Wood a toenail offside? Or was he on? Looked marginal.
Thought they were getting rid of those close calls this season?

Prior to VAR existing, the goal would have stood and no one would have complained, as Wood would have been deemed level.

Take a bow everyone who wanted VAR brought in.

Not for Burnley

Thought it was his eyelash that was offside !

ElectroClaret wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:36 pm

Wood a toenail offside? Or was he on? Looked marginal.
Thought they were getting rid of those close calls this season?

Only saw it on the big screen and it was tight - and the kind of call that I think most people would prefer to be classed as level, particularly when not given offside by the AR. Apparently the lines used to determine the decision have been made thicker, although the ones displayed to viewers don't appear to be.

Farcical.

Marginal, at best.

Funny how they can overturn decisions there but missed the punch by Krul on Vydra.

Said it before, and I'll say it after today: VAR gives the big clubs 2 goes at getting the decision they want.

Its offside

This is what VAR is good for

Offsides

We will get some that help us, and some that won't

And who thought it would be any different?

There was a Manu fan in the bar watching with us and his comment was that “ if that had been Manu they wouldn’t have cancelled it”.

Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:45 pm

Its offside

This is what VAR is good for

Offsides

We will get some that help us, and some that won't

Take your point but that's twice Wood has been VAR'd this season that I can instantly think of with no more than a toenail in it. Still waiting for it to balance out.

Silkyskills1 wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:52 pm

Take your point but that's twice Wood has been VAR'd this season that I can instantly think of with no more than a toenail in it. Still waiting for it to balance out.

Believe me, that never happens.

But you already know that.

fidelcastro wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:39 pm

Prior to VAR existing, the goal would have stood and no one would have complained, as Wood would have been deemed level.

Take a bow everyone who wanted VAR brought in.

I keep repeating, it isn't VAR it's the officials.
They said at the start of the season these marginal calls would be given in favour of the attacking team, but have reneged on it. No surprise really, they are doing everything they can to **** fans off, in order to have VAR ditched.

Silkyskills1 wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:52 pm

Take your point but that's twice Wood has been VAR'd this season that I can instantly think of with no more than a toenail in it. Still waiting for it to balance out.

Mo Salah at Liverpool

And the people saying it wouldn't have been called back for Man United, please!

Cameras aren't good enough to say with any certainty whether it was off or on when it's that tight. Suprised they've scratched that one off but hey ho.

I thought VAR was only being used when a "clear and obvious" error had been made. That decision was neither of those things.

burnleymik wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:56 pm

I thought VAR was only being used when a "clear and obvious" error had been made. That decision was neither of those things.

That's never been the case with offsides, I'm surprised people keep saying this.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:59 pm

That's never been the case with offsides, I'm surprised people keep saying this.

Because it's their own definition:

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1297392

burnleymik wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:59 pm

offside.jpg

Going off that pic it's woods arm that is offside, you can't score with your arm

Thing is, I can see Wood is offside there

What is the issue?

Wood is offside
Cornet doesn't do tap ins

burnleymik wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:00 pm

Because it's their own definition:

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1297392

The key word in the definition you’ve linked is ‘subjective’. Offsides aren’t subjective decisions.

burnleymik wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:59 pm

offside.jpg

That’s actually ridiculous

Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:06 pm

Thing is, I can see Wood is offside there

What is the issue?

I’m not sure I can, even the arbitrary lines seem to be on top of each other. Besides this whole ‘toenail offside’ thing seems to be contra to the reason the offside rule exists, to stop the attacker gaining an advantage by being in front of the last defender. I’m not sure anyone can argue Wood gained an unfair advantage.

I'm sorry but that line is absolute ********.

Where has the thicker line for benefit of the doubt gone?

To the naked eye there, Wood is behind the defender and definitely level.

If they are taking his shoulder into consideration, then if the ball hit that part of the body, by definition it would have to be totally within the shoulder line. Bit like umpires call in cricket, so the striker loses both ways. I don't think decisions like this help the game, and it's not just us.

One look at that and the VAR should say "looks level", no need for extra examination. Not a clear and obvious error either.

That doesn't look like the moment the ball was played to me.

Ric_C wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:17 pm

Where has the thicker line for benefit of the doubt gone?

That's what I thought.
Wasn't a lot made of that before the season started?

And I'm not just on about today or decisions just against us, there's been a few like today's in quite a few games.

yorkyclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:27 pm

That doesn't look like the moment the ball was played to me.

