Clearly we’re going to have to do this the hard way again because of some jobsworths surrounded by tv screens.

Valiant effort to come back but when there’s a free kick for an own goal that shouldn’t be a free kick, offside goal disallowed because someone’s wrist is offside and a penalty given because the ref wanted to be star of the show it’s a tough pill to swallow.

On to a busy deadline day and we go again after the international break.

This one is interesting.

And let's not forget 7 mins to check a pen that clearly wasn't yet they were trying to find a way to give it!!
WTF!!

nice to see johnny and edgar winter having a kickabout though.

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:18 pm

This one is interesting.

I mean, Dalot’s shirt is in colour too? How is that right?

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:18 pm

This one is interesting.

Genuinely, what's the possible justification for this one. I'm baffled

It was offside - foster goal
It was a pen - utd penalty

Claret tinted glasses off

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:18 pm

This one is interesting.

Looks like they go off there, which player has the most amount of bodily tissue offside!

It was offside - foster goal
It was a pen - utd penalty

Claret tinted glasses off

Ffs look at their feet, didn't even need var

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:18 pm

This one is interesting.

It's clear cut, not offside.

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

Burnley1989 wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:24 pm

Ffs look at their feet, didn't even need var

They’ve coloured his shirt and the United players shirts. If the feet were off that would be in colour.

daylight is much easier to see than a kneecap, fingernail, pube etc.

if i or anyone who isn't sub-normally inclined can fix this shyt shower then why can't they?

Burnley1989 wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:23 pm

It was offside - foster goal
It was a pen - utd penalty

Claret tinted glasses off

Utd pen, initial foul clearly outside the box.

Mersons just said on Sky it should have been 6 or 7 to united, he's a complete bell end

IPAclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:30 pm

Mersons just said on Sky it should have been 6 or 7 to united, he's a complete bell end

Amad missed an open goal, Sesko should have scored the header. I'm sure Sesko had another golden chance too. Deffinatelly could have scored more (but could've should've etc)

Burnley1989 wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:24 pm

Ffs look at their feet, didn't even need var

They have offside for his sleeve not his feet, it’s not offside, you cannot score with your arm

Ptgclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:32 pm

Amad missed an open goal, Sesko should have scored the header. I'm sure Sesko had another golden chance too. Deffinatelly could have scored more (but could've should've etc)

Absolutely no credit given to us for our second half performance

IPAclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:35 pm

Absolutely no credit given to us for our second half performance

Because no one likes us. But we don't care.

IPAclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:30 pm

Mersons just said on Sky it should have been 6 or 7 to united, he's a complete bell end

It absolutely should have been first half! We were awful!

Watched 2 games today, ours and chelsea v fulham, both spoilt by var and decisions favouring guess who, the big clubs

Still haven't seen a conclusive angle showing that Anthony's foul continued into the box tbh. The part of the shirt that he was holding is surely the relevant bit, not the bit of the player that was diving over the line? Given that the initial decision was no foul it felt like quite a leap from VAR to call it an obvious error

anybody paying merson a wage should be prosecuted under the animals (scientific procedures) act (1986).

Looked at this picture over and over after seeing it live.

I think what its trying to show is fosters shoulder line which is the part he can score with that's farthest forward.
This line is then shown on the defender also which is ever so slightly infront of his shoulder. . . Hence foster is ahead.
That's the only thing I can come up with. Its a terrible graphic and could very easily be made to should it clearer with 2 different colors of line to the floor like they used to

Burnley1989 wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:24 pm

It was offside - foster goal
It was a pen - utd penalty

Claret tinted glasses off

Fosters goal disallowed because his arm was further forward than the Manyoo player.
You can't score with your arm so that part of the body shouldn't count in the decision.

The foul clearly started outside the box and VAR gave it because the player didn't hit the deck until he was in the box.

Clear glasses on.

IPAclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:29 pm

Utd pen, initial foul clearly outside the box.

Check the rules

123EasyasBFC wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:34 pm

They have offside for his sleeve not his feet, it’s not offside, you cannot score with your arm

Jesus christ, are we really debating this, ill bet Parker has no complaints

Madness, ill give you all chance to listen to the proper reviews

I don't really buy any of this VAR against us b**ocks, I think we just have sore losers here.

Mount pen claim - the right call. Had a ref not had Var and is looked from behind Walker, he is never seeing the pull and so decision stands
Foster offside goal - you have to be clear and obvious to be onside and it had always been to the benefit of the defending side. This was absolutely down the mm and I'm gutted because it was a lovely finish but its increibly tight.
Anthony pull - no complaints. It's a pen.

