I’m not sure they do, to be fair. Spurs were awful, but still won. Chelsea never really looked like scoring. And that’s been an issue for much of the season, whereas we know Spurs can massively up their game in attack. I’d be more worried about the return leg if I were a Chelsea fan.
Always thought the offside rule daft judging a player offside by his torso etc rather than where his feet are planted.
The offside rule could be fixed immediately without technology if they just gave the attacker a yards grace, then it would be a simple case of was he clear of the defender or not, if you have to question whether he was clear of the defender then he was onside, simple as that.
Can't be offside as it has to be a body part that you can play football with and Kane's brain was offside and he can't play football with his brain so can't be offside
comment by Ed The King Woodward (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
I’m not sure they do, to be fair. Spurs were awful, but still won. Chelsea never really looked like scoring. And that’s been an issue for much of the season, whereas we know Spurs can massively up their game in attack. I’d be more worried about the return leg if I were a Chelsea fan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with Darren unless we happen to sign a top draw striker before the return leg.
comment by Cinciwolf---so glad I wasn't careful what I wished for!! (U11551)
posted 1 minute ago
Always thought the offside rule daft judging a player offside by his torso etc rather than where his feet are planted.
The offside rule could be fixed immediately without technology if they just gave the attacker a yards grace, then it would be a simple case of was he clear of the defender or not, if you have to question whether he was clear of the defender then he was onside, simple as that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does one player get an advantage over another?
Cinci, in principle it’s daft as you aren’t gaining an advantage from your body position. But it actually makes sense as a means to making the linesman’s job easier because a player’s feet can be unsighted but his body/head/shoulders won’t be.
I was worried that adding VAR would mean the extinction of arguing over significant refereeing decisions. Glad to know that's not the case.
soccer?lol.
comment by KLS (U1695)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Cinciwolf---so glad I wasn't careful what I wished for!! (U11551)
posted 1 minute ago
Always thought the offside rule daft judging a player offside by his torso etc rather than where his feet are planted.
The offside rule could be fixed immediately without technology if they just gave the attacker a yards grace, then it would be a simple case of was he clear of the defender or not, if you have to question whether he was clear of the defender then he was onside, simple as that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does one player get an advantage over another?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the rule as it stands doesn't work consistently.
As i said, if you have to question whether a player is clear of the defender then it is a reasonable doubt so why would you not side with the attacker?
comment by Ed The King Woodward (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Cinci, in principle it’s daft as you aren’t gaining an advantage from your body position. But it actually makes sense as a means to making the linesman’s job easier because a player’s feet can be unsighted but his body/head/shoulders won’t be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah its a fair point
Personally, I think it’s weighted enough in the attackers direction nowadays without going any further with it, it’s already far different and harder to defend now than it was twenty five years ago due to changes to the offside rule and back passes.
I mean that in terms of the yards grace, I think where the feet is planted would work if VAR was introduced fully.
comment by 🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 (U18355)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
If he was offside it was marginal
They should be giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt. The problem is that they will be inconsistent with these calls and more often than not the attacker won’t get the advantage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh???
Nonsense. Why not give Liverpool the goal from last week that was a pixel away from being given?
With VAR, it’s black and white.
Tonight’s call was not conclusive and should’ve never have been given.
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 7 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by 🇫🇷 🇫🇷 🇫🇷 Emery OUT 🇫🇷... (U10012)
posted 7 minutes ago
VAR is there to help referees who ultimately are the ones making the final decisions. Blame the poor refs in the league, no the technology.
You could give me an assisted flying jet, still I wouldn't be able to fly it. Nothing to do with the onboard computer, just me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The technology is incorrectly designed for making offside decisions. Would anyone accept an acute angle radar beam o whatever they use for the goal line technology? Its utterly absurd that they would accept it for offsides
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You forgot one MAJOR DIFFERENCE - the goal line doesn't move, the "offside line" could be anywhere within 50 yards.
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 7 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by 🇫🇷 🇫🇷 🇫🇷 Emery OUT 🇫🇷... (U10012)
posted 7 minutes ago
VAR is there to help referees who ultimately are the ones making the final decisions. Blame the poor refs in the league, no the technology.
You could give me an assisted flying jet, still I wouldn't be able to fly it. Nothing to do with the onboard computer, just me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The technology is incorrectly designed for making offside decisions. Would anyone accept an acute angle radar beam o whatever they use for the goal line technology? Its utterly absurd that they would accept it for offsides
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You forgot one MAJOR DIFFERENCE - the goal line doesn't move, the "offside line" could be anywhere within 50 yards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? Wow I hadn't realised that
The point is that unless a technological solution exists to be able to make accurate offside decisions using VAR it should not be used for VAR.............fortunately a tech solution does exists for goal line decisons
I keep being told how VAR can only be a good thing.
