[Albion] Offside?

[Sheebo]

The angle and the fact it’s some fella drawing the lines (poorly) and the fact you can’t be that sure the frame is the exact moment it’s kicked is exactly why it is not fit for use with close calls like this. A joke.

 

[Zeberdi]

Didn’t look it to me from the VAR capture shown on the stream - looked like the line was drawn from Dunk’s finger tips not his shoulder - but impossible to be sure without a angle view from the line.

When a goal is at stake, the burden of proof to disallow that goal must be more onerous than to the proof required to award it IMO.

 

[Drebin]

That decision was a guess. The quality of the picture was so bad the officials can neither locate the exact point on the defender’s or Dunks body they needed to draw the lines, or stop the video at the exact moment the ball was kicked.

 

[Hugo Rune]

I think they would say the line is drawn down from the edge of the "t-shirt line" as it looks like it would meet the edge of the black part of Dunk's sleeve.

View attachment 169157

 

[Hamilton]

I honestly don't know.

But if VAR needs to start f***ing about with lines, then the goal should be given.

The rules need to change. If a decision can't be made by eye then the goal should stand.

Agree. If it looks onside, it’s onside.

 

[American Seagle]

Let's just nip some of these comments in the bud.

1) it doesn't need to be a clear and obvious error for an offside. All goals are assessed for offside, clear and obvious only applies to fouls/serious foul play.

2) the line is drawn to the shoulder which is above the elbow.

That being said: f*** this anti-football decision.

His elbow is CLEARLY not. Look at the image again. That pinkish pointy part is his elbow, his shoulder is behind that.

 

[Zeberdi]

I think they would say the line is drawn down from the edge of the "t-shirt line" as it looks like it would meet the edge of the black part of Dunk's sleeve.

View attachment 169157

He must have a very short forearm then because a allowing for a foreshortening perspective, his elbow is well back from the line - you can’t superimpose a 2 dimensional interpretive tool onto a fast moving 3D situation and expect an accurate result using one angle/line of sight.

 

[Eeyore]

Let's just nip some of these comments in the bud.

1) it doesn't need to be a clear and obvious error for an offside. All goals are assessed for offside, clear and obvious only applies to fouls/serious foul play.

2) the line is drawn to the shoulder which is above the elbow.

That being said: f*** this anti-football decision.

All this.

I've long been critical of how VAR forms it decisions. Whether they are for or against Albion. I'm really bitter about this one.

VAR cannot rule the exact moment a ball is struck and the lines cannot be perfect. There has to be leverage in favour of attackers to keep the game enjoyable.

This is no fun. And it's against us this time.

Was it the right decision ? Probably under the current rules.

 

[American Seagle]

All this.

I've long been critical of how VAR forms it decisions. Whether they are for or against Albion. I'm really bitter about this one.

VAR cannot rule the exact moment a ball is struck and the lines cannot be perfect. There has to be leverage in favour of attackers to keep the game enjoyable.

This is no fun. And it's against us this time.

Was it the right decision ? Probably under the current rules.

It's clearly inside. It's only offside if you are pushing the narrative that Brighton are struggling from the extra European games. Someone needs to investigate the obvious scripting that is going on.

 

[beorhthelm]

the line drawing and quality of the picture make this process laughable, they are well beyond the error of margin for such calls to be made. its basically subjective view of the person drawing and line up the images.

personaly i'd say its offside anyway because of Ferguson, who'd be interfering with the keeper's decisions. apparently not how the rules are interpreted (subjective again), i'm going to be consistent if refs and VAR aren't.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Another game improved by VAR.

Even if his pube was offside it's a rubbish call thats ruining the game.

 

[trueblue]

The angle and the fact it’s some fella drawing the lines (poorly) and the fact you can’t be that sure the frame is the exact moment it’s kicked is exactly why it is not fit for use with close calls like this. A joke.

The angle you see is irrelevant. It’s extrapolated from a combination of several angles.

 

[Sheebo]

The angle you see is irrelevant. It’s extrapolated from a combination of several angles.

They draw the lines from 3 different camera positions? How does that work?

 

[Coldeanseagull]

If they 're trying to use state of the art technology in a darwinian type stadium, there are going to be some issues. I reckon the artful dodger was playing him onside

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Do you all remember when the offside law was changed, some time in the 90's I reckon, to say that attackers who were level with the last defender were onside? Previously level meant offside. The idea was to give the benefit of the doubt to the attackers and allow more exciting football.

In this decision, and so many like it, the attacker is level with the defender under any sensible definition of 'level'. Yet the way they scrutinise these decisions to the nth degree means they have basically done away with the 'level means onside' law, by the backdoor.

 

[Hendrax]

they need some sort of contact detection device inside the balls and 100+ 4k, slow mo cameras, to know the exact frame and time the ball was kicked. And to ensure the angle is parallel to the lines/defense. otherwise its guesswork.

 

[macbeth]

what is indisputable is they have drawn it from the wrong kicking point. if they don’t have the technology to mark that accurately then they have no business disallowing goals this way

 

[tstanbur]

Is it just me, or are these lines bent?

I get that the line on the pitch could appear bent due to the pitch not being completely flat but surely the red/blue drawn lines should be perfectly straight?!

Uploaded another image/source which appears to show the same

 

[AmexRuislip]

VAR & PGMOL

 

[Baldseagull]

View attachment 169158

Maybe the line down is close enough to Dunks shoulder, however, the line down from Tarkowski's shoulder doesn't seem to come down to the grass where he is, looks to me like the red line across the pitch is where the blue line should be, as it is it's level with his ankle where his sock stops, not the bottom of his invisible boot. All in all, it's too close and too poor a still to say it was offside, and probably should have been a frame earlier than this that was used too.