Leicester v Burnley report

See link
https://www.uptheclarets.com/vardy-and- ... he-clarets

I think there is an argument about VAR, but it's an argument that has never been made at official level so far as I know. There should be an argument about whether it's right to have different laws for VAR games as for other games. At any game where VAR isn't operating, Wood's goal is legal because he is level. Where VAR is operating, it is no longer possible to be level.

The law was changed 30 years ago to allow level players to be onside, specifically because they wanted more goals and wanted to give the forward a bit more distance. Are VAR correct in trying to overturn that law change, or at least water it down to only half strength?

Excellent report as usual. Thanks.

A player is in an offside position if:

+any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
+any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent.

The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-go ... ---offside

This Law applies to all football matches, with VAR or not.

I assume the interpretation was that Wood's foot was nearer the goal.

Hipper wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:29 pm

This Law applies to all football matches, with VAR or not.

The law applies differently to non-VAR matches. Are you seriously saying that linesmen in lower league matches genuinely give their decisions on the basis that Wood's toe is an inch further forward than the defender's armpit? I am certain that a linesman seeing that incident would never try and give the decision based on where the Leicester man's armpit was. He would say they were level.

An assistant referee will give his decision the best he can, as will referees that don't have the benefit of assistants, or at least reliable ones such as in park football. Of course he can't be as accurate as VAR. It's the accuracy that's the difference. In any case without VAR and television there should be no arguments although of course there are!

On MotD it gave the impression that as Cornet pulled up with his hamstring injury, the Leicester fans were cheering. I hope that's not how it was.

Hipper wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:29 pm

A player is in an offside position if:

+any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
+any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent.

The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-go ... ---offside

This Law applies to all football matches, with VAR or not.

I assume the interpretation was that Wood's foot was nearer the goal.

Not something I have ever thought about but are you saying a GKs arms aren't included in any offside call? Or just as an attacking player?

If a keeper came out and punched the ball from a cross, with a defender going on the line to cover, the ball comes back in and it's between the forward and keeper for the offside decision. The keepers arms must be included as he can use them?

Hipper wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:42 pm

An assistant referee will give his decision the best he can, as will referees that don't have the benefit of assistants, or at least reliable ones such as in park football. Of course he can't be as accurate as VAR. It's the accuracy that's the difference. In any case without VAR and television there should be no arguments although of course there are!

On MotD it gave the impression that as Cornet pulled up with his hamstring injury, the Leicester fans were cheering. I hope that's not how it was.

But the point is that referees' guidance thirty years ago was that offside is to be judged by the human eye, and if a player looks to be level to the human eye, then he is level. They specifically excluded the odd toe or foot. VAR has changed that for top level football, and it needs to be discussed whether it was right to do so.

It would certainly help if the lawmakers gave a definition of level. Do they, as VAR believes, mean literally level to a millimetre or less, and that a linesman at any level who gives Wood onside is plain wrong?

Hipper wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:42 pm

On MotD it gave the impression that as Cornet pulled up with his hamstring injury, the Leicester fans were cheering. I hope that's not how it was.

That’s exactly how it was. No different to any other fans though.

Lowton asked the assistant if the goal was fine and he got a positive reply back

The rules of the Premier League must always be honoured.

If it had been a Leicester goal, then it would be onside, as they are a more favoured team. As it is Burnley - not seen as a revenue generator for the Premier, then VAR must be used to assist the right outcome, which is to favour Leicester.

As for feet and a nose etc being the dinner, I thought their new 'thicker line' eradicated that.

Football needs goals.

Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:44 pm

Not something I have ever thought about but are you saying a GKs arms aren't included in any offside call? Or just as an attacking player?

If a keeper came out and punched the ball from a cross, with a defender going on the line to cover, the ball comes back in and it's between the forward and keeper for the offside decision. The keepers arms must be included as he can use them?

Firstly it's the Laws of the game that are saying this (not me).

'The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered'. I presume 'all players' means exactly that, both attackers and defenders.

Therefore my interpretation of this Law means the keeper's arms are not included to determine if the forward is in an offside position. We need a current referee to tell us what they would do (or have done) in that situation (I haven't refereed for years).

