[Albion] 2-2

[Triggaaar]

VAR again utter bullshit. Would have been extremely cross had that been against us.

Evens out some of the other equally ridiculous decisions against us earlier in the season, but further reinforces my hatred of the whole stupid exercise.

How does it even anything out - it was the correct decision (although it was close).

Yes I'm fine with the argument that offsides that close should be given to the attacker, but that's not the rule at the moment, and not an example of the decisions that have gone against us all season.

 

[amexer]

Of course at time delighted goal ruled out. However just seeing replay that is terrible. and just cant understand how decision was made

 

[Triggaaar]

Of course at time delighted goal ruled out. However just seeing replay that is terrible. and just cant understand how decision was made

Look at the photo. Walcott's foot is closer to the goal than Estupinan's (who cleverly played him offside):

View attachment 161156

 

[Wardy's twin]

I called it straight away. I was right in line and was certain it was off. Couldn’t believe the Lino didn’t flag.

Bloke next to me called it straight away.

 

[Weststander]

The problem is the linos have given up flagging on tight calls.

They’re under instructions not to now.

 

[Normandy seagull]

Didn’t even think of offside at the time. Wonderful something VAR went our way for once

 

[Shooting Star]

As I mentioned in a previous thread, I was so sure it was a goal that I turned the TV off in anger. My wife started trying to talk to me about why the game was important and I was so dejected I couldn't even answer her questions. The relief when I checked my phone 5 mins after and it was 3-1.

 

[Si Gull]

Watching on TV I didn't really think there was a chance of offside. I was surprised VAR were checking it. The still photo is so close and open to interpretation. As far as I'm concerned the rule should favour the attacker such that it should have been allowed (only clear daylight between attacker and defender should be offside) but I'm f***ing glad it doesn't

 

[Billy Seagull]

Other than Lewis Dunk, was there anyone else in the entire stadium who thought there was even a vague possibility that there second goal could be ruled out?

Yes, sat in WSU near the halfway line, I said to my wife and the bloke sitting next to me that it was offside. He looked offside to me and Dunky confirmed it

 

[Sea Cider]

How does it even anything out - it was the correct decision (although it was close).

Yes I'm fine with the argument that offsides that close should be given to the attacker, but that's not the rule at the moment, and not an example of the decisions that have gone against us all season.

Sorry, but with the greatest respect, I don't give a flying shit what the "rules" say.

Fundamentally any offside given for a toenail (clearly absolutely dependent on which millisecond they choose to freeze the frame) is an incorrect decision in my book.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

Other than Lewis Dunk, was there anyone else in the entire stadium who thought there was even a vague possibility that there second goal could be ruled out?

On my feed, it says that the first like is @Trelford Mills Guide Dog which seems kind of apt

 

[nsclurker]

Other than Lewis Dunk, was there anyone else in the entire stadium who thought there was even a vague possibility that there second goal could be ruled out?

Yup. I called it as offside as soon as the ball was passed, as almost in line with it. Thought it was clearer then it actually was, mind you...

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Ok, but exactly what counts as 'clear and obvious'? It has to be specific and measurable, otherwise we'll have a goal ruled out one week for it being 6" offside, and ManU will have one allowed the was a foot offside.

Well, as i said id bin it, but if we're keeping it then it's the same burden of proof to overturn a wrong offside decision as it is to overturn a goal for any other offence.

The ref gets one look, if he's not satisfied that there was an on field error, the original decision stands

 

[HeaviestTed]

I was in the east stand right next to their fans and it was clearly offside, I knew it would be ruled out

 

[nsclurker]

VAR for offside isn't about 'clear and obvious' in the way that penalties and red cards are. They draw the lines on the players, and if it shows as 1mm offside, it's given as offside.

Sometimes, they draw the lines on the wrong players...

 

[Triggaaar]

I was in the east stand right next to their fans and it was clearly offside, I knew it would be ruled out

I dreamt that they'd score an equaliser and it would be ruled out for offside, so I knew first

 

[nsclurker]

Three thoughts.

First, we've had a massive stroke of luck. But my god, if any team deserve it, it's us.

Second. VAR a disgrace again. How long did it take before anyone even had an idea it was being checked.

Third. If we have to have VAR, (and i'd bin in it's entirety), these offside lines should be abolished. Go with the onfield decision unless a clear and obvious error, which the ref, not someone else, has a chance to correct in one real time viewing

The problem now is that, because there's VAR, when it's tight the linos don't flag it and leave it for VAR to check...

 

[HeaviestTed]

I dreamt that they'd score an equaliser and it would be ruled out for offside, so I knew first

I had a tatoo four years ago saying 3-1 so I knew first unless you can date your dream?

 

[Bakero]

Really ?

I'm convinced that's onside and certainly not clear and obvious

Clear and obvious has nothing to do with offside.

It's a yes or no question.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Er - we scored a perfectly good goal, on-field it stood, then VAR incorrectly ruled it out.

What has that got to do with whether a lino should flag or not when it is very tight

Unless it wasn't very clear, I meant in instances potentially like the lino flags, the ref blows the whistle ruling any play after that whistle dead, however we have a player through on goal, miles away from any opponent and looking at slotting it away into an empty net but because the whistle was blown, the goal they would have scored doesn't count even though replays showed that they had timed their run perfectly and were onside when the ball was played

The whistle being blown means that VAR can't review anything, hence why, when it is very tight, the play should be allowed to continue so no flagging by the lino, and let VAR sort out if it was offside or not after it is scored. Something the poster i was replying to disagrees with, thinking it should be flagged even if it turned out to be wrong and a perfectly good goal is denied