JJ isn't having it

[CoolClaret]

No idea why it says the 1 they sued in my post either

Freudian slip... Oh and I meant 'Yoro' not 'Loro', not sure what I did there either

[clarets1978]

I agree with most of what you have said, but I'm not arguing against that. I'm just stating that the people who said the image shows Foster to be onside are incorrect.

As for VAR ruling Foster's goal out, it didn't; the Assistant Ref ruled Foster's goal out.

VAR had the final say though so effectively ruled it out. We were all stood there for 5 minutes waiting for that

[Roosterbooster]

The line is drawn on line with the front of Foster's arm at a point in line with the bottom of his armpit

The red line is where they have drawn the line
The blue line is his armpit

They aren't even close

[Rileybobs]

The red line is where they have drawn the line
The blue line is his armpit

They aren't even close

You’re misunderstanding the law (I don’t blame you due to the unnecessary ambiguity of the ‘t-shirt line’). The extent of the upper arm with which a player can score, and therefore the part of the body which can be offside, or play an opponent onside, is any part of the upper arm above the vertical height of the armpit. So in your point you are referring incorrectly to Foster’s inner arm, it’s the front of his upper arm, above his armpit, which is offside.

[Rileybobs]

The red line is where they have drawn the line
The blue line is his armpit

They aren't even close

Basically you nailed it with your mark up, because the area circled in purple is offside.

IMG_9084.jpeg (143.99 KiB) Viewed 1143 times

[Middle-agedClaret]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_man ... f_a_pin%3F

[gandhisflipflop]

People arguing whether it was offside or wasn’t are missing the point entirely. The disruption it causes the game just kills the atmosphere dead and it ruins the game for me. Even when the ref gave the pen that was overturned with var I said to give it and get on with it. VAR needs binning.

[JohnMac]

5 cm cannot be considered a clear and obvious error in reality but we lack consistency because whilst this Asst flagged immediately, another would let the game progress, relying on VAR in the event of a goal.

[exilecanada]

I agree with him, give a few bloody noses along the way
https://x.com/TurfCastPodcast/status/19 ... 1392378982

Love the caption at the bottom "Owner of Burnley FC and Espanyol FC" What percentage does he own, 3%, 5%? Typical Yankie bull**it, embellishment, exaggeration or whatever adjective one chooses

[pureclaret]

It's offside because the front of Foster's shoulder is ahead of any point of the defender's body which is considered when offside decisions are determined. I can't really put it in any more simple terms than that.

you have just proven that that they have all been (the pundits and referees) wrong i saying its to do with the shoulder tee shirt line if the rulle says defenders body is the point, I believe you your self have been saying the same unless I am miss reading this last post.
I do agree that if the used the chest like they do in athletics to say who wins a race then the advantage would be with the attacker

[Vegas Claret]

Quite interesting they proclaim that the automated offside system is 100% accurate yet it still goes to VAR for them to check.

[Carport]

I found this on line which I think is easier to acknowledge that Foster was indeed albeit very marginally offside

[Carport]

And

[Rick_Muller]

So glad it was clear and obvious

[Vegas Claret]

where's the ball ? They still can't freeze that in the right place either - at the exact frame the ball moves forward

[CoolClaret]

where's the ball ? They still can't freeze that in the right place either - at the exact frame the ball moves forward

Exactly,

All this is absolutely bonkers, and it's things like this/other efforts in the game that imo, have been done deliberately to drive up post-match engagement and to make non-match attending fans (predominantly overseas) think that they are involved in the spectacle by having their own say and opinion on it.

I've just read that 'some' of the 12 cameras used to calculate this run up to 100 FPS... well, if a striker accelerates full tile catching a defender flat footed or even if a defender travels in the other way to try initiate an offside trap, along with any interpolation error %, triangulation % errors, there is simply no way on God's green earth that we can definitively say anything borderline is objectively offside.

It's mental that we've even got to this point.

More than happy to be proved wrong.

[Goliath]

Just show us it's offside. If you can't then it's onside

[Vegas Claret]

It's mental that we've even got to this point.

bang on the money

[morninbob]

The VAR offside should be time limited, if you can't show that it's offside within 30 seconds, then the goal should be given.

