What do you think?

Level. It’s completely pointless analysing offside decisions to such minute degrees of accuracy.

It doesn't matter as it didn't affect the result but at the time i thought it was definitely offside

Yes, and they should have had a penalty off the Hendrick handball, which led to our penalty at the other end.

Nope. Barnes near side plays him on. Can see back of his heal is just past the line.

Barnes’s backside is clearly playing Duffy on.

That’s clearly onside

Onside, but they took the free kick closer than where the foul took place.

No it's not offside.

But we do need to stop playing a high line, as we are pretty good at defending.

Bin Ont Turf wrote:No it's not offside.

But we do need to stop playing a high line, as we are pretty good at defending.

What if playing a high line makes us good at defending?

Bordeauxclaret wrote:What if playing a high line makes us good at defending?

It doesn't though.

We've conceded far too many goals at set pieces, and that goal for Brighton today wouldn't have happened if we just defended properly.

Tarky and Mee headed and kicked everything away today from open play.

We are good at defending, and we don't need to confuse it.

Bin Ont Turf wrote:It doesn't though.

We've conceded far too many goals at set pieces, and that goal for Brighton today wouldn't have happened if we just defended properly.

Tarky and Mee headed and kicked everything away today from open play.

We are good at defending, and we don't need to confuse it.

Spot on, that pretty much nails it. Keep it simple.

Bin Ont Turf wrote:It doesn't though.

We've conceded far too many goals at set pieces, and that goal for Brighton today wouldn't have happened if we just defended properly.

Tarky and Mee headed and kicked everything away today from open play.

We are good at defending, and we don't need to confuse it.

So if we didn’t defend with a high line we’d concede less?

I don't know what you are after Bordeaux but playing with a high line doesn't suit us.

We are pretty well drilled, but I'd rather our defenders be in front of attackers than behind them.

A Bite.....

The question I like to use, if that was Burnley against a top 4 club would it be off side?

More importantly, if it was Pope between the sticks, would he have retreated to his line, or come and caught the ball?

He’s 0.05mm offside, and as we known from the use of VAR in the fa cup 0.05mm is a clear and obvious error by the linesman, and the referee should be referring in the confermace next week as somehow a mistake by a linesmen is always the fault of the referee.

I’m really not looking forward to the future of football in this country.

Burnleyareback2 wrote:The question I like to use, if that was Burnley against a top 4 club would it be off side?

No. Because he wasn't.

Maybe the players Head should be used when VAR comes in ?

Not a players foot / arm / shoulder - while in a running "cycle" - it would make it far easier.

aggi wrote:No. Because he wasn't.

Your wrong.

Onside, and on balance we can have no complaints about how the decisions went yesterday, it could've been 1-2 instead of 0-3 within seconds.

Pointless with that picture. If you’re going to get into the minutiae of detail as to whether a decision is offside or not you’re going to have to make sure the image is from when the ball is kicked and from that photo, the ball is already moving. For what it’s worth, I thought it was an excellent set piece and a well taken goal. Plus, it’s his large, blue hula-hoop that’s offside and not the player.

It was a pretty stupid free kick to give away. We just switched off a bit after going three up - rather like Brighton did after the handball.

In that picture the ball has already moved a foot, how can we measure offsides by milimetres in that scenario! If we wanted to harp back on decisions then we had a ball over the line goal disallowed in that stadium. I had a screenshot of the ball over the line within 20 seconds in the ground. These things even themselves out, even within the course of a game

Burnleyareback2 wrote:Your wrong.

You're

If it’s feet that count then he’s onside if any body parts he’s offside.

South West Claret. wrote:If it’s feet that count then he’s onside if any body parts he’s offside.

Any body part except arm. Therefore onside based on that image.

claret wizard wrote:In that picture the ball has already moved a foot, how can we measure offsides by milimetres in that scenario! If we wanted to harp back on decisions then we had a ball over the line goal disallowed in that stadium. I had a screenshot of the ball over the line within 20 seconds in the ground. These things even themselves out, even within the course of a game

With VAR it's going to end up like the DRS system in cricket where the frames per second/minute of the camera ends up playing the key role. It's ridiculous really. At a quick glance, you'd say onside and crack on. Will VAR replay it frame-by-frame?

I think the authorities need to come out and say with goals like the one above whether they give the benefit of doubt to the attacking side or to the team defending. Personally, I think it should be with the defending team as goals are so important - i.e. any margin of doubt and you give it offside. Unfortunately, I suspect they'll give whatever decision they view as the easiest to give and we are back to square one with the 'big' clubs still getting an advantage.

He's onside. He's being played on by Barnes I believe, and quite clearly. Correct decision by lino

Yes. If you look closely the Brighton players shoulder is over the line where as Barnes's backside is on the line.

Yes thought it was offside at the time and still do.

VAR would say so, until we get that right. I think there should be a clear torso ahead using var. This toe, eyebrow, long nose rubbish is not football. We are not judging a horse race or Olympic final.

taio wrote:Any body part except arm. Therefore onside based on that image.

Isn’t that interesting at first I thought on side as well but upon further forensic examination it looks like their player second down from the top is just offside compared with Barnes (No 10). His heel.

It looks to me that their player’s area between his shoulder and neck (where the line from Barnes heel) is measured from is nearer to our goal line.

I measured with the pic. enlarged first but found Barnes heel showed up more densely at the original size.

Go on everyone have another go if you also thought onside and see if we agree.

I mentioned on the match thread that I thought it was offside when i saw it. I was wrong. The other man is off but in the new laws, which as a defender I hate, that man doesn't interfere.

Onside. No question.

I’d like the offside rule to favour forwards with the use of a rule that there needs to be “Daylight” between the attacker and the defender for it to be deemed offside. It would be much easier to spot, and much quicker for VAR too.

Onside - played on by Barnes' arse. Duffy's arm doesn't count.

He was onside, but he was more offside than Wood at Waford

South West Claret. wrote:Isn’t that interesting at first I thought on side as well but upon further forensic examination it looks like their player second down from the top is just offside compared with Barnes (No 10). His heel.

It looks to me that their player’s area between his shoulder and neck (where the line from Barnes heel) is measured from is nearer to our goal line.

I measured with the pic. enlarged first but found Barnes heel showed up more densely at the original size.

Go on everyone have another go if you also thought onside and see if we agree.

Irrelevant as not interfering. Definitely onside

Rick_Muller wrote:I’d like the offside rule to favour forwards with the use of a rule that there needs to be “Daylight” between the attacker and the defender for it to be deemed offside. It would be much easier to spot, and much quicker for VAR too.

That’s hardly going to clear up the controversy is it. Imagine all the replays we’d have to watch trying to find a glimpse of daylight between the nooks and crannies of opposing players’ limbs.

Think we should just accept we had our own luck down there this weekend and leave it at that. We certainly got a repayment in 'luck' we had been missing yesterday. They can keep their one for me.

ClaretTony wrote:Onside - played on by Barnes' arse. Duffy's arm doesn't count.

No but Duffy's shoulder does.

beddie wrote:No but Duffy's shoulder does.

It's his arm and that doesn't count - so he's definitely onside.

taio wrote:Irrelevant as not interfering. Definitely onside

As Bill Shankly once said...if he's not interfering with play then he shouldn't be on the pitch

There's half a shoulder over that line - offside!

Until they establish whether offside is to be judged at the moment the boot touches the ball, or the moment the ball leaves the boot, then we can't judge. Those two moments are a hundredth of a second apart, and in that time a running player covers three inches.

Apart from anything else, that picture is clearly taken after the ball has been played, so it's useless.