HAL referees - inept or something else ?

HAL Refs are

  • Inept

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • FFA Stooges

    Votes: 4 40.0%
  • Stuck between a rock and a hard place

    Votes: 4 40.0%

  • Total voters
    10

true believer

Well-Known Member
No it doesn't. You can have grass between the line and the ball and the ball still be in - and the AR was also right in line. I doubt it crossed the line, but you certainly couldn't prove it either way with VAR.
I haven't seen the handball, but at the goal-line incident, Georgievski flattened Grant from behind for what should have been a clearcut penalty.
you must have seen a different clip to me .maybe bachuss mum was doing the var
 

Capn Gus Bloodbeard

Well-Known Member
you must have seen a different clip to me .maybe bachuss mum was doing the var
As I said, grass between ball and line doesn't mean it's out.
to demonstrate.
Given the diameter of a soccer ball, you need the base of the ball to be more than 11cm past the line to be out.
- can you say with absolute, 100% certainty, that the ball is more than half its own width past the edge of the goal line?
Especially given the AR was right in line?
 

true believer

Well-Known Member
your top picture has a bent line ,which runs with the ffa's var policy

as for the bottom , the only people that don't believe it's not in are you and the var committee
var is shopped as the guide on howlers . it's been shown up as a tool for rigging outcomes to suit the ffa
certainly twice in that game
 

Tevor

Well-Known Member
The ball over the line was so difficult to judge i’m ok with the result. The two clear cut penalties waved away are more disgusting as they were both absolute. Fox stooges lived up to their side as well by not really showing them or discussing in any detail. Grant tackled to the ground and Baccus moved his shoulder towards the ball. Both clear Pens. Keep to the script everyone.
 

turbo

Well-Known Member
or discussing in any detail.
Did you see slater go down there post game to try to prove it was a goal? They definitely were discussing it. I’m of the opinion it was very close and can’t argue much either way without a top down camera angle.
Would it have gone the same way in a lower profile game though?
 

Capn Gus Bloodbeard

Well-Known Member
The ball over the line was so difficult to judge i’m ok with the result. The two clear cut penalties waved away are more disgusting as they were both absolute. Fox stooges lived up to their side as well by not really showing them or discussing in any detail. Grant tackled to the ground and Baccus moved his shoulder towards the ball. Both clear Pens. Keep to the script everyone.
Yeah, seen the handball now. That's a disgraceful decision.
But if it was Kris Griffiths-Jones in the bunker, it's no surprise. His big-team bias is blatant.
But by not holding him to account, the FFA are complicit.

your top picture has a bent line ,which runs with the ffa's var policy

as for the bottom , the only people that don't believe it's not in are you and the var committee
var is shopped as the guide on howlers . it's been shown up as a tool for rigging outcomes to suit the ffa
certainly twice in that game
Whether the top picture has a bent line is not even relevant - you can clearly see the portion of the line next to the ball.
Alright then, example B.



And honestly, both neutrals and WSW supporters generally accept it wasn't a goal. You're about the only one I've seen adamant that it was.
As I said, grass between the ball and the line doesn't mean it's out. Prove me wrong.
 
Last edited:

Capn Gus Bloodbeard

Well-Known Member
There’s one other pet hate I have and that’s the idea that so many refs have of giving warnings rather than cards early. Watching the FFA cup tonight there were a few yellow worthy tackles and holding/professional fouls early and nothing. Do it in the second half and you’re in the book. As far as I’m aware goals are worth the same all game yet fouls aren’t treated the same.
Yeah, there's a lot of gutless refereeing. This Iranian that people rave about, he just strikes me as another gutless one. He'll warn players for blatant dives but doesn't have the balls to book them.


Yeah me too
I remember the throw-in - though the indirect free kick for the player off injured running on a week or two ago and making a tackle was far worse; worse because the VAR should have corrected it (it was supposed to be a penalty).
 

FFC Mariner

Well-Known Member
If only there was some way to put a chip in the ball that would send a signal to a wrist device on the ref
Oh, hang on. There is but the FFA don't use it
 

true believer

Well-Known Member
Yeah, seen the handball now. That's a disgraceful decision.
But if it was Kris Griffiths-Jones in the bunker, it's no surprise. His big-team bias is blatant.
But by not holding him to account, the FFA are complicit.



Whether the top picture has a bent line is not even relevant - you can clearly see the portion of the line next to the ball.
Alright then, example B.



And honestly, both neutrals and WSW supporters generally accept it wasn't a goal. You're about the only one I've seen adamant that it was.
As I said, grass between the ball and the line doesn't mean it's out. Prove me wrong.
look get a set square and line it up .the tennis ball is jack shit
the answer to the question , once again. is one "are they wearing a yellow jersey" or two "bosses team "
there is no other criteria in the ffa var manual
 

pjennings

Well-Known Member
Fox quoted $250,000 per ground to have goal line technology. Some one must be having a lend of them. Chips in the ball and 3 sensors at the back of each goal. Pretty simple.
 

Capn Gus Bloodbeard

Well-Known Member
look get a set square and line it up .the tennis ball is jack shit
the answer to the question , once again. is one "are they wearing a yellow jersey" or two "bosses team "
there is no other criteria in the ffa var manual
and what are you going to do with a set square?
And what is 'jack shit' about the tennis ball?
 

turbo

Well-Known Member
Fox quoted $250,000 per ground to have goal line technology. Some one must be having a lend of them. Chips in the ball and 3 sensors at the back of each goal. Pretty simple.
Ive heard that sort of figure before and it might have even been in pounds. A quick google suggests that probably is the cost.
 

true believer

Well-Known Member
Fox quoted $250,000 per ground to have goal line technology. Some one must be having a lend of them. Chips in the ball and 3 sensors at the back of each goal. Pretty simple.
or just project a plane from the goal line .given the ball has a known radius . it f'n simple ,
their lying
 
Top