[taio]

The VAR offside should be time limited, if you can't show that it's offside within 30 seconds, then the goal should be given.

Totally agree with putting a time limit on VAR reviews, but in relation to all review types. For subjective decisions, a clear and obvious error should be determinable quickly, otherwise they should be deemed not clear and obvious and the original decision stands.

[boatshed bill]

The VAR offside should be time limited, if you can't show that it's offside within 30 seconds, then the goal should be given.

Tricky, isn't it. Because supporters of VAR might say if you can't prove it's onside in 30 seconds it's offside.

[claretinkorea]

This all assumes that the frames being shown are at the exact time of the pass, which based on everything I've seen to date I have little to no faith in.

The point of the offside rule is to stop attackers standing on the goalline, not to rule out this sort of goal. I understand there needs to be a line, but there also needs to be common sense.

Somewhere along the way, with the focus on technology and 'accuracy' this principle has been forgotten (by quite a few fans too by the look of things).

[RammyClaret61]

Tricky, isn't it. Because supporters of VAR might say if you can't prove it's onside in 30 seconds it's offside.

Not tricky at all. If you can’t prove either way, then benefit of doubt goes to the attacking team.

[boatshed bill]

This all assumes that the frames being shown are at the exact time of the pass, which based on everything I've seen to date I have little to no faith in.

.

I totally agree, there could easily be a time lapse between the player's contact with the ball and the position of the line.

[RammyClaret61]

The other confusing scenarios on this contradict. I’m sure the rules say, if Foster hadn’t scored, the linesman should keep his flag down. And we play on! Therefore not offside? Is that correct?

Also, if the linesman had kept his flag down. I’m I correct in saying VAR would still have checked the “possible offside”? Therefore really rendering the linesman obsolete.

[Carport]

Exactly,

All this is absolutely bonkers, and it's things like this/other efforts in the game that imo, have been done deliberately to drive up post-match engagement and to make non-match attending fans (predominantly overseas) think that they are involved in the spectacle by having their own say and opinion on it.

I've just read that 'some' of the 12 cameras used to calculate this run up to 100 FPS... well, if a striker accelerates full tile catching a defender flat footed or even if a defender travels in the other way to try initiate an offside trap, along with any interpolation error %, triangulation % errors, there is simply no way on God's green earth that we can definitively say anything borderline is objectively offside.

It's mental that we've even got to this point.

More than happy to be proved wrong.

You need a shutter speed of more than 1/500 sec to avoid blur that would otherwise likely skew analysis of the image not only of the players for whom the lines are drawn but also of the boot head etc of the player passing the ball

[clarets1978]

Totally agree with putting a time limit on VAR reviews, but in relation to all review types. For subjective decisions, a clear and obvious error should be determinable quickly, otherwise they should be deemed not clear and obvious and the original decision stands.

You know what argument they'll come back with then. It'll be that its putting undue pressure on the officials to make a game changing decision and it'll create mistakes more. I think half the reason they take so long is because they scared to make mistakes because of the battering they get afterwards.

[Rileybobs]

The other confusing scenarios on this contradict. I’m sure the rules say, if Foster hadn’t scored, the linesman should keep his flag down. And we play on! Therefore not offside? Is that correct?

Also, if the linesman had kept his flag down. I’m I correct in saying VAR would still have checked the “possible offside”? Therefore really rendering the linesman obsolete.

No, if Foster had missed the assistant ref would still have flagged and the ref would have blown for offside.

[Rick_Muller]

My approach would be simple.

Using whichever freeze frame (not cartoon mockup) the VAR officials deem as when the ball was played, without using any lines if they cannot confirm visually that the player is definitely offside within 10 seconds, then it’s onside and be done with it.

I always had the hope that VAR would be a retrospective tool to eliminate cheating from the game, I.e. violent conduct, diving for a penalty (or dropping to the floor when in the area etc) not for micro analysis of fractions of a millimetre for an offside in a high speed game.

[Rileybobs]

My approach would be simple.

Using whichever freeze frame (not cartoon mockup) the VAR officials deem as when the ball was played, without using any lines if they cannot confirm visually that the player is definitely offside within 10 seconds, then it’s onside and be done with it.