Hmm.
comment by Ed The King Woodward (U10026)
posted 8 hours, 57 minutes ago
I’m not sure they do, to be fair. Spurs were awful, but still won. Chelsea never really looked like scoring. And that’s been an issue for much of the season, whereas we know Spurs can massively up their game in attack. I’d be more worried about the return leg if I were a Chelsea fan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i must have imagined us hitting the post twice and Christensen missing from 3 yards out then. Never looked like scoring
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 2 hours, 3 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 7 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by 🇫🇷 🇫🇷 🇫🇷 Emery OUT 🇫🇷... (U10012)
posted 7 minutes ago
VAR is there to help referees who ultimately are the ones making the final decisions. Blame the poor refs in the league, no the technology.
You could give me an assisted flying jet, still I wouldn't be able to fly it. Nothing to do with the onboard computer, just me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The technology is incorrectly designed for making offside decisions. Would anyone accept an acute angle radar beam o whatever they use for the goal line technology? Its utterly absurd that they would accept it for offsides
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You forgot one MAJOR DIFFERENCE - the goal line doesn't move, the "offside line" could be anywhere within 50 yards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is exactly my point.This technology is there to assist the refs and it won't solve all the issues. Ultimately, you'd still hope they can a get a basic offside rule right. You can't have cameras all the around the pitch.
I haven't watched the game but from what I read, the linesman got the first decision right but it was the referee who overruled him?
Var has been used at the WC and although not perfect, it helped a lot. Same with La Liga this season, still not perfect but it has helps.
But everytime it is used by British referees, then suddenly it is absolutely c.rap and pointless.
Yeah I agree Nick, I thought that we looked like making a breakthrough several times.
I'm all for VAR but I thought it was only supposed to be used in the event a clear error has occurred? The offside was so close last night, and given the argument over multiple angles, that I wouldn't really say the decision last night was a clear error. So shouldn't they have stuck with the original decision?
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 6 minutes ago
I'm all for VAR but I thought it was only supposed to be used in the event a clear error has occurred? The offside was so close last night, and given the argument over multiple angles, that I wouldn't really say the decision last night was a clear error. So shouldn't they have stuck with the original decision?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, which was correct. Michael Oliver used to be decent but my god, these day he is completely useless.
comment by 🇫🇷 🇫🇷 🇫🇷 Emery OUT 🇫🇷 🇫🇷🇫🇷 (U10012)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 6 minutes ago
I'm all for VAR but I thought it was only supposed to be used in the event a clear error has occurred? The offside was so close last night, and given the argument over multiple angles, that I wouldn't really say the decision last night was a clear error. So shouldn't they have stuck with the original decision?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, which was correct. Michael Oliver used to be decent but my god, these day he is completely useless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you blaming Oliver for that not happening? It depends what the off field ref told him.
Why are you blaming Oliver for that not happening? It depends what the off field ref told him.
----
Someone who has been given that responsibility should know the offside rule better than anyone in the country. Its head and shoulders - not just feet.
If they knew this then the message to Michael Oliver should have been...
"Kane's feet are level but we're unsure if he's leaning in an offside position as our camera position is ahead of the play. We'll have to stick with original line call by the assistant"
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 5 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 7 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by 🇫🇷 🇫🇷 🇫🇷 Emery OUT 🇫🇷... (U10012)
posted 7 minutes ago
VAR is there to help referees who ultimately are the ones making the final decisions. Blame the poor refs in the league, no the technology.
You could give me an assisted flying jet, still I wouldn't be able to fly it. Nothing to do with the onboard computer, just me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The technology is incorrectly designed for making offside decisions. Would anyone accept an acute angle radar beam o whatever they use for the goal line technology? Its utterly absurd that they would accept it for offsides
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You forgot one MAJOR DIFFERENCE - the goal line doesn't move, the "offside line" could be anywhere within 50 yards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? Wow I hadn't realised that
The point is that unless a technological solution exists to be able to make accurate offside decisions using VAR it should not be used for VAR.............fortunately a tech solution does exists for goal line decisons
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You were comparing the two, I merely pointed out the obvious difference between then, it looked like you were unaware but if you say you knew already then I'll believe you
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 5 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 7 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by 🇫🇷 🇫🇷 🇫🇷 Emery OUT 🇫🇷... (U10012)
posted 7 minutes ago
VAR is there to help referees who ultimately are the ones making the final decisions. Blame the poor refs in the league, no the technology.