This is exactly why I disagree with martin p. It absolutely is subjective. Is it the moment it leaves the foot, is it exactly as the pass is being played? Drag that back one split second of a frame and he could be onside. It depends the exact point they take the freeze frame, hence it should be as per their own definition, clear and obvious.

martin_p wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:13 pm

I’m not sure I can, even the arbitrary lines seem to be on top of each other. Besides this whole ‘toenail offside’ thing seems to be contra to the reason the offside rule exists, to stop the attacker gaining an advantage by being in front of the last defender. I’m not sure anyone can argue Wood gained an unfair advantage.

Really?

I can see both Cornet and Wood are ahead of their respective defenders

At the time me and a couple around us thought it was offside as well (but not as tight as that!)

JimmyRobbo wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:43 pm

Funny how they can overturn decisions there but missed the punch by Krul on Vydra.

Big difference, the punch on Vydra was a subjective decision made by people, today's objective decision was made by technology.

burnleymik wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:59 pm

This is exactly why I disagree with martin p. It absolutely is subjective. Is it the moment it leaves the foot, is it exactly as the pass is being played? Drag that back one split second of a frame and he could be onside. It depends the exact point they take the freeze frame, hence it should be as per their own definition, clear and obvious.

It’s not really me you’re disagreeing with, it’s the laws of the game. Offside is not seen as subjective as you’re either in front of the defender or you aren’t. Fouls, etc are down to the opinion of the officials.

martin_p wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:05 pm

It’s not really me you’re disagreeing with, it’s the laws of the game. Offside is not seen as subjective as you’re either in front of the defender or you aren’t. Fouls, etc are down to the opinion of the officials.

Cornet clearly is, but not relevant to the decision. From side on Wood would look level with the defender and that’ll be why the linesman didn’t give it. The lines on the picture don’t even prove anything, although that may be down to it being poor definition.

Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:00 pm

Really?

I can see both Cornet and Wood are ahead of their respective defenders

At the time me and a couple around us thought it was offside as well (but not as tight as that!)

What you've got there is a classic case of a striker with momentum leaning forward, and a defender holding a line doing the opposite. Wood is coming from deeper and his feet ar3 behind the defender, the torso might not be. But I'll bet on the frame before wood is not offside at all and I don't suppose the kicking of the ball lines up perfectly to the freeze frame- it never does.

For me that should not be offside, for that reason. It overstates what technology can do. Fattening the lines helps but doesn't eradicate that flaw.

claretspice wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:10 pm

What you've got there is a classic case of a striker with momentum leaning forward, and a defender holding a line doing the opposite. Wood is coming from deeper and his feet ar3 behind the defender, the torso might not be. But I'll bet on the frame before wood is not offside at all and I don't suppose the kicking of the ball lines up perfectly to the freeze frame- it never does.

For me that should not be offside, for that reason. It overstates what technology can do. Fattening the lines helps but doesn't eradicate that flaw.

Thing is, I don't have a problem with that, as long as its consistent, and tbf, it appears to be consistently applied

Outrageous that goes against us again.

Was it a pen? Can’t find that anywhere but it looked it to me from the stand.

Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:45 pm

Its offside

This is what VAR is good for

Offsides

We will get some that help us, and some that won't

Utter ********.

It is ok to say that it isn’t up for discussion, and that offside is one of the few decisions that is black and white, and maybe it is ,but it’s absolutely totally and utterly ********.

We’d scored. We’d celebrated and we’d all gone back to the start point ready to kick off. It was an absolute AGE, before anyone knows
there was anything suspect about it. The Lino was stood on the line completely perplexed by this whole thing, And even then, lines were needed to make the call. Neither clear nor obvious. It was EASILY two minutes to come to a decision. That’s utter shite. Really bad. It’s fuckin awful in fact, and it’s NOT what VAR is supposed to be about.

Simply calling it right because the “lines” showed it to be marginally offside is no longer right as far as the rules go. It may well have been “right” but it was also ********.

bobinho wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:19 pm

Utter ********.

It is ok to say that it isn’t up for discussion, and that offside is one of the few decisions that is black and white, and maybe it is ,but it’s absolutely totally and utterly ********.