When presented with any unusual situation we were taught to ask ourselves 'what do the Laws say?'. Here the Law seems clear.

dsr wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:55 pm

But the point is that referees' guidance thirty years ago was that offside is to be judged by the human eye, and if a player looks to be level to the human eye, then he is level. They specifically excluded the odd toe or foot. VAR has changed that for top level football, and it needs to be discussed whether it was right to do so.

It would certainly help if the lawmakers gave a definition of level. Do they, as VAR believes, mean literally level to a millimetre or less, and that a linesman at any level who gives Wood onside is plain wrong?

What has changed the Laws is televised football.

We (fans, players, press) always knew referees and their teams got it wrong sometime but since television has become so dominant at the top levels it's been made obvious to millions of viewers too. The result is the demand for consistency and accuracy and this has led to professional referees and technology. The Laws have had to evolve to deal with this and continue to do so.

In previous version of the Laws there was the phrase 'in the opinion of the referee'. This would end all arguments. In the modern era this concept is no longer acceptable, at least at the top.

'...That’s ten points lost in those circumstances now and add those to the two we’ve got and how comfortable would we be looking..'

we'd be 5th on 12 points!

and if we had also beaten Arsenal we would be top of the league!

UTC

I have to say I’m very confused by the VAR interpretation of offside, particularly in relation to the image shown on MOTD last night. I understood the thicker lines used were in order to give the striker the benefit of the doubt. Woods foot is on but not over the thick line level with the Leicester defenders foot so surely he should have the benefit of the doubt (you have to ignore the extra pixels that are clearly not part of Wood’s foot but mysteriously extend it across the line).

Hipper wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:42 pm

On MotD it gave the impression that as Cornet pulled up with his hamstring injury, the Leicester fans were cheering. I hope that's not how it was.

That’s exactly what happened and I’ve seen photographs showing the abuse he was receiving as he walked round. Used to be a decent visit there but they are so arrogant since winning the league.

Not sure why this thread should have turned into a VAR debate. I was almost in line and didn’t even celebrate. When you see the pictures he’s offside.

claretblue wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 4:36 pm

'...That’s ten points lost in those circumstances now and add those to the two we’ve got and how comfortable would we be looking..'

we'd be 5th on 12 points!

and if we had also beaten Arsenal we would be top of the league!

UTC

The point being that dropping so many points from winning positions is of great concern following on from last season.

martin_p wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 4:52 pm

I have to say I’m very confused by the VAR interpretation of offside, particularly in relation to the image shown on MOTD last night. I understood the thicker lines used were in order to give the striker the benefit of the doubt. Woods foot is on but not over the thick line level with the Leicester defenders foot so surely he should have the benefit of the doubt (you have to ignore the extra pixels that are clearly not part of Wood’s foot but mysteriously extend it across the line).

44F9CCE4-257A-42C2-823C-98B17EB67B94.jpeg

It seems to me that the screenshot you've posted is MOTD's own graphic rather than the official VAR graphic, which for some reason doesn't seem to have been made available (or I've not seen it at least(.

But the way I understand things the two lines drawn by the VAR are thicker, and an incident will only be offside if the two lines don't overlap, so this wouldn't have anything to do with Wood's foot overlapping the line on your screenshot.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 5:00 pm

The point being that dropping so many points from winning positions is of great concern following on from last season.

And it's a concern that at the moment we seem powerless to stop it.

IanMcL wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 4:18 pm

The rules of the Premier League must always be honoured.

If it had been a Leicester goal, then it would be onside, as they are a more favoured team. As it is Burnley - not seen as a revenue generator for the Premier, then VAR must be used to assist the right outcome, which is to favour Leicester.

What a lot of nonsense. It was offside. End of story.

IanMcL wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 4:18 pm

The rules of the Premier League must always be honoured.

If it had been a Leicester goal, then it would be onside, as they are a more favoured team. As it is Burnley - not seen as a revenue generator for the Premier, then VAR must be used to assist the right outcome, which is to favour Leicester.

If you honestly believe that rather than look with your eyes then you might as well pack in going.

For their second goal, should VAR not check the 'attacking phase of play' for any infringements ?

