Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 60,300
Wherever you draw the line, there will always be controversy, whether with daylight or a toenail.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Offside Rule is stupid !
- Thread starter Heidenreich
- Start date
The attacking player has to lean forward in a sprint towards goal. Are you supposed to run with a straight back. )Might have to get Michael Johnson in to train them ffs!)
Also didnt celebrate Jesus's or Sterling's goals.
It's shit and I will never take to it.(was on about var)
Also didnt celebrate Jesus's or Sterling's goals.
It's shit and I will never take to it.(was on about var)
kaz7
Well-Known Member
What happened to thicker lines ? Raz always cops a ten sec var review offside when he wasnt , we werent given time to look and no proper replay ,always get this shit when we play the dippers
theres only one carlito
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Mar 2010
- Messages
- 1,996
- Team supported
- Manchester City since 1980
I’d go as far and say that even if one whole foot is beyond the last defender or the whole head of the attacking player then fine, but mm’s of a shoulder? That’s crazy and not at all what VAR was for. The linesman will second guess himself now as that’s impossible to see with the naked eye and VAR should not of overturned the linesman’s decision. There wasn’t any conclusive proof that was offside. There are too many variables in the technology to be completely accurate.The rules are inconsistent at present. If the whole of the ball has to be over the line for a goal, out of play or not in the corner quadrant then the whole of the attacker should have to be in front of the defender to be offside.
mac
Well-Known Member
Salah wouldn't have been offside if the roles were reversed
Grassland Blue
Well-Known Member
I was informed earlier today that this rule went when VAR came in.No. Just like I didn't imagine the "We'll give the benefit of doubt to the attacking player in tight decisions' ruling.
I'm glad that I'm not alone in my ignorance.
Anyone else?
hampshireblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 1,449
Any rule where a "goal" can be ruled out because it is deemed the attacker is getting an advantage, potentially over a defender 50 yards away, and by a toenail, needs looking at. The game is about goals and stopping them, not about a fortuitous movement by a defender that then leads to a goal being ruled out. Clear daylight would indicate a "meaningful" advantage, anything less is guess work.
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
Guaranteed.Salah wouldn't have been offside if the roles were reversed
Grassland Blue
Well-Known Member
Good point.The rules are inconsistent at present. If the whole of the ball has to be over the line for a goal, out of play or not in the corner quadrant then the whole of the attacker should have to be in front of the defender to be offside.
I mean what if the attacking player has size 11 boots and the defender takes size 8?
Their heels could be level but the attackers toes would be off as it is currently...
( only slightly tongue in cheek this).
the-ecstacy-of-eight
Well-Known Member
"Apparently" (I have no evidence, it's just what we've been told, just like I have no evidence for VAR "checking all contentious events") they do now use thicker lines for the attackers compared to the defenders, but the defender's line is just ONE PIXEL wide compared to FIVE PIXELS for the attacker.
What is the real life distance of ONE PIXEL?
So....
1 - a guess-timated arbitrary point in time is chosen when the ball is played
(very, very rarely the FIRST point of contact as it should be)
2 - a guess-timated vertical line for the furthest back part of the defender
3 - a guess-timated vertical line for the furthest forward part of the attaker
...and they then conclude that they can measure and confidently pronounce that an attacker is definitively offside by 2cm. The whole thing is an absolute farce, it's been introduced far too quickly without any proper statistical analysis completed, and its "down to the mm" implementation by PiGMoL is laughable.
As others have said, where's the benefit of the doubt for the attacker?
The software they use CAN do the job and the frame rate IS sufficient, but the VAR gives the impression that the most important part of the calculation is rushed (When the ball was played) and then attempt to be too accurate.
The real problem, however, is that PiGMoL don't want it to work definitively (ala goal-line tech) they want it manipulatable so that they can create "drama"
What is the real life distance of ONE PIXEL?
So....
1 - a guess-timated arbitrary point in time is chosen when the ball is played
(very, very rarely the FIRST point of contact as it should be)
2 - a guess-timated vertical line for the furthest back part of the defender
3 - a guess-timated vertical line for the furthest forward part of the attaker
...and they then conclude that they can measure and confidently pronounce that an attacker is definitively offside by 2cm. The whole thing is an absolute farce, it's been introduced far too quickly without any proper statistical analysis completed, and its "down to the mm" implementation by PiGMoL is laughable.
As others have said, where's the benefit of the doubt for the attacker?
The software they use CAN do the job and the frame rate IS sufficient, but the VAR gives the impression that the most important part of the calculation is rushed (When the ball was played) and then attempt to be too accurate.
The real problem, however, is that PiGMoL don't want it to work definitively (ala goal-line tech) they want it manipulatable so that they can create "drama"