daored Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 Has anybody seen the ‘goal’ Bamford scored today for Leeds that was disallowed for offside. Photos clearly show Bamford as onside but he’s pointing and his arm is beyond the last man pointing where he wanted the ball played - goal rules offside. Ridiculous decision While the action of pointing itself was not the reason for ruling it out, it was the fact his arm was deemed to be in an offside position, regardless of its motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheltons Army Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 8 minutes ago, daored said: Has anybody seen the ‘goal’ Bamford scored today for Leeds that was disallowed for offside. Photos clearly show Bamford as onside but he’s pointing and his arm is beyond the last man pointing where he wanted the ball played - goal rules offside. Ridiculous decision While the action of pointing itself was not the reason for ruling it out, it was the fact his arm was deemed to be in an offside position, regardless of its motion. You can only be offside with a part of the body that you can legally score with And you can’t score legally with your arm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipps69 Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 7 minutes ago, daored said: Has anybody seen the ‘goal’ Bamford scored today for Leeds that was disallowed for offside. Photos clearly show Bamford as onside but he’s pointing and his arm is beyond the last man pointing where he wanted the ball played - goal rules offside. Ridiculous decision While the action of pointing itself was not the reason for ruling it out, it was the fact his arm was deemed to be in an offside position, regardless of its motion. Wasn’t the rule made clear (supposedly) that to be offside, it had to be a part of the body that could legally score a goal? So not a hand or arm. I was watching Soccer Saturday on Sky & they couldn’t believe it was disallowed at the time & then by the end of the game they had seen the stills & still couldn’t understand how it was ruled out. I won’t see it until MOTD later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daored Posted November 7, 2020 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 Just now, Sheltons Army said: You can only be offside with a part of the body that you can legally score with And you can’t score legally with your arm It’s an insane decision to rule offside , yes clearly onside but his arm isn’t !! Just now, Tipps69 said: Wasn’t the rule made clear (supposedly) that to be offside, it had to be a part of the body that could legally score a goal? So not a hand or arm. I was watching Soccer Saturday on Sky & they couldn’t believe it was disallowed at the time & then by the end of the game they had seen the stills & still couldn’t understand how it was ruled out. I won’t see it until MOTD later. Seen still pictures but can’t copy across Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packman Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 1 minute ago, Sheltons Army said: You can only be offside with a part of the body that you can legally score with And you can’t score legally with your arm Apparently top of the arm isn't handball anymore so you can technically be offside by the top of your arm. Ridiculous decision though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTFABM Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, Packman said: Apparently top of the arm isn't handball anymore so you can technically be offside by the top of your arm. Ridiculous decision though. It’s the sleeve or ball of the shoulder isn’t it? Havn’t seen it but it could be that to the letter of the law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAmNick Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 Here's the pundits chatting about it: https://streamable.com/vzoj6c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archie andrews Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 write to mr m dean for an answer ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipps69 Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 8 minutes ago, GTFABM said: It’s the sleeve or ball of the shoulder isn’t it? Havn’t seen it but it could be that to the letter of the law Basically the t-shirt line, above the line isn’t handball, below the line (so down to your fingers, is handball). So I guess that’s what they now go by for offside as well? But that doesn’t look like it he would be able to score with his arm there, without it being called handball. Who is responsible for making that decision? They should never be allowed to watch football on a tv ever again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
054123 Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 That’s terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanterne Rouge Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 VAR is shite and should have been destroyed at the start. It`s one of the factors that make me think I`m not too bothered about getting to the Premier League. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, Tipps69 said: Basically the t-shirt line, above the line isn’t handball, below the line (so down to your fingers, is handball). So I guess that’s what they now go by for offside as well? But that doesn’t look like it he would be able to score with his arm there, without it being called handball. Who is responsible for making that decision? They should never be allowed to watch football on a tv ever again! Yep, t-shirt rule....but I believe Bamford wears a muscle vest. Seriously though, how long are the arms on a t-shirt. Could’ve easily been drawn nearer his shoulder. They really haven’t thought it through. Couple that with frame rate accuracy and you make a mockery of VAR. Use Hawkeye / Goaline technology for goals, use VAR for grappling in the box, where refs can’t see everything. Stop using it for everything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