As this started when JBG was wrestled to the ground, could SD/Mee not ask for VAR to look at it (assuming they didn't)?

For their second goal, should VAR not check the 'attacking phase of play' for any infringements ?

As this started when JBG was wrestled to the ground, could SD/Mee not ask for VAR to look at it (assuming they didn't) - or was it reviewed?

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 5:00 pm

The point being that dropping so many points from winning positions is of great concern following on from last season.

Very concerning although we looked a different team with Vydra and Cornet for the first half to suggest we can turn this around. Fingers crossed they both stay fit for the majority of the season.

We can bleat all we want about VAR, but if we'd taken our chances, Wood early in the 2nd half especially, then that game would have been done and dusted long before Vardy's late leveller.

And this is the story of our season, playing well for long periods of matches, but not converting those good spells into goals.

Leicester doesn't seem to be the happiest hunting ground for us either, Brady got a bad injury there, and Cornet & Vydra both went off yesterday, hopefully only with minor niggles, as both were superb in the opening 45 minutes, and already there is signs of them forming a good understanding.

Alongside the injury woes, VAR doesn't appear to do us any favours at the KP, Wood denied yesterday, as he was a couple of seasons ago late on for the supposed foul on Evans, and there is certainly grounds to question why Leicester's 2nd was allowed to stand after the apparent foul on JBG.

Surely we'll get a VAR decision going in our favour soon, next week would be the ideal game for that to happen.

Playing well and not winning is a concern, but compared to a year ago our overall performances are miles better, so we just need to keep plugging away, and the results will come.

And despite the disappointment of losing the lead late on, holding Leicester to a draw should give the squad belief that even visiting the better sides in this league we can be competitive, and crucially pick up points.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 6:32 pm

If you honestly believe that rather than look with your eyes then you might as well pack in going.

All that tie end stuff was supposed to have been eliminated and yet we lose a goal through it. A lino could never spot a big toe, so yes I do believe there is one rule for some and another for others.

If you have not seen enough to conclude that there are some very peculiar decisions, then perhaps that same question could be asked of you!

IanMcL wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:31 pm

All that tie end stuff was supposed to have been eliminated and yet we lose a goal through it. A lino could never spot a big toe, so yes I do believe there is one rule for some and another for others.

If you have not seen enough to conclude that there are some very peculiar decisions, then perhaps that same question could be asked of you!

There may be odd decisions, but that wasn't one of them.
Clear offside.

Not according to the foot picture.

IanMcL wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:46 pm

Not according to the foot picture.

The highlights are available, check them out.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 5:17 pm

It seems to me that the screenshot you've posted is MOTD's own graphic rather than the official VAR graphic, which for some reason doesn't seem to have been made available (or I've not seen it at least(.

But the way I understand things the two lines drawn by the VAR are thicker, and an incident will only be offside if the two lines don't overlap, so this wouldn't have anything to do with Wood's foot overlapping the line on your screenshot.

But if Wood’s foot overlaps the line then so would another line drawn parallel to the end of his foot.

If we are messing with a foot end, then something remains wrong with VAR and the Premier League.

martin_p wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:53 pm

But if Wood’s foot overlaps the line then so would another line drawn parallel to the end of his foot.

Surely that depends on how fat the other line is?!

Ignoring all the intricacies of OFFSIDE and VAR, I thought yesterday we rediscovered the art of defending. Some of the blocks and tackles, particularly Lowton & Tarks were outstanding. Westwood and Brownhill must have covered some ground, and particularly in the first half we gave the Leicester team no time to settle and play. Leicester had more chances to score but they were lucky not to lose 3 points at the end

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 8:08 pm

Surely that depends on how fat the other line is?!

It can be as thin or as fat as it likes, the end of Wood’s foot is on the line not over it.

martin_p wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 26, 2021 8:16 pm

It can be as thin or as fat as it likes, the end of Wood’s foot is on the line not over it.

I’m not being facetious here, and it does highlight how daft VAR can be, but this also depends on how thick the blue line is. As I believe the one you’ve shown to be MOTD’s graphic - both lines drawn by VAR may be much thinner.