You could give me an assisted flying jet, still I wouldn't be able to fly it. Nothing to do with the onboard computer, just me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The technology is incorrectly designed for making offside decisions. Would anyone accept an acute angle radar beam o whatever they use for the goal line technology? Its utterly absurd that they would accept it for offsides
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You forgot one MAJOR DIFFERENCE - the goal line doesn't move, the "offside line" could be anywhere within 50 yards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? Wow I hadn't realised that
The point is that unless a technological solution exists to be able to make accurate offside decisions using VAR it should not be used for VAR.............fortunately a tech solution does exists for goal line decisons
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You were comparing the two, I merely pointed out the obvious difference between then, it looked like you were unaware but if you say you knew already then I'll believe you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just for clarity I am saying for goal line technology to work the sopbisticatef measuring tools they use must be perfectly I think line which I will assume they are. Of I understand that it is a much more difficult technical challenge to be in line for VAR offside decisions, but they have to find a solution or simply drop offside decusions from VAR
The trouble is VAR was supposed to be for clear and obvious errors.
Last nights decision was neither clear nor obvious.
There should be a time limit put on it and if that's exceeded then it is automatically thrown back to the refs decision.
Surely if you can't decide after 30 seconds looking at video it doesn't fit the clear and obvious criteria!
This should put an end to all the ONSIDE/OFFSIDE debate - seems the Chelsea pic was taken a split second after the VAR one - notice Kane's body position has changed slightly.
CORRECT DECISION - GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON
https://www.givemesport.com/1439964-referees-chiefs-respond-to-chelseas-image-that-shows-harry-kane-was-offside-before-penalty?autoplay=off
Sign in if you want to comment
VAR discredited big time tonight
Page 2 of 3
posted on 8/1/19
I’m not sure they do, to be fair. Spurs were awful, but still won. Chelsea never really looked like scoring. And that’s been an issue for much of the season, whereas we know Spurs can massively up their game in attack. I’d be more worried about the return leg if I were a Chelsea fan.
posted on 8/1/19
Always thought the offside rule daft judging a player offside by his torso etc rather than where his feet are planted.
The offside rule could be fixed immediately without technology if they just gave the attacker a yards grace, then it would be a simple case of was he clear of the defender or not, if you have to question whether he was clear of the defender then he was onside, simple as that.
posted on 8/1/19
Can't be offside as it has to be a body part that you can play football with and Kane's brain was offside and he can't play football with his brain so can't be offside
posted on 8/1/19
comment by Ed The King Woodward (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
I’m not sure they do, to be fair. Spurs were awful, but still won. Chelsea never really looked like scoring. And that’s been an issue for much of the season, whereas we know Spurs can massively up their game in attack. I’d be more worried about the return leg if I were a Chelsea fan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with Darren unless we happen to sign a top draw striker before the return leg.
posted on 8/1/19
comment by Cinciwolf---so glad I wasn't careful what I wished for!! (U11551)
posted 1 minute ago
Always thought the offside rule daft judging a player offside by his torso etc rather than where his feet are planted.
The offside rule could be fixed immediately without technology if they just gave the attacker a yards grace, then it would be a simple case of was he clear of the defender or not, if you have to question whether he was clear of the defender then he was onside, simple as that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does one player get an advantage over another?
posted on 8/1/19
Cinci, in principle it’s daft as you aren’t gaining an advantage from your body position. But it actually makes sense as a means to making the linesman’s job easier because a player’s feet can be unsighted but his body/head/shoulders won’t be.
posted on 8/1/19
I was worried that adding VAR would mean the extinction of arguing over significant refereeing decisions. Glad to know that's not the case.
soccer?lol.
posted on 8/1/19
comment by KLS (U1695)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Cinciwolf---so glad I wasn't careful what I wished for!! (U11551)
posted 1 minute ago
Always thought the offside rule daft judging a player offside by his torso etc rather than where his feet are planted.
The offside rule could be fixed immediately without technology if they just gave the attacker a yards grace, then it would be a simple case of was he clear of the defender or not, if you have to question whether he was clear of the defender then he was onside, simple as that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does one player get an advantage over another?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the rule as it stands doesn't work consistently.
