JJ isn't having it

[Vegas Claret]

I agree with him, give a few bloody noses along the way
https://x.com/TurfCastPodcast/status/19 ... 1392378982

[Rileybobs]

Foster was offside though…

[Burnley1989]

Fair play, the backlash from the big clubs and their fan base is the reason they do get the 50/50 and questionable decisions more often than not (in my opinion of course). Why not put some pressure on

[CrosspoolClarets]

I miss that style of programme in the UK. We are far too boring nowadays, just a bunch of ex pro talking heads who never have a laugh.

As for Watt, he is clearly “all in”, and now for Espanyol as well. Probably part of his driven mentality that made him a legend. I think that is terrific.

On the incidents, the Foster one is debatable. Drawing a ring around the armpit with a 5cm tolerance - well, it is dodgy as hell but probably it is the law that is an ass. The Anthony one, also debatable, the player was never getting to the ball and arguably was never fouled as he threw himself forward, not back, which suggests he engineered it. Finally, the Walker one, that is the most obvious, that foul was a clear and obvious error and Attwell should have reversed it following the goal, as it wasn’t a foul. I think VAR looks at free kicks in that instance. i may be wrong.

[Tricky Trevor]

The offside is so debatable. Greying out both arms means nothing unless the passer is in view. At what point does the forward pass begin? As he touches it forward or when it leaves his foot?
This was the same argument with JRods disallowed “goal” at B’mouth.
Some decisions are just to close to call and advantage should be given to the forward. Far to many grey areas side with the defence, starting with grappling in the penalty area and goalkeeper protection.

[clarets1978]

Foster was offside though…

According to Dermot Gallagher on ref watch, They showed the wrong still for the offside and he agreed that the one we'd all seen he was onside. They then promised to show the correct one and all we got was a black screen because Sky were having "technical difficulties" and it was never shown. Ive googled to look for this alledged still but never found it... Can someone maybe point me in the direction of this???

[Rileybobs]

According to Dermot Gallagher on ref watch, They showed the wrong still for the offside and he agreed that the one we'd all seen he was onside. They then promised to show the correct one and all we got was a black screen because Sky were having "technical difficulties" and it was never shown. Ive googled to look for this alledged still but never found it... Can someone maybe point me in the direction of this???

He was clearly offside in the image that they showed though.

[claret wizard]

He was clearly offside in the image that they showed though.

He can’t have been, it was “ incorrect “ the greying out wasn’t done correctly showing both players ahead of the line. However, more worryingly is that there appears to be more than one image generated by the system. Why? Is that dependent on the ball touch, different cameras, the discretion of the VAR official? Do they get to choose which image is shown? It’s all rubbish, lack of transparency, incorrect calls, bias, do away with it all.

[Rileybobs]

He can’t have been, it was “ incorrect “ the greying out wasn’t done correctly showing both players ahead of the line. However, more worryingly is that there appears to be more than one image generated by the system. Why? Is that dependent on the ball touch, different cameras, the discretion of the VAR official? Do they get to choose which image is shown? It’s all rubbish, lack of transparency, incorrect calls, bias, do away with it all.

It's concerning that they showed the incorrect image, but the image they did broadcast showed the offside line on Foster's shoulder, and every part of the defender's body which is used to determine offsides was behind that line. So that image showed Foster to be offside. I can't believe people keep suggesting otherwise.

[Hibsclaret]

VAR or no VAR we get shafted anyway. The Lino gave the offside just like the ref gave the first pen for the non foul. So no VAR and we may be an extra goal behind at half time. With no VAR in the second half we likely get a battling draw but of course when it’s a small team at Old Trafford they can let the VAR re referee the game at the end. A non decision onfield can be overturned with seemingly a lower bar threshold than was applied for Foster’s first half goal against Sunderland the previous week. It’s just great that the Man U win has been correctly engineered by the people put in charge to be neutral.

[theboydonegood]

The point of contact determination is made by the VAR officials. They dont show both on the 3D graphic. Why would the average fan think they get them right?

Its all ********. Let the lino raise his flag immediately and we dont have to have this as he never runs through to score.

[ClaretTony]

The two things difficult to question are goal line technology (their first goal) and offside (our disallowed goal). PGMO have confirmed they sent out the wrong image and I've not seen what they should have sent out given that SSN mysteriously had technical issues showing it. But it is a factual decision and although it's tight, I'll accept that it is the correct decision.