City Rocker Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 Nonsensical decision, which will lead to renewed calls for VAR to be binned off.... or at least it would have, but seeing as it's Leeds, maybe we'll let this one go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsquirrel Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 why dont they just say the feet,would be so much easier to define position on the line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Isewater Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 I am trying to feel sorry for Leeds. No, it’s not working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bar BS3 Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 It's shouldn't be offside, but by the letter of the new stupid laws and VAR bollocks, his forehead does look of side to me. Oh well. Have it Leeds...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 By the letter of the law, it’s the right call. The way I see it, and always have, is that VAR is shite and should never have been introduced. They’ll chat about it for 20 minutes of MOTD tonight and sleight VAR, yet it was MOTD’s 20 year barrage at refereeing decisions that kinda forced this in. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banjo Island Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 38 minutes ago, Tipps69 said: Wasn’t the rule made clear (supposedly) that to be offside, it had to be a part of the body that could legally score a goal? So not a hand or arm. I was watching Soccer Saturday on Sky & they couldn’t believe it was disallowed at the time & then by the end of the game they had seen the stills & still couldn’t understand how it was ruled out. I won’t see it until MOTD later. I can mike dean was the var ref Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ska Junkie Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 1 hour ago, Tipps69 said: Wasn’t the rule made clear (supposedly) that to be offside, it had to be a part of the body that could legally score a goal? So not a hand or arm. I was watching Soccer Saturday on Sky & they couldn’t believe it was disallowed at the time & then by the end of the game they had seen the stills & still couldn’t understand how it was ruled out. I won’t see it until MOTD later. Unless you're Leeds eh! Shame, In all seriousness, that's not offside IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 36 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said: It's shouldn't be offside, but by the letter of the new stupid laws and VAR bollocks, his forehead does look of side to me. Oh well. Have it Leeds...! Are they looking for bollocks being offside with VAR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanterne Rouge Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 1 minute ago, Rich said: Are they looking for bollocks being offside with VAR? If they`re going down that route it`s a good job Dion Dublin`s retired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slack Bladder Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 I have an idea Why not use VAR to correct a clear and obvious error only, otherwise it's the refs call. Oh hang on...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 6 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said: If they`re going down that route it`s a good job Dion Dublin`s retired. Wonder if they were ever mistaken by a defender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordy62 Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 Anyone seen the challenge on Theo Walcott that VAR checker and decided it wasn’t a penalty? Just remarkable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 Strikers best hope they don't have an erection when there’s a VAR review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipps69 Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, Fordy62 said: Anyone seen the challenge on Theo Walcott that VAR checker and decided it wasn’t a penalty? Just remarkable. Nothing wrong with that, he clearly took all of the grass....... and the player! He also (in the way these idiots have drawn up the rules) handballs it as well after taking Walcott out. But if they aren’t giving it for missing the ball, then they aren’t giving it for handball!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob k Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 5 minutes ago, Fordy62 said: Anyone seen the challenge on Theo Walcott that VAR checker and decided it wasn’t a penalty? Just remarkable. It’s unreal isn’t it - this will be my last season as a ST holder, I’m losing my love for the game by the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinmans Love Child Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 https://twitter.com/CheapPanini/status/1325099133217202176?s=20https://twitter.com/CheapPanini/status/1325099133217202176?s=20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanterne Rouge Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 8 minutes ago, downendcity said: Strikers best hope they don't have an erection when there’s a VAR review. Is that a part of the body you can legally score a goal with? It must be I suppose as I`ve definitely seen a lot of bellends scoring goals down the years. Ross McCormick for instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rinkadink Posted November 7, 2020 Report Share Posted November 7, 2020 1 hour ago, redsquirrel said: why dont they just say the feet,would be so much easier to define position on the line As a rugby fan this puzzles me too, makes far more sense than ambiguous body parts. Use the feet only. Also why isn't there a call from officials before review, eg; "On field decision is onside/goal okay, therefore there has to be clear and obvious offside/infringement on VAR review" or "On field decision is offside/goal disallowed, unless VAR shows onside/okay we continue play". VAR in principle is great, the implementation is half baked and needs revising plus encourage more fan interaction and clearer communication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.