- Joined
- May 9, 2018
- Messages
- 1,606
- Likes
- 1,316
I guess it wasn't. Commentators from NBC said the same. Sterling was absolutely spot on.So was it offside or not?
Sent from my m2 using Tapatalk
I guess it wasn't. Commentators from NBC said the same. Sterling was absolutely spot on.So was it offside or not?
So was it offside or not?
easy offside for me.
This game featured 20 good technical players, and two players sticking out like sore thumbs. Lovren and Milner.
Klopp fucked his team today big time. Sometimes I have a feeling he’s trying to outsmart himself.
Wtf was he thinking dropping Fabinho and Shaq who were playing really good lately, and starting with Milner and Henderson. You don’t change a winning formations against a top team.
Do Liverpool players usually dont pass to Salah?
still don't know if it's offside? wth guys, come on, i thought you all are expert..
Is this what people are on about? Seems like a clear onside to me, courtesy of Dejan 'best centre back in the world' Lovren.
https://twitter.com/rajsinghchohan/status/1080986932933521409 (Not a video, by the way)
Was this the first game you've watched with Liverpool this season? Salah gets way more than enough passes. He was targeted a lot this game too. He was just taken out of the game by City being very physical with him and by him playing more CF than SS/WF. The positions firmino took up, usually salah is in those positions.
(1) The ball already left the feet of danilo and sterling was already 'coming back' towards the ball (from his offside position)
(2) Watch the drawn line vs the lines on the field. Not parallel
Like I said, as soon as they put that line up, I immediately went since it's like Juve-level nonsense.
Once upon a time I mentioned what you said in number 2. Somebody replied that the line should not be parallel on tv because of camera distortion.
Camera distortion? Maybe I'm a retard but the center line, end lines, 18yd box etc are absolute references, so I fail to see how 'camera distortion' can make those straight lines not straight or not indicative of the field orientation based on camera angle. If anything, it's because of those straight lines we can determine angle and orientation of the field, regardless of camera position.
Regardless, for me it was easy since sterling wasn't running onto a pass; he was running back from an offside position. Even in this fucked up line drawing, the ball has already left danilo's feet and it is barely offside with a fucked up line. Move that video frame back to when the ball is at danilo's feet and sterling is easily offside.
On NBC's coverage, that's actually what happened which made it laughable to me. They played one slow replay (without the drawn line) showing sterling running back and lovren literally standing looking at the defensive line then moving forward to catch him offside. Then they quickly switched to a static screen show with the line drawn to "prove sterling was onside", but the ball is already off danilo's feet.
Typically, at least in non-Juve serie A games, you will see them do the repetitively go over the replay frame by frame, back and forth to really get to the point of where the ball is played.
End of the day, game over 3 points to City and good luck to them in Anfield in round 2.
Once upon a time I mentioned what you said in number 2. Somebody replied that the line should not be parallel on tv because of camera distortion.
That's correct. But it's not "camera distortion". It's just the perspective of the viewer. No 2 lines in that photo posted by yoramG are seen by us to be parallel. The only time they're seen as parallel is when you look at the field from a bird's eye view.
This is primary school stuff guys.
Modern TV camera lenses have virtually no visible optical distortion whatsoever.That's correct. But it's not "camera distortion". It's just the perspective of the viewer. No 2 lines in that photo posted by yoramG are seen by us to be parallel. The only time they're seen as parallel is when you look at the field from a bird's eye view.
This is primary school stuff guys.