As i said, if you have to question whether a player is clear of the defender then it is a reasonable doubt so why would you not side with the attacker?
posted on 8/1/19
comment by Ed The King Woodward (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Cinci, in principle it’s daft as you aren’t gaining an advantage from your body position. But it actually makes sense as a means to making the linesman’s job easier because a player’s feet can be unsighted but his body/head/shoulders won’t be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah its a fair point
posted on 9/1/19
Personally, I think it’s weighted enough in the attackers direction nowadays without going any further with it, it’s already far different and harder to defend now than it was twenty five years ago due to changes to the offside rule and back passes.
I mean that in terms of the yards grace, I think where the feet is planted would work if VAR was introduced fully.
posted on 9/1/19
comment by 🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 (U18355)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
If he was offside it was marginal
They should be giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt. The problem is that they will be inconsistent with these calls and more often than not the attacker won’t get the advantage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh???
Nonsense. Why not give Liverpool the goal from last week that was a pixel away from being given?
With VAR, it’s black and white.
Tonight’s call was not conclusive and should’ve never have been given.
posted on 9/1/19
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 7 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by 🇫🇷 🇫🇷 🇫🇷 Emery OUT 🇫🇷... (U10012)
posted 7 minutes ago
VAR is there to help referees who ultimately are the ones making the final decisions. Blame the poor refs in the league, no the technology.
You could give me an assisted flying jet, still I wouldn't be able to fly it. Nothing to do with the onboard computer, just me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The technology is incorrectly designed for making offside decisions. Would anyone accept an acute angle radar beam o whatever they use for the goal line technology? Its utterly absurd that they would accept it for offsides
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You forgot one MAJOR DIFFERENCE - the goal line doesn't move, the "offside line" could be anywhere within 50 yards.
posted on 9/1/19
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 7 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by 🇫🇷 🇫🇷 🇫🇷 Emery OUT 🇫🇷... (U10012)
posted 7 minutes ago
VAR is there to help referees who ultimately are the ones making the final decisions. Blame the poor refs in the league, no the technology.
You could give me an assisted flying jet, still I wouldn't be able to fly it. Nothing to do with the onboard computer, just me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The technology is incorrectly designed for making offside decisions. Would anyone accept an acute angle radar beam o whatever they use for the goal line technology? Its utterly absurd that they would accept it for offsides
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You forgot one MAJOR DIFFERENCE - the goal line doesn't move, the "offside line" could be anywhere within 50 yards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? Wow I hadn't realised that
The point is that unless a technological solution exists to be able to make accurate offside decisions using VAR it should not be used for VAR.............fortunately a tech solution does exists for goal line decisons
posted on 9/1/19
I keep being told how VAR can only be a good thing.
Hmm.
posted on 9/1/19
comment by Ed The King Woodward (U10026)
posted 8 hours, 57 minutes ago
I’m not sure they do, to be fair. Spurs were awful, but still won. Chelsea never really looked like scoring. And that’s been an issue for much of the season, whereas we know Spurs can massively up their game in attack. I’d be more worried about the return leg if I were a Chelsea fan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i must have imagined us hitting the post twice and Christensen missing from 3 yards out then. Never looked like scoring
posted on 9/1/19
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 2 hours, 3 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 7 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by 🇫🇷 🇫🇷 🇫🇷 Emery OUT 🇫🇷... (U10012)
posted 7 minutes ago
VAR is there to help referees who ultimately are the ones making the final decisions. Blame the poor refs in the league, no the technology.
You could give me an assisted flying jet, still I wouldn't be able to fly it. Nothing to do with the onboard computer, just me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The technology is incorrectly designed for making offside decisions. Would anyone accept an acute angle radar beam o whatever they use for the goal line technology? Its utterly absurd that they would accept it for offsides
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You forgot one MAJOR DIFFERENCE - the goal line doesn't move, the "offside line" could be anywhere within 50 yards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is exactly my point.This technology is there to assist the refs and it won't solve all the issues. Ultimately, you'd still hope they can a get a basic offside rule right. You can't have cameras all the around the pitch.
I haven't watched the game but from what I read, the linesman got the first decision right but it was the referee who overruled him?
Var has been used at the WC and although not perfect, it helped a lot. Same with La Liga this season, still not perfect but it has helps.
