Cornet's Disallowed Goal

[Rileybobs]

Was it definitely in the box?

[ClaretMov]

20211031_102139.jpg (996.58 KiB) Viewed 3417 times

Looking at the footage on Mod I've paused the TV when the pass took place and the ball left the foot and Wood is well onside

[Lancasterclaret]

That posts reminds me that people to the left of me shout "********!" when any offside call is made when the play is to the right of me

[bobinho]

I just want them to administer VAR using their own terminology.

Clear and obvious error. It’s something I keep going back to time and time again. If you need lines drawing across the screen, and it ends up being a toes length, or half an inch of someone’s shoulder it’s neither clear nor obvious. Nothing to debate, goal stands. Carry on. And that includes goals against us…

Yesterday celebrations were complete, no complaints from Brentford players, no flag from the Lino, all players back in their own halves ready for kick off, it was an absolute age to come to a decision. That’s just wrong even if the decision was scientifically and forensically right.

I’d honestly prefer to go back to starting the game against Arsenal two down due to **** refereeing decisions than put up with VAR in its current format.

[NewClaret]

Definite push by the Brentford player.

Looked that way to me. Would like to see it again if anyone has it.

[Colburn_Claret]

Someone posted a link about a ‘Hawkeye’ type system which will be used in next year’s World Cup. So I don’t think we’re far away from the technology being fit for purpose, which it clearly isn’t as things stand.

A hawk eye system may be more accurate, but would you prefer decisions judged to the nth degree, or would you prefer a much simpler method of reviewing any goals on clear and obvious error?
I personally, would do away with any lines and just use your best judgement, if not obviously offside, then it isn't. Opinions often vary, so would you rather go with technology?

[Rileybobs]

A hawk eye system may be more accurate, but would you prefer decisions judged to the nth degree, or would you prefer a much simpler method of reviewing any goals on clear and obvious error?
I personally, would do away with any lines and just use your best judgement, if not obviously offside, then it isn't. Opinions often vary, so would you rather go with technology?

No, I’d prefer it if VAR was never introduced in the first place. But let’s face it, it’s not going away - so if there is a way to very accurately determine offside calls in a very short space of time then it will be much better than the farce we have now.

[nil_desperandum]

And lost the challenge given VAR looked at it and didn’t overturn the ref’s decision.

Maybe but that's not the point.
If teams had just 2 reviews, they would only use them where they thought it was a clear and obvious error.
But I also I think they may have looked at the Krul incident rather differently if we asked for a review and gave the reasons why, whereas on the day VAR looks at everything and it appeared that they only had a cursory glance at this particular incident.

[Firthy]

The other thing to take into account is that at what point is the player providing the pass deemed to have passed, when his foot first contacts the ball or when the ball actually leaves his foot. That fraction of a second can make all the difference between a toenail offside or a toenail onside. Any offsides that close should always give advantage to the attacking team.

[nil_desperandum]

I do realise that, I was pointing out the the approach of having a limited number of VAR challenges wouldn’t have changed anything. In fact the only difference would be that some clear and obvious errors wouldn’t get challenged because a team had run out of challenges.

I don't believe that last sentence to be true, since if teams only asked for a review when it appeared to be CLEAR and OBVIOUS error they would usually retain their review, and it would be rare for there to be 3 incidents that appeared to be CLEAR and OBVIOUS that weren't overturned by VAR.
Of course some managers / teams would squander their reviews with frivolous appeals. This happens in cricket. If you then get a clear and obvious decision go against you then tough.
The rule would be 2 challenges for CLEAR and OBVIOUS errors. Managers would soon learn how to use the system to their best advantage.
Brentford could have gambled on a review with Wood yesterday, but given everything that we saw, I really don't think they would if they only had 2 challenges.

[Rileybobs]

I don't believe that last sentence to be true, since if teams only asked for a review when it appeared to be CLEAR and OBVIOUS error they would usually retain their review, and it would be rare for there to be 3 incidents that appeared to be CLEAR and OBVIOUS that weren't overturned by VAR.
Of course some managers / teams would squander their reviews with frivolous appeals. This happens in cricket. If you then get a clear and obvious decision go against you then tough.
The rule would be 2 challenges for CLEAR and OBVIOUS errors. Managers would soon learn how to use the system to their best advantage.
Brentford could have gambled on a review with Wood yesterday, but given everything that we saw, I really don't think they would if they only had 2 challenges.

