

[turbo]

Stop spoiling my refereeing rage!

They generally do ok at the black and white stuff like offside, ball out of play etc.. its when things are subjective and they're required to think that things tend to go sideways

 

[AuzDutchy]

True, and we've all seen cases where the lines have clearly been drawn from the wrong position on the body.

But at least offside is mostly objective, rather than this YC/RC one.

The VAR protocol states:

• The VAR automatically ‘checks’ the TV camera footage for every potential or actual goal, penalty or direct red card decision/incident, or a case of mistaken identity, using different camera angles and replay speeds

I think we need to get past this idea of 'oh, the commentators weren't talking about VAR checks/there wasn't the logo on the screen so the VAR didn't actually look at it'. No, VAR looked at it and decided it didn't warrant intervention. People say it all the time with penalties and things 'oh, VAR didn't even look at it'. No, they did, just didn't think it warranted intervention.

When there's only 1 thing to look at...yes, VAR checked it. VAR will check many, many more things than we see as fans (which is part of the reason why they can have aVAR too).

Where I have no faith - and again, communication - is when you have multiple incidents in one play - eg and while they should, for instance, be reviewing the potential offside in the leadup to the penalty they're reviewing, I feel that's an area of concern - and again, communication is needed. Or when you have several potential incidents prior to a goal - we can assume they checked the buildup, but if you have 3 potential fouls, the VAR may only really have noticed and checked 2.

But, did I mention, communication?

I'm sure those on here who think it was offside would actually prefer to be proven wrong, rather than carrying the frustration of thinking we got screwed over another goal.

Though the broadcast editing this season is utterly atrocious, far, far worse than anything under Foxtel. Key incidents often don't get a second look by the broadcasters. I don't think that's conspiracy - it's just absolute incompetence.

We always had that problem to some extent with Foxtel, but it's increased tenfold now. It's like the editor doesn't know the sport at all.

im not necessarily disputing that they check thing as per the process, but i have no confidence in the competence of the people doing the checking, time and again these refs have made terrible judgement mistakes affecting games, for years and years, yet we still have no choice but to accept the decisions of people who have screwed us over so many time due to their incompetence and poor interpretation of the rules.

thats the problem with VAR, it will always come down to the interpretations of the monkey reviewing it, even with a clear cut black and white thing like offside

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

im not necessarily disputing that they check thing as per the process, but i have no confidence in the competence of the people doing the checking, time and again these refs have made terrible judgement mistakes affecting games, for years and years, yet we still have no choice but to accept the decisions of people who have screwed us over so many time due to their incompetence and poor interpretation of the rules.

thats the problem with VAR, it will always come down to the interpretations of the monkey reviewing it, even with a clear cut black and white thing like offside

Can't argue with any of that. Offside is objective, but they can (and have) still screw up where the line is placed, or even which frame of play is used.

But that still comes down to - let's assume they checked it; like any potential penalty - yes, VAR looked at it. That's not saying they looked at it well, but they looked at it ;-)

It'd be nice if we received the VAR footage of their check - even for a 'non-controversial' one like this - to put this to bed, wouldn't it?

 

[Melange]

Now, we all know that referees shouldn't be affected by players screaming and rolling around pretending to be hurt, but we all know it does have an impact. If he wasn't screaming like a banshee, would we still have seen a red?

Yeah, and he recovered very well when from his second screen it sounded like he might have a compound fracture.

It was at that point I was thinking, if we only had Matty on the bench Monty could have put him on the right wing straight away, pointed at Traore, and said "smash!"

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Yeah, and he recovered very well when from his second screen it sounded like he might have a compound fracture.

It was at that point I was thinking, if we only had Matty on the bench Monty could have put him on the right wing straight away, pointed at Traore, and said "smash!"

Honestly, just reminded me of the screams I made when Roar equalised in the dying minutes.....

 

[FFC Mariner]

I think his echo chamber on Facebook supports what Ollie thinks about himself, that he is the most important player in the team and well above anyone else. That mirrors his thoughts on what he thinks he deserves pay wise and contractually.

Less time with lizard aliens loving yoga teachers blowing smoke up his arse might help

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Less time with lizard aliens loving yoga teachers blowing smoke up his arse might help

I often find myself having no idea what's happening on this forum (or, on the field, according to any of the players I've refereed )....though in this instance, sounds like ignorance is bliss