As has been said, without VAR it would have been disallowed in any case.

[clarets1978]

The two things difficult to question are goal line technology (their first goal) and offside (our disallowed goal). PGMO have confirmed they sent out the wrong image and I've not seen what they should have sent out given that SSN mysteriously had technical issues showing it. But it is a factual decision and although it's tight, I'll accept that it is the correct decision.

As has been said, without VAR it would have been disallowed in any case.

The cynic in me has me wondering whether the correct image exists. Just seemed to convenient that Sky came up with technical difficulties and then never came up with it later. Got Dermot Gallagher out of a hole at the time.... maybe I should just stop with the conspiracy theory and accept it but Ive got to say that show didnt help any on Tuesday morning

[ClaretTony]

The cynic in me has me wondering whether the correct image exists. Just seemed to convenient that Sky came up with technical difficulties and then never came up with it later. Got Dermot Gallagher out of a hole at the time.... maybe I should just stop with the conspiracy theory and accept it but Ive got to say that show didnt help any on Tuesday morning

Interesting for the first incident that Bothroyd thought Walker should have been given a red card for it while Gallagher said there was a foul and the game should have restarted with a Man U free kick and not a dropped ball.

I don't think you are being cynical to be honest, but it's difficult to argue with a factual decision.

The third one, at least Bothroyd noted what Amad was up to and called him cute.

[KRBFC]

but the image they did broadcast showed the offside line on Foster's shoulder, and every part of the defender's body which is used to determine offsides was behind that line.

That isn’t true though

[Carport]

It's concerning that they showed the incorrect image, but the image they did broadcast showed the offside line on Foster's shoulder, and every part of the defender's body which is used to determine offsides was behind that line. So that image showed Foster to be offside. I can't believe people keep suggesting otherwise.

I thought the part of Fosters sleeve said to be offside was in fact no further forward than the defenders part of his sleeve

[KRBFC]

The defenders sleeve is literally beyond the line

[Vegas Claret]

and you can't score with your arm

[clarets1978]

Interesting for the first incident that Bothroyd thought Walker should have been given a red card for it while Gallagher said there was a foul and the game should have restarted with a Man U free kick and not a dropped ball.

I don't think you are being cynical to be honest, but it's difficult to argue with a factual decision.

The third one, at least Bothroyd noted what Amad was up to and called him cute.

Im surprised with how much Bothroyd takes them to task on that show. Does its well. I liked how he got stuck in about the Hannibal/Adingra incident the week before

[Rileybobs]

The defenders sleeve is literally beyond the line

This is irrelevant because hands and arms (below the 't-shirt line) of players aren't considered when determining offside. I thought this was common knowledge?

[Rileybobs]

and you can't score with your arm

You can score with your shoulder.

[BurnleyFC]

Those images are laughable in all honesty.

What a shite system.

[Roosterbooster]

That updated graphic just confirms what everyone (except Rileybobs) has been saying

For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. The updated graphic doesn't show the the line being drawn through this part of the defender either. They've just shown a different angle and added some circles

As it stands all they've concluded is that Foster was either onside or offside

[Rileybobs]

That updated graphic just confirms what everyone (except Rileybobs) has been saying

For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. The updated graphic doesn't show the the line being drawn through this part of the defender either. They've just shown a different angle and added some circles

As it stands all they've concluded is that Foster was either onside or offside

Whether or not the presentation of the graphic is correct, it still clearly shows that no part of the defender’s body that is considered in offside decisions is playing Foster onside, therefore he’s offside.

[RVclaret]

Whether or not the presentation of the graphic is correct, it still clearly shows that no part of the defender’s body that is considered in offside decisions is playing Foster onside, therefore he’s offside.

What people are saying, and this is what I said to you the other day, why is there still a part of the defenders t shirt in colour? Are you saying that part isn’t considered in offsides for defenders, but the same part of the t shirt for Foster is? It’s the exact same part of the body on both.

[Rick_Muller]

The defenders sleeve is literally beyond the line

I’m also confused by that, this image clearly shows very similar parts of the shirt on both players.

I’ve said it before, unless they have cameras operating at 5000 frames/second they can’t be that precise with which part of which arm is offside or not. IMO that is the main reason for the cartoon graphics too, so the fans can be manipulated to believe what they are being told.