I always had the hope that VAR would be a retrospective tool to eliminate cheating from the game, I.e. violent conduct, diving for a penalty (or dropping to the floor when in the area etc) not for micro analysis of fractions of a millimetre for an offside in a high speed game.

Therefore overturning potentially good decisions made by the on field assistants? Do you not see the flaw in this?

[Rick_Muller]

Therefore overturning potentially good decisions made by the on field assistants? Do you not see the flaw in this?

There is no flaw, it’s simple. Should it go to VAR, that is how I would approach it. The system as it is is massively flawed because of the amount of error in the timeframes based on the frame rates. It’s been discussed on here previously and the error for 100 frames/second can be as much as 10cm distance and as such micro analysis of millimetres is utterly stupid and significantly flawed.

[bfcmatt]

My approach would be simple.

Using whichever freeze frame (not cartoon mockup) the VAR officials deem as when the ball was played, without using any lines if they cannot confirm visually that the player is definitely offside within 10 seconds, then it’s onside and be done with it.

I always had the hope that VAR would be a retrospective tool to eliminate cheating from the game, I.e. violent conduct, diving for a penalty (or dropping to the floor when in the area etc) not for micro analysis of fractions of a millimetre for an offside in a high speed game.

This would still create as many problems as it is all still subject to opinion, as in it would still be somebody's opinion as to weather it is off or on. It should boil down to has a clear and obvious error been made. if it isn't clear and obvious at normal speed of play then the on filed decisions given should stand, either way. You shouldn't have to watch it on replay 4 or 5 times frame by frame to find 2cm difference in somebody's arm pit (obviously in my opinion)

[Rick_Muller]

This would still create as many problems as it is all still subject to opinion, as in it would still be somebody's opinion as to weather it is off or on. It should boil down to has a clear and obvious error been made. if it isn't clear and obvious at normal speed of play then the on filed decisions given should stand, either way. You shouldn't have to watch it on replay 4 or 5 times frame by frame to find 2cm difference in somebody's arm pit (obviously in my opinion)

That’s exactly why the approach I suggest is better, much better. If the onfield officials are not sure they should ask VAR to take 10 seconds to review the freeze frame and if they cannot give a definitive “yes, they are offside” then it’s onside. It is that simple. Yes still open to human opinion but the current system are too. I want simple and quick, as opposed to complicated and flawed.

[Tall Paul]

My approach would be simple.

Using whichever freeze frame (not cartoon mockup) the VAR officials deem as when the ball was played, without using any lines if they cannot confirm visually that the player is definitely offside within 10 seconds, then it’s onside and be done with it.

I always had the hope that VAR would be a retrospective tool to eliminate cheating from the game, I.e. violent conduct, diving for a penalty (or dropping to the floor when in the area etc) not for micro analysis of fractions of a millimetre for an offside in a high speed game.

Then the analysis shows like Match of the Day show the lines and a goal against us should have been disallowed and we get a 20 page thread on here complaining about how the officials are useless/biased and VAR could easily solve the problem.

[Rileybobs]

There is no flaw, it’s simple. Should it go to VAR, that is how I would approach it. The system as it is is massively flawed because of the amount of error in the timeframes based on the frame rates. It’s been discussed on here previously and the error for 100 frames/second can be as much as 10cm distance and as such micro analysis of millimetres is utterly stupid and significantly flawed.

It’s simple, but that doesn’t mean it’s good. There’s a massive flaw. If the roles were reversed and Man U had a goal chalked off by the assistant referee for offside, and it went to VAR and they couldn’t tell within 10 seconds if the player was offside so overturned the onfield decision and awarded the goal - only to be proven shortly after by technology that the onfield decision was in fact correct, would you be satisfied?

[Rick_Muller]

It’s simple, but that doesn’t mean it’s good. There’s a massive flaw. If the roles were reversed and Man U had a goal chalked off by the assistant referee for offside, and it went to VAR and they couldn’t tell within 10 seconds if the player was offside so overturned the onfield decision and awarded the goal - only to be proven shortly after by technology that the onfield decision was in fact correct, would you be satisfied?

The technology has been proven to be flawed! Don’t you understand that?

[BigBadBarnes]

I refuse to believe the offside tech is as accurate as they claim on these marginal calls. They need to make the lines thicker and then if they touch then you stick with the on field decision. Similar to the LWB review system for cricket.