We’d scored. We’d celebrated and we’d all gone back to the start point ready to kick off. It was an absolute AGE, before anyone knows
there was anything suspect about it. The Lino was stood on the line completely perplexed by this whole thing, And even then, lines were needed to make the call. Neither clear nor obvious. It was EASILY two minutes to come to a decision. That’s utter shite. Really bad. It’s fuckin awful in fact, and it’s NOT what VAR is supposed to be about.

Simply calling it right because the “lines” showed it to be marginally offside is no longer right as far as the rules go. It may well have been “right” but it was also ********.

If its consistently applied, and it appears to be, then its offside and I'm comfortable with that

Anytime I have doubts about VAR, I just remember various Arsenal last minute winners and I'm ok with it

Whatever we have now is better than that

Well I’m hoping MOTD show it because Sky haven’t in their highlights

Last season rules - it was offside
It was changed for this season - so should be allowed

Regardless - until the electronic timing of the pass is sorted it will always be open to interpretation

Silkyskills1 wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:52 pm

Take your point but that's twice Wood has been VAR'd this season that I can instantly think of with no more than a toenail in it. Still waiting for it to balance out.

I think we actually benefitted from VAR more than most last season. I’m sure Sky had a chart that had us in the top 5-6 for benefitting from it

Had we lost 1-0 or 2-1 etc I would whinge the loudest ... F**ks sake lads we bloody won ...

Lets celebrate the win ... cheer Woody's wonder goal, Cheer Lowts header (how the hell did Lowts be in that position) and cheer in the fact we have in Max Cornet a bloody wonderful player, skilful, fantastic footballer and a grand lad in interviews to boot ...

Lets have more of the same next Saturday down at Chelski

UTC

Which bit of Chris Wood is offside there?

Bordeauxclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 11:23 pm

Which bit of Chris Wood is offside there?

Apparently he forgot to cut his fingernails this morning, cost us a goal.

Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:21 pm

If its consistently applied, and it appears to be, then its offside and I'm comfortable with that

Anytime I have doubts about VAR, I just remember various Arsenal last minute winners and I'm ok with it

Whatever we have now is better than that

Why does consistency matter when it's been explained numerous times before that this method could lead to an incorrect decision? Someone who is consistently wrong is still wrong!!

For me that’s onside, relatively level and not gaining an advantage, which the thicker lines are meant to show.

As ClaretSpice points out above the instant of the freeze frame is a subjective moment, it cannot be definitively shown that is the moment of the pass. We’ve proven on here before that the VAR camera frame rate (the official ones not the TV ones) means a striker with momentum could gain around 10cm (from memory) between frames.

I would also change the rules and say the lino has to put the flag up as soon as the goal is scored if it is thought to be off, so at least the crowd know instantly what the officials think pending a check. It’s stupid to keep the flag down permanently, all it does is wind the fans up and ruin the moment.

CrosspoolClarets wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 11:32 pm

I would also change the rules and say the lino has to put the flag up as soon as the goal is scored if it is thought to be off, so at least the crowd know instantly what the officials think pending a check. It’s stupid to keep the flag down permanently, all it does is wind the fans up and ruin the moment.

That’s exactly what happens.

I was sat directly in line with the players ( Bob Lord) adjacent to the away fans. Definitely onside not wishful thinking but onside.

martin_p wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 11:35 pm

That’s exactly what happens.

I agree that is what is meant to happen, probably should have worded my post better, but it doesn’t very often. I’d like to see the stats - numbers of flags waved per season before and after VAR introduced.

CrosspoolClarets wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 30, 2021 11:32 pm

For me that’s onside, relatively level and not gaining an advantage, which the thicker lines are meant to show.

As ClaretSpice points out above the instant of the freeze frame is a subjective moment, it cannot be definitively shown that is the moment of the pass. We’ve proven on here before that the VAR camera frame rate (the official ones not the TV ones) means a striker with momentum could gain around 10cm (from memory) between frames.

I would also change the rules and say the lino has to put the flag up as soon as the goal is scored if it is thought to be off, so at least the crowd know instantly what the officials think pending a check. It’s stupid to keep the flag down permanently, all it does is wind the fans up and ruin the moment.

The AR called it onside in this instance though. And I think when the players are as ‘level’ as these pictures show, it would be reasonable to go with the on-field call. In fact, I would surprise if we don’t see this changed soon, unless the hawk eye system is introduced. Thankfully being on the wrong side of this fine margin didn’t cost us today.

I'm personally a fan of VAR but this decision was just wrong, nothing to do with VAR itself, but a bad decision from the VAR ref.