Its had and does have its mental moments, but today wasn't one of them. I though the officiating was relatively fair for both sides

IPAclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:30 pm

Mersons just said on Sky it should have been 6 or 7 to united, he's a complete bell end

Could have been, should have been, would have been. But it wasn't !:roll:

Whatever is technically correct or otherwise, I absolutely hate VAR. Whether it's purposeful or not, the balance of decisions clearly go to bigger sides. And those executing it don't know their ars* from their elbow clearly. The one from the Fulham game is beyond a joke. It's absolutely killed the game in my opinion,

IPAclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:30 pm

Mersons just said on Sky it should have been 6 or 7 to united, he's a complete bell end

Maybe 3 or 4 goals, but he doesn't seem to hide the fact he's not our biggest fan.

Assuming the offside graphic to be accurate, the line is drawn to Foster's shoulder, being the most advanced part of his body that he can legally use, and it is further forward than any part of the defender's body that can be legally used.

Hence offside, correct decision, however close.

Juan Tanamera wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:40 pm

Fosters goal disallowed because his arm was further forward than the Manyoo player.
You can't score with your arm so that part of the body shouldn't count in the decision.

The foul clearly started outside the box and VAR gave it because the player didn't hit the deck until he was in the box.

Clear glasses on.

Think anyone who can’t see that Foster’s foot is nearest the line is definitely biased or needs some new glasses.

In the years we have been blessed with the gospel according to St Dermot on Sky he said over and over that VAR isn't there to judge yellow cards then why was Anthony given a yellow card?

criminalclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:42 pm

I don't really buy any of this VAR against us b**ocks, I think we just have sore losers here.

Mount pen claim - the right call. Had a ref not had Var and is looked from behind Walker, he is never seeing the pull and so decision stands
Foster offside goal - you have to be clear and obvious to be onside and it had always been to the benefit of the defending side. This was absolutely down the mm and I'm gutted because it was a lovely finish but its increibly tight.
Anthony pull - no complaints. It's a pen.

Its had and does have its mental moments, but today wasn't one of them. I though the officiating was relatively fair for both sides

The circus that surrounds it is utter ******** for the supporter. Without it they’d have had a pen today and probably would have still lost, it needs scrapping

Burnley1989 wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:40 pm

Check the rules

Link to the specific rule please so I can check it.

Holmechapel wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:45 pm

Think anyone who can’t see that Foster’s foot is nearest the line is definitely biased or needs some new glasses.

I think that anyone even considering the feet don’t know the offside law.

I'm sick of football matches being decided by dubious refereeing decisions.

They're attempting to dissect these high-intensity moments into objective fragments, resulting in nonsensical rulings. Goal-line technology works—everything else doesn't.

Decisions shouldn't be based on freeze-frames and slow-motion replays, without the context of the game. How many more years do we have to put up with this ****?

Bacchus wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:45 pm

Assuming the offside graphic to be accurate, the line is drawn to Foster's shoulder, being the most advanced part of his body that he can legally use, and it is further forward than any part of the defender's body that can be legally used.

Hence offside, correct decision, however close.

Then why is the defenders shirt also in colour?

The defender should not have any part in colour.

The line is wrong.

Bacchus wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:45 pm

Assuming the offside graphic to be accurate, the line is drawn to Foster's shoulder, being the most advanced part of his body that he can legally use, and it is further forward than any part of the defender's body that can be legally used.

Hence offside, correct decision, however close.

‘Assuming the offside graphic to be accurate’. And therein lies the problem, it isn’t 100% accurate with the technology we have, it can only ever be an approximation.

VAR once again being used to manage games. Away from that there was a classic after they went 3.2 up where linesmen flagged for a corner for us then changed his mind! Again more talking points to fill the 24 hour sky sports news for start of next week.

Feels like we have been robbed. It was daft of Anthony to hold the shirt but the giving of it as a penalty is unbelievably soft.

However, if that is the rule, so be it, penalty.So let's see that rule applied all season to all teams.

Let's see a penalty given against Arsenal at the Emirates, City at the Etihad, Liverpool at Anfield etc in the same situation - and therein lays the problem, they won't be given.

A question for everyone - was the clear and obvious push on Anthony at Spurs less of an infringement than this given today? For me, I don't think either is a penalty, but of the two incidents, the clear push on Anthony was far more of a penalty than the one given today in my opinion.So why did VAR not suggest it was reviewed?

criminalclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:42 pm

I don't really buy any of this VAR against us b**ocks, I think we just have sore losers here.