Also, the players should roll their sleeves up so that the Prem badge is closer to their body and therefore more likely to make them more onside

[boatshed bill]

I know very little about the technology, but how many cameras are there?

[Rileybobs]

The technology has been proven to be flawed! Don’t you understand that?

Yes, I understand there is a significant margin of error in the technology. What I don't want is for good on-field decisions to be overturned by VAR. Foster was given offside by the AR, the VAR used the technology available to verify the onfield decision and came to the same conclusion. In what world would it be an improvement for the VAR to overrule the onfield decision and award a goal, apart from the very obvious fact that it would have benefited Burnley in this scenario?

[LincsWoldsClaret]

If we’re very very generous and say VAR has an accuracy of plus or minus 5% then add the amount of time it took to make a decision - then there is clearly considerable room for doubt - so the decision has to be in favour of the attacker.

[Rick_Muller]

Yes, I understand there is a significant margin of error in the technology. What I don't want is for good on-field decisions to be overturned by VAR. Foster was given offside by the AR, the VAR used the technology available to verify the onfield decision and came to the same conclusion. In what world would it be an improvement for the VAR to overrule the onfield decision and award a goal, apart from the very obvious fact that it would have benefited Burnley in this scenario?

The reason it went to VAR is because the rules says that it has to. The assistant referee flagged after the goal was scored because he wasn’t sure, so he let play continue because he knew VAR would review it. In the scenario I propose he may or may not flag, but on TV it look like Foster was way offside and as such I would have happily accepted the onfield decision. So I say again, if the onfield officials are not sure, and they go to VAR if they cannot decide within 10 seconds on a single view on review, then it should be declared as onside. In the instance of Foster’s goal, without the lines (and massive margins of error let’s not forget) no human could say for certain that he was offside, therefore he was onside. I would be happy with that approach even if it was a Utd goal because it’s aligns more with giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt as it used to be.

[Dyched]

Arms this, arms that. What about his foot?. Blatantly offside there.

[Darnhill Claret]

How about while we are using lines on screen, wouldn't it be easier to say there has to be daylight between the lines for a definitive decision, otherwise, advantage to the attacker.

[RVclaret]

Arms this, arms that. What about his foot?. Blatantly offside there.

It’s really quite the opposite. If his foot was offside it would not be greyed out.

[duncandisorderly]

The offside law should just be judged from feet.

[aggi]

Totally agree with putting a time limit on VAR reviews, but in relation to all review types. For subjective decisions, a clear and obvious error should be determinable quickly, otherwise they should be deemed not clear and obvious and the original decision stands.

Clear and obvious has never been a thing though (even if they claim it is). If they only overturned clear and obvious errors it would never be necessary for the ref to go to the monitor as the decision would be clear and obvious and could be made by VAR.

[RVclaret]

Clear and obvious has never been a thing though (even if they claim it is). If they only overturned clear and obvious errors it would never be necessary for the ref to go to the monitor as the decision would be clear and obvious and could be made by VAR.

There are a couple of isolated incidents where they don’t send the ref to the screen. One is if a foul is clearly outside the penalty area and the ref awarded a pen. That’s an example of something objectively clear and obvious.

[BurnleyFC]

I found this on line which I think is easier to acknowledge that Foster was indeed albeit very marginally offside

Thanks for posting this.

Now that image, assuming it’s genuine, I can understand. It’s a lot easier to see than those daft cartoon graphics.

It looks very marginally offside.

[quoonbeatz]

Looked offside in real time, looked offside on the MOTD freeze frame. Looked like the guy on the touchline, who doesn’t seem to be in any of the photos, was closest to playing Foster on. Liner thought it was off and gave it. Not sure what the big deal is. If anything it shows why var needs binning, the liners call was good enough. Rather them get a close call wrong than all this electronic ********.

[elwaclaret]

I was all for it when they suggested VAR in games. It has been implemented appallingly, way beyond what was originally floated. It has been an absolute car crash and needs scrapping. They had a chance to introduce a system that advanced the game, they blew it through ego and allowing pedants to control it rather than sportsmen… therefore it should not be revised, just scrapped and put the excitement back into football.