IMG_1476.jpeg (727.74 KiB) Viewed 2218 times

[Rileybobs]

What people are saying, and this is what I said to you the other day, why is there still a part of the defenders t shirt in colour? Are you saying that part isn’t considered in offsides for defenders, but the same part of the t shirt for Foster is? It’s the exact same part of the body on both.

I think the mistake made with the images is that the offside line is drawn at the most offside extremity of Foster, as opposed to the most onside extremity of the defender. If it was shown correctly at the defender’s shoulder, then it would show a significant amount of Foster being offside.

I’m presuming that this semi automated graphic usually shows the offside line on the defender’s body rather than the attackers (unless for some reason it’s different based on the on-field decision?), and I understand the concern people have with how a system like this can display the line on the wrong player. But it still clearly shows that Foster is offside at this moment so I really can’t understand this suggesting he’s onside.

[Rileybobs]

What people are saying, and this is what I said to you the other day, why is there still a part of the defenders t shirt in colour? Are you saying that part isn’t considered in offsides for defenders, but the same part of the t shirt for Foster is? It’s the exact same part of the body on both.

I missed the last part of your post and didn’t respond. It isn’t the exact same part of the body on both. The furthest forward part of Foster’s body which is considered in offside decisions is the front of this shoulder - this is where the line is drawn. This line cuts through the defender’s arm almost at his elbow - it’s nowhere near the same part of the body.

[Sproggy]

Hang on. How can they show the "wrong" image? There can't be a wrong image if it's auto generated.

There can only be two differences in the two images shown - in the second one they have either moved the position on the field fo the players OR they have changed the angle of the offside plane.

Does the semi-automated system generate a few options and the idiot in the portacabin picks the one he likes best? Maybe that's the "semi" bit in semi automated.

[BurnleyFC]

On those laughable images, the line cuts through the United defender above the T-shirt line and definitely higher than the elbow.

It also cuts through Foster above the T-shirt line but below the shoulder, more upper arm area.

It’s not conclusive at all.

[dandeclaret]

I think the mistake made with the images is that the offside line is drawn at the most offside extremity of Foster, as opposed to the most onside extremity of the defender. If it was shown correctly at the defender’s shoulder, then it would show a significant amount of Foster being offside.

I’m presuming that this semi automated graphic usually shows the offside line on the defender’s body rather than the attackers (unless for some reason it’s different based on the on-field decision?), and I understand the concern people have with how a system like this can display the line on the wrong player. But it still clearly shows that Foster is offside at this moment so I really can’t understand this suggesting he’s onside.

But it isn't the same point of the body any more. The reason for this, is that no matter whether intentional or not, if the ball strikes an attackers arm directly before he scores, then the goal will be disallowed. Therefore, the attacker can not be offside for the greyed out part of his arm - hence it being greyed out. Defenders however, can stop a goal with their arm if it is deemed unintentional, and therefore, for offsides, their whole arm is considered.

That may bring complexity in to offside lines, but releasing an image that shows both parts of players sleeves to be "Offside" is confusing at best, and wrong at worst.

[ab1882]

It's so difficult to score a goal, so for me this is absolutely bonkers but the technology has decided that the point where Foster's arm meets his armpit is more than 5cm beyond the last defender. So maybe Foster was deemed 51mm offside, who knows as it's not public info.

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/ ... nalty-foul
With the Premier League using a 5-centimeter tolerance level in offside decisions, the animation doesn't move directly in line with the players. That's because a player could be seen to be just ahead of the offside line, but be given onside. The angle is of little use on a decision such as this because it was impossible to see how Foster was offside. What the technology deems to be the final decision will be used, even if the picture doesn't seem definitive.

Well done to everyone involved.

[Rileybobs]

But it isn't the same point of the body any more. The reason for this, is that no matter whether intentional or not, if the ball strikes an attackers arm directly before he scores, then the goal will be disallowed. Therefore, the attacker can not be offside for the greyed out part of his arm - hence it being greyed out. Defenders however, can stop a goal with their arm if it is deemed unintentional, and therefore, for offsides, their whole arm is considered.

That may bring complexity in to offside lines, but releasing an image that shows both parts of players sleeves to be "Offside" is confusing at best, and wrong at worst.

That’s not correct. A defender’s arm is not considered when determining offside decisions, it’s the same for all players.