Mount pen claim - the right call. Had a ref not had Var and is looked from behind Walker, he is never seeing the pull and so decision stands
Foster offside goal - you have to be clear and obvious to be onside and it had always been to the benefit of the defending side. This was absolutely down the mm and I'm gutted because it was a lovely finish but its increibly tight.
Anthony pull - no complaints. It's a pen.

Its had and does have its mental moments, but today wasn't one of them. I though the officiating was relatively fair for both sides

I think a lot of it is frustration, I for one don't think it was a foul and a free kick for their goal that ended up as an own goal. Looked a good challenge by Walker. Some just go against you. I've seen a lot of the decisions today go both ways.

Burnley1989 wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:41 pm

Jesus christ, are we really debating this, ill bet Parker has no complaints

If foster put his first goal in the net with th apparent sleeve that was offside, it would get disallowed for handball. It’s not offside.

VAR did its job today.

1. It corrected an obvious refereeing error.
2. It disallowed a goal that would have been perfectly legal in Championship or below, and in PL from 1990 to 2020.
3. It created a penalty out of nothing.

It also achieved its secondary purposes:
1. It delayed the game by several minutes.
2. It delayed the time when we knew a goal had been scored.
3. It made the linesman delay his signal because he couldn't tell whether it was offside.

Remember last season, or in fact most of the seasons in Burnley's history, and think how often you came away disappointed because a goal was allowed when the players were level, and you suspected that one of them must have been an inch or so offside? I don't remember any.

How accurate, incidentally, are the cameras that they use? Today's offside is so very close that they must have been able to pinpoint to the thousandth of a second when the boot of the man who passed the ball first made contact with the ball. Have they got so many super-synchronised cameras that they can assess so precisely when first contact takes place? Remember in a hundredth of a second, a running man covers about 3.5 inches, so to judge a margin of an inch or less, they need much better than 1/100th of a second cameras, and they can't risk missing seeing the toe of the boot brush the ball before the instep. It's frightening, really, how good the powers that be thing their equipment is, when actually it's nowhere near good enough.

PS - surely that picture is an AI fake? It's clear in the offside law that the arm starts at the bottom of the armpit, so the bottom of Foster's sleeve can't have been offside.

https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/off ... e-position

dsr wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 6:00 pm

PS - surely that picture is an AI fake? It's clear in the offside law that the arm starts at the bottom of the armpit, so the bottom of Foster's sleeve can't have been offside.

https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/off ... e-position

The picture is exactly what they showed.

It makes no sense to me, both Dalots and Foster’s sleeves are in colour.

CoolClaret wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:50 pm

I'm sick of football matches being decided by dubious refereeing decisions.

They're attempting to dissect these high-intensity moments into objective fragments, resulting in nonsensical rulings. Goal-line technology works—everything else doesn't.

Decisions shouldn't be based on freeze-frames and slow-motion replays, without the context of the game. How many more years do we have to put up with this ****?

It’s going absolutely nowhere. Far too much invested, far too many “has beens” involved now for this to be scrapped. It keeps football in the nations eye all week until the next controversy they can create, which again keeps us all talking about football. Football is their cash cow.

Luppy wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 30, 2025 5:57 pm

Feels like we have been robbed. It was daft of Anthony to hold the shirt but the giving of it as a penalty is unbelievably soft.

However, if that is the rule, so be it, penalty.So let's see that rule applied all season to all teams.

Let's see a penalty given against Arsenal at the Emirates, City at the Etihad, Liverpool at Anfield etc in the same situation - and therein lays the problem, they won't be given.

A question for everyone - was the clear and obvious push on Anthony at Spurs less of an infringement than this given today? For me, I don't think either is a penalty, but of the two incidents, the clear push on Anthony was far more of a penalty than the one given today in my opinion.So why did VAR not suggest it was reviewed?

Remember that a penalty that had been given, was overturned. This isn't "big club" bias.

The problem with shirt pulling is that it isn't a foul. It happens a lot. Shirt pulling when the opponent takes a dive, that is a foul; ordinary shirt pulling isn't.

Frnakly, I'd be inclined to make the players where boxing gloves. They pull shirts so gently that it gives them no advantage, but it gives the opponent the chance to throw himself down and "win" the foul. Why don't they just stop holding shirts?

Next game:
I just hope that as soon as an opposition player tugs one of our shirts in the penalty area, we get the penalty.

I won't be holding my breath though because we're not one of the 'big' teams.