Once again VAR throws up more questions than it answers.
The lack of lines for our disallowed goal was weird. It looked very close to the naked eye. What are we meant to think?
There again, VAR decided to freeze the frame at a lovely point for our second goal. I'm not sure that the ball was anywhere near being released. If they'd taken the next frame Joey would have been a yard offside! But would the next frame have told the whole story too? This is the problem. They spend all this time drawing lines (when they can be arsed) to allow them to make the right decision to a millimetre and yet they don't have cameras sophisticated enough to accurately freeze on moving action. Someone told me a while back that they have cameras that run at 300 frames per second, but I reckon that's bullshit.
Also Piglet from the Villa fansite also tells me that Diaz should have been sent off. Says it was like the 'tackle' on Gravenberch in the League Cup Final.
The 300 fps cameras are definitely bullshit. I keep saying that the measurement has a huge error, and a lot of that is from the time mark. The error should be half the difference between frames; that should be the width of the lines, not some hair-sized lines. And if the lines overlap, advantage attacker.
By the way, they didn't show any lines on their deflected goal either. I thought that was offside. I'm not sure if our disallowed goal was or was not offside; the frozen frame they chose implied offside. But considering the above, was it?
Edit: (hopefully the images comes through this time) Whi were the lines not shown for this?