Teams would use the review whenever they concede. Teams will also use reviews to waste time. It’s a very bad idea, IMO.

[taio]

Teams would use the review whenever they concede. Teams will also use reviews to waste time. It’s a very bad idea, IMO.

In which case that would soon be proven to be a mistake when they need to use a review to get an incorrect decision overturned.

[Rileybobs]

In which case that would soon be proven to be a mistake when they need to use a review to get an incorrect decision overturned.

It would, but with so few actual defining moments in a game of football, managers would almost certainly review any conceded goal that had the slightest possibility of offside. I just can’t see how this would improve the game in any way whatsoever.

[scouseclaret]

20211031_034833.jpg

This is the current protocol regarding VAR and offsides:

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1488423

It clearly states that where the new thicker lines overlap, it will be deemed onside. The lines in the picture of Wood are virtually on top of each other!

[RalphCoatesComb]

The real shame here is that the build-up and execution for this goal were superb!

[superdimitri]

A hawk eye system may be more accurate, but would you prefer decisions judged to the nth degree, or would you prefer a much simpler method of reviewing any goals on clear and obvious error?
I personally, would do away with any lines and just use your best judgement, if not obviously offside, then it isn't. Opinions often vary, so would you rather go with technology?

Definitely prefer a system that's more accurate.

I think the club, and Dyche needs to highlight that this decision was clearly wrong and we need to kick up a fuss about it. If we don't do anything then we just look like mugs waiting for the next ref to avoid giving us something.

We're lucky it didn't end up mattering but you can imagine how much some of the fashionable clubs and their managers would be moaning about this if it happened. I'm sure even Brentford fans would think it was the wrong decision.

[Taffy on the wing]

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.

It was probably his nose that was offside!

[nil_desperandum]

It would, but with so few actual defining moments in a game of football, managers would almost certainly review any conceded goal that had the slightest possibility of offside. I just can’t see how this would improve the game in any way whatsoever.

When you say they'd review everything, the point is they'd only have 2 reviews so if they chose to waste them because of the slight possibility of offside then that would be down to them.
It works really well in cricket and tennis, so I really don't understand why you consider it to be such a terrible idea.

[taio]

When you say they'd review everything, the point is they'd only have 2 reviews so if they chose to waste them because of the slight possibility of offside then that would be down to them.
It works really well in cricket and tennis, so I really don't understand why you consider it to be such a terrible idea.

It's a point worth debating for sure. I don't believe there would be loads of frivolous and inappropriate use of VAR. Personally I wouldn’t favour it but it's not a terrible idea.

[Rileybobs]

When you say they'd review everything, the point is they'd only have 2 reviews so if they chose to waste them because of the slight possibility of offside then that would be down to them.
It works really well in cricket and tennis, so I really don't understand why you consider it to be such a terrible idea.

Cricket and tennis are games played at a completely different tempo to football. They really aren’t comparable.

So both teams would use both reviews every game, so that is 4 VAR reviews every game. How does that improve the situation, seeing as I don’t think I’ve seen a game that has had 4 separate VAR interventions (I’m not including the ‘soft check’ which is done for every goal)?

[IanMcL]

A very poor decision - biased against Burnley, if that picture is what was judged offside.

Another Prem stink.

[Jakubclaret]

No. Like I say, from a spectator’s point of view I would happily scrap VAR and accept that my team will be on the end of some bad decisions. And even we are to persist VAR, which we will, I would like to see close offside calls like the one on Wood today, and at Leicester, go with the on-field decision. And that’s not because the decision would favour us, but because it would be in keeping with the nature of the game.

By your own admission VAR is here to stay, I personally want to see 100% correct decisions every time & all the time even if it takes away some instant excitement & perhaps late disappointment, titles & relegations can be decided by mistakes it might seem a dramatic conclusion but the idea of people potentially losing their livelihoods over something which could have easily been prevented just doesn't sit comfortable with me, it's a small price to pay when you think that way.

