Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

IGNORED

Bamford offside


Recommended Posts

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 post
Share on other sites
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 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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!

Edited by Tipps69
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 7
  • Flames 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 
 

  • Like 12
  • Flames 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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,

:rofl2br:

In all seriousness, that's not offside IMHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...