Offside judgement (Laporte v Wolves)

[Bluearmy]

But if the lines showed he was 1mm onside then why have a clear and obvious criteria? The lino’s subjective decision that Eric was offside couldn’t be clearly and obviously wrong, surely?

Video Assistant Referees Explained | VAR | Premier League

For information on how Video Assistant Referees (VAR) will operate, including frequently asked questions and video explanations, visit the official website of the Premier League.

www.premierleague.com

No clear and obvious on line calls despite what he thinks!!

 

[bert38]

There are so many other places those lines could’ve been drawn-that was the only one that meant la Porte was offside. It stinks. Didn’t affect the result tonight but fast forward to a tight champs league game and you just know that’s how we are stopped.

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

But if the lines showed he was 1mm onside then why have a clear and obvious criteria? The lino’s subjective decision that Eric was offside couldn’t be clearly and obviously wrong, surely?

Actually just thinking this through too. Presumably if the lines had showed he was 1mm ONSIDE then presumably the VAR team could have still disallowed the goal on the basis that it wasn’t a clear and obvious mistake from the Lino??

 

[chaddblue]

There’s an obvious and easy way to fix this shambles

firstly get rid of those ludicrous lines

secondly, the only thing that can be offside is the foot.. after all it is football!!

And none of that nonsense about a toenail being offside, it has to be the entire foot

that could be spotted easily by a freeze frame and one simple line.. no arguments

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

Video Assistant Referees Explained | VAR | Premier League

For information on how Video Assistant Referees (VAR) will operate, including frequently asked questions and video explanations, visit the official website of the Premier League.

www.premierleague.com

No clear and obvious on line calls despite what he thinks!!

That’s interesting as the text on that is June 20 but if you click on the offside section where C&O is referenced the text is from 2019.

they can’t both be right!

 

[SK14BLUE]

There’s an obvious and easy way to fix this shambles

firstly get rid of those ludicrous lines

secondly, the only thing that can be offside is the foot.. after all it is football!!

And none of that nonsense about a toenail being offside, it has to be the entire foot

that could be spotted easily by a freeze frame and one simple line.. no arguments

Been saying this for months, the clues in the name of the sport, FOOTball. So easy to understand

 

[meltonblue]

Ultimately it’s offside based on the ridiculous use of VAR currently implemented and there’s been more than a few just like that this season.

I do think they have to revise it though, it’s beyond daft now.

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

So we're allowed to score with our arms now, happy days

I'm waiting for a 'hand of Rod' moment.

 

[Bluearmy]

That’s interesting as the text on that is June 20 but if you click on the offside section where C&O is referenced the text is from 2019.

they can’t both be right!

I was looking at various bits of info as was questioning myself but would take the 2020 as the latest/correct up to date information...

But who knows with the idiots running the asylum

 

[Manc in London]

It may be the quality of the image but it looks like the line is under the foot of the Wolves player, rather than at the end of the boot (goal side) . I guess the Wolves player also has no studs in his boot!

 

[Gray]

They should check if the part of the body you scored the goal with was offside, not just other random bits.

 

[SWPISHOME]

It may be the quality of the image but it looks like the line is under the foot of the Wolves player, rather than at the end of the boot (goal side) . I guess the Wolves player also has no studs in his boot!

Spot on. Why does it start before his heel?

Well don't answer that we all know why.

 

[meltonblue]

It may be the quality of the image but it looks like the line is under the foot of the Wolves player, rather than at the end of the boot (goal side) . I guess the Wolves player also has no studs in his boot!

It will do to be fair due to that camera angle.

 

[Rammy Blue]

I knew there would be a thread on this, it was a fucking ridiculous decision and so obviously onside. You could tell instantly on the replay that the defender‘s heel was playing Laporte on, they just tweaked it to whatever was necessary to disallow the goal.

Bottom line though, easiest way to get rid of all this, as it always has been, is to either switch it to purely the feet or give a margin of error as advantage to the attacker.

Just got to get consistency, pure and simple. We haven’t been dicked much recently so not going to complain too heavily, and we’ve seen other top teams suffer from wank decisions too.

 

[adelaideblue]

frustrating, i cant see why it cant just be clear daylight between the forward and defender, then its black and white. currently its almost impossible to be level as your bodies would have to be aligned.

 

[Corky]

The lines are not on the floor and it warps the perspective.

He would have probably been given the benefit if not flagged, and the lines move an inch each either way. From that pic you can score with the bottom of your tricep now, it was armpit last season, and a short sleeve at the start of this season, now a very baggy fit is used it seems. It is a bit like below the belt when the boxer pulls his shorts up to his armpits, it is bollocks basing it on on clothing which can be any fit.

 

[BlueTG]

Can’t wait for a goal to be ruled out because the torso of one player is 2inches thicker than another’s.

 

[Boo or Boo-urns]

I'm waiting for a 'hand of Rod' moment.

 

[Manc in London]

It will do to be fair due to that camera angle.

Fair point. I would have thought so myself, but the issue is, they cannot be 100% sure because of the angle. Thus, the judgement is only indicative and not authoritative. Therefore, it cannot be sure it is a correct judgement.

 

[Mr Partridge]

VAR is just two refs making the wrong decision instead of one.