[chipbutty]

Its offside

This is what VAR is good for

Offsides

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

VAR is supposed to eradicate clear and obvious errors by the officials. So you are telling me that is a clear and obvious error?

[Lancasterclaret]

Think I've already explained repeatedly, but I don't mind doing it again

It appears to be consistently applied through all the games that this is offside

All I want is consistency (and it done a lot quicker) so I'm happy enough with that

Obviously I'd rather we got the goal!

But as long as this is pulled back by VAR for offside consistently then I'm ok with it

[Jakubclaret]

If you apply pressure regarding the time you will get inconsistency, old saying if you rush you'll make mistakes take your time & get things right.

[Ric_C]

PXL_20211101_204211446~2.jpg (164.06 KiB) Viewed 2658 times

How about the Leeds second goal being allowed to stand. He's more offside than Wood was and is right in front of the keepers view

[IanMcL]

Either way, the Prem decide the outcomes, where necessary.

[jackmiggins]

Offside should be defined by position of the foot alone. Also, anyone in an offside position, is offside - anyone on the pitch is in play and, therefore, interfering with play!!!

[SouthLondonexile]

This decision was really tight. Can the human eye really be relied upon to confirm that the player - Wood - was offside at the time the ball left the passing players foot using this VAR. It is my belief that VAR as it is meant to measure fine margins does not have an efficacious slow motion replay to measure this.
Definitely not offside.

[boatshed bill]

I keep trying, but i can't see Wood offside.
We were robbed.

[RMutt]

Offside should be defined by position of the foot alone. Also, anyone in an offside position, is offside - anyone on the pitch is in play and, therefore, interfering with play!!!

I’ve said this before with regard to anyone being offside regardless of position but having thought about it, it does throw up the odd problem.
For example, a winger gets to the byline and cuts the ball back into the box to the striker who fires it home first time. He only has the goalkeeper to beat so the winger is still offside having not had time to get back on side. You wouldn’t want to rule that goal out would you?
Whereas someone dawdling about on the wing in an offside position whilst play goes on has only themselves to blame.
The current system is a total mess though, I’d go back to the original rule but with the ref deciding on interfering or not.

[jackmiggins]

In that case the winger has passed the ball and can't be offside.

[RMutt]

In that case the winger has passed the ball and can't be offside.

Ah, Sorry, I’ve never come across that bit of the rule. In the past I probably assumed it was OK because the winger wasnt interfering.

[RammyClaret61]

This decision was really tight. Can the human eye really be relied upon to confirm that the player - Wood - was offside at the time the ball left the passing players foot using this VAR. It is my belief that VAR as it is meant to measure fine margins does not have an efficacious slow motion replay to measure this.
Definitely not offside.

The human eye was good enough for 100+ years.
TV/VAR is killing the beautiful game.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

The human eye was good enough for 100+ years.
TV/VAR is killing the beautiful game.

Very true Rammy, however, technology has to take over everything. I wonder how long it will be before VAR et al have to ask Alexa whether they are correct or not.

[RMutt]

In that case the winger has passed the ball and can't be offside.

P.S. It’s got me thinking this. Would that statement still be true if the winger had the ball returned to him. IE, he knocks it back to a full back who returns it to him before he has time to get back onside? Or is it only true with a goal scored?

[jackmiggins]

Absolutely - I dread to think how kids are being schooled with this now. Used to be that you would judge yourself against positions of defenders (through the corner of your eye). If a linesman or ref doesn't immediately see it as offside, then its 'on'.

[jackmiggins]

Generally at least a quarter of the ground can see an offside. I'm baffled why referees don't judge the spin of the ball when assessing throw ins, corners etc, or simply use their ears - deflections are so obvious. Likewise, contact challenges are always audible on a pitch......the frequency of the sound is so high that it crescendos above any crowd noise.

[RMutt]

Absolutely - I dread to think how kids are being schooled with this now. Used to be that you would judge yourself against positions of defenders (through the corner of your eye). If a linesman or ref doesn't immediately see it as offside, then its 'on'.

Thanks, I played for years but couldn't remember that part of the rule.