But everytime it is used by British referees, then suddenly it is absolutely c.rap and pointless.
posted on 9/1/19
Yeah I agree Nick, I thought that we looked like making a breakthrough several times.
posted on 9/1/19
I'm all for VAR but I thought it was only supposed to be used in the event a clear error has occurred? The offside was so close last night, and given the argument over multiple angles, that I wouldn't really say the decision last night was a clear error. So shouldn't they have stuck with the original decision?
posted on 9/1/19
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 6 minutes ago
I'm all for VAR but I thought it was only supposed to be used in the event a clear error has occurred? The offside was so close last night, and given the argument over multiple angles, that I wouldn't really say the decision last night was a clear error. So shouldn't they have stuck with the original decision?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, which was correct. Michael Oliver used to be decent but my god, these day he is completely useless.
posted on 9/1/19
comment by 🇫🇷 🇫🇷 🇫🇷 Emery OUT 🇫🇷 🇫🇷🇫🇷 (U10012)
posted 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 6 minutes ago
I'm all for VAR but I thought it was only supposed to be used in the event a clear error has occurred? The offside was so close last night, and given the argument over multiple angles, that I wouldn't really say the decision last night was a clear error. So shouldn't they have stuck with the original decision?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, which was correct. Michael Oliver used to be decent but my god, these day he is completely useless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you blaming Oliver for that not happening? It depends what the off field ref told him.
posted on 9/1/19
Why are you blaming Oliver for that not happening? It depends what the off field ref told him.
----
Someone who has been given that responsibility should know the offside rule better than anyone in the country. Its head and shoulders - not just feet.
If they knew this then the message to Michael Oliver should have been...
"Kane's feet are level but we're unsure if he's leaning in an offside position as our camera position is ahead of the play. We'll have to stick with original line call by the assistant"
posted on 9/1/19
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 5 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 7 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by 🇫🇷 🇫🇷 🇫🇷 Emery OUT 🇫🇷... (U10012)
posted 7 minutes ago
VAR is there to help referees who ultimately are the ones making the final decisions. Blame the poor refs in the league, no the technology.
You could give me an assisted flying jet, still I wouldn't be able to fly it. Nothing to do with the onboard computer, just me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The technology is incorrectly designed for making offside decisions. Would anyone accept an acute angle radar beam o whatever they use for the goal line technology? Its utterly absurd that they would accept it for offsides
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You forgot one MAJOR DIFFERENCE - the goal line doesn't move, the "offside line" could be anywhere within 50 yards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? Wow I hadn't realised that
The point is that unless a technological solution exists to be able to make accurate offside decisions using VAR it should not be used for VAR.............fortunately a tech solution does exists for goal line decisons
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You were comparing the two, I merely pointed out the obvious difference between then, it looked like you were unaware but if you say you knew already then I'll believe you
posted on 9/1/19
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 5 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 7 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by 🇫🇷 🇫🇷 🇫🇷 Emery OUT 🇫🇷... (U10012)
posted 7 minutes ago
VAR is there to help referees who ultimately are the ones making the final decisions. Blame the poor refs in the league, no the technology.
You could give me an assisted flying jet, still I wouldn't be able to fly it. Nothing to do with the onboard computer, just me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The technology is incorrectly designed for making offside decisions. Would anyone accept an acute angle radar beam o whatever they use for the goal line technology? Its utterly absurd that they would accept it for offsides
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You forgot one MAJOR DIFFERENCE - the goal line doesn't move, the "offside line" could be anywhere within 50 yards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? Wow I hadn't realised that
The point is that unless a technological solution exists to be able to make accurate offside decisions using VAR it should not be used for VAR.............fortunately a tech solution does exists for goal line decisons
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You were comparing the two, I merely pointed out the obvious difference between then, it looked like you were unaware but if you say you knew already then I'll believe you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just for clarity I am saying for goal line technology to work the sopbisticatef measuring tools they use must be perfectly I think line which I will assume they are. Of I understand that it is a much more difficult technical challenge to be in line for VAR offside decisions, but they have to find a solution or simply drop offside decusions from VAR
posted on 9/1/19
The trouble is VAR was supposed to be for clear and obvious errors.
Last nights decision was neither clear nor obvious.
There should be a time limit put on it and if that's exceeded then it is automatically thrown back to the refs decision.
Surely if you can't decide after 30 seconds looking at video it doesn't fit the clear and obvious criteria!
posted on 9/1/19
This should put an end to all the ONSIDE/OFFSIDE debate - seems the Chelsea pic was taken a split second after the VAR one - notice Kane's body position has changed slightly.
CORRECT DECISION - GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON
https://www.givemesport.com/1439964-referees-chiefs-respond-to-chelseas-image-that-shows-harry-kane-was-offside-before-penalty?autoplay=off
Page 2 of 3