[CoolClaret]

The kind of people who think that's offside are the same ones who’d sit like lemons at temporary lights guarding five metres of fresh air at 2 a.m., with not a car in sight.

[dandeclaret]

That’s not correct. A defender’s arm is not considered when determining offside decisions, it’s the same for all players.

Ah my mistake - the rules do state what you've said, and therefore I was wrong. But I am sure I watched one of the referee mic'd up sessions or the review the ref shows and they stated what I said above. Clearly it isn't, but I could have swore that's what they said - i remember sort of thinking it made sense.

[Rileybobs]

The kind of people who think that's offside are the same ones who’d sit like lemons at temporary lights guarding five metres of fresh air at 2 a.m., with not a car in sight.

As in people who don’t make up the law, I guess you’re probably correct.

[CrosspoolClarets]

That updated graphic just confirms what everyone (except Rileybobs) has been saying

For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. The updated graphic doesn't show the the line being drawn through this part of the defender either. They've just shown a different angle and added some circles

As it stands all they've concluded is that Foster was either onside or offside

Yes, armpit drawn in a circle around the upper arm and with a 5cm tolerance. This was explained on ESPN.

Looking at the 2nd photo, I don’t see how Foster could have been offside on that basis, lower down his arm is irrelevant.

[Roosterbooster]

Whether or not the presentation of the graphic is correct, it still clearly shows that no part of the defender’s body that is considered in offside decisions is playing Foster onside, therefore he’s offside.

I don't understand that logic at all

If the line had been drawn 30 yards in front of Foster then it also wouldn't show any part of the defender in an "offside position". This wouldn't mean Foster is offside. It would, like everyone is saying, just show that the line has been drawn in the wrong place

The line should be placed at the furthest point forwards of the defender that defines offside. Wr are all assuming it is this armpit/ shoulder. Therefore according to the rules, the line has to go through the armpit, or a line directly opposite (perpendicular). The line doesn't, on either graphic. So there is no way to know if it is onside or offside

They have now shown us 2 graphics, both incorrect, and the 2nd one also comes with some BS excuse of an explanation which doesn't make sense.

Quite frankly only 3 things make sense

It was offside, and they used the correct graphic, which has now somehow disappeared
It was offside, but they used the wrong graphic, and only got the right answer by sheer luck
It was onside, but they used the wrong graphic, and now they are panicking

Option 1 seems very unlikely

[CoolClaret]

As in people who don’t make up the law, I guess you’re probably correct.

"I was just following orders"

Seriously though - do you think Lyle gained any tangible advantage to score a goal there, from the available data?!

[Rileybobs]

I don't understand that logic at all

If the line had been drawn 30 yards in front of Foster then it also wouldn't show any part of the defender in an "offside position". This wouldn't mean Foster is offside. It would, like everyone is saying, just show that the line has been drawn in the wrong place

The line should be placed at the furthest point forwards of the defender that defines offside. Wr are all assuming it is this armpit/ shoulder. Therefore according to the rules, the line has to go through the armpit, or a line directly opposite (perpendicular). The line doesn't, on either graphic. So there is no way to know if it is onside or offside

They have now shown us 2 graphics, both incorrect, and the 2nd one also comes with some BS excuse of an explanation which doesn't make sense.

Quite frankly only 3 things make sense

It was offside, and they used the correct graphic, which has now somehow disappeared
It was offside, but they used the wrong graphic, and only got the right answer by sheer luck
It was onside, but they used the wrong graphic, and now they are panicking

Option 1 seems very unlikely

I don't think the logic is hard to grasp, but I'll try again. No need for hypotheticals, lets just look at the image. The line is drawn on line with the front of Foster's arm at a point in line with the bottom of his armpit which is the furthest-most forward part of Foster's body which can be deemed onside. The part of his arm which is shown clearly, and not greyed out, is in front of this line because he cannot be called offside if that part of his arm is ahead of the line.

Now if you look at the point of the Man U defender's body which is level with the furthest-most forward part of Foster's body which can be deemed offside, you will see it intersects his lower bicep and elbow, a part of the body which isn't considered when determining offsides. Therefore the image shows Foster is offside at the point this image was generated. Just take a step back and look at the image - it clearly shows him offside which is why I'm so bamboozled as to people stating the image shows Foster to be onside.

Like I've said, if the line has been drawn in the incorrect position I can understand people's concern and faith in the system. But just a glance at the still image, even without computer generated lines shows Foster to be offside.

[Rileybobs]

"I was just following orders"

Seriously though - do you think Lyle gained any tangible advantage to score a goal there, from the available data?!

No I don't think Foster gained much of an advantage, but that's not really relevant to the point that I'm making. And regardless of whether he gained an advantage, he was given offside by the AR, so would have been offside by any laws of the game that I'm old enough to remember. The AR's decision was then backed up by the technology, and the images being used to prove the decision to be incorrect are actually proving the decision was correct. Some of the bias on here is actually frightening. Are people so desperate to see something that they can't see the obvious?

[claretonthecoast1882]

Has there been a wider image of the full pitch, when I watched the goals back Sunday morning the defender to the left of Foster looked deeper then the 1 they sued to judge Foster at first look but I haven't seen one.

[CoolClaret]

No I don't think Foster gained much of an advantage, but that's not really relevant to the point that I'm making. And regardless of whether he gained an advantage, he was given offside by the AR, so would have been offside by any laws of the game that I'm old enough to remember. The AR's decision was then backed up by the technology, and the images being used to prove the decision to be incorrect are actually proving the decision was correct. Some of the bias on here is actually frightening. Are people so desperate to see something that they can't see the obvious?

Why was VAR and this extra tech introduced?

What's the margin of error on the cameras etc?

I'll tell you why it was (supposedly) not introduced - to rule out perfectly fine goals such as this.

Attempting to quantify dynamic sports like this, which isn't played across a gain line of any sort, is really, really dumb and losing site of the bigger picture.

Foster gained no advantage from his sleeve/arm being marginally offside, perhaps half a millimetre(?) beyond the defenders'. Moreover, goals cannot be scored directly from the arm/sleeve under the current rules.

I posted the official FA's rules on offside on some other thread on here, from them and the available data, there's no reasonable way to conclude that Foster was offside.

Nothing to do with bias, I'd think the same had it been one of their players.

[CoolClaret]

Has there been a wider image of the full pitch, when I watched the goals back Sunday morning the defender to the left of Foster looked deeper then the 1 they sued to judge Foster at first look but I haven't seen one.

Seen a few even UTD fans saying that Loro was playing him on there as well!

[claretonthecoast1882]

Seen a few even UTD fans saying that Loro was playing him on there as well!

No idea why it says the 1 they sued in my post either

[Foreverly Claret]

This needs sorting out because the situation is getting ridiculous. We're talking about fractions of an inch for God's sake .No linesman on the planet could differentiate from the sideline when moving with play that an individual is offside unless he is clearly offside..hence VAR . Why not keep VAR but revert to there being clear daylight however small between the players involved before allowing or disallowing a goal.some you win some you lose but this micro level of scrutiny is ridiculous.

[Yorkshire Claret]

download/file.php?style=2&id=40220

For what it’s worth my opinion is that the whole area from the red line and all the grey area should be “coloured “ out (blacked out) and if feet are in this area then advantage goes either the attacking team.

[KRBFC]

This is irrelevant because hands and arms (below the 't-shirt line) of players aren't considered when determining offside. I thought this was common knowledge?

Right, we’ve determined the defenders shirt is ahead of the line, so how is it offside when Lyles shirt, hand and arm is ahead of the line?

[Rileybobs]

Why was VAR and this extra tech introduced?

What's the margin of error on the cameras etc?

I'll tell you why it was (supposedly) not introduced - to rule out perfectly fine goals such as this.

Attempting to quantify dynamic sports like this, which isn't played across a gain line of any sort, is really, really dumb and losing site of the bigger picture.

Foster gained no advantage from his sleeve/arm being marginally offside, perhaps half a millimetre(?) beyond the defenders'. Moreover, goals cannot be scored directly from the arm/sleeve under the current rules.

I posted the official FA's rules on offside on some other thread on here, from them and the available data, there's no reasonable way to conclude that Foster was offside.

Nothing to do with bias, I'd think the same had it been one of their players.

I agree with most of what you have said, but I'm not arguing against that. I'm just stating that the people who said the image shows Foster to be onside are incorrect.

As for VAR ruling Foster's goal out, it didn't; the Assistant Ref ruled Foster's goal out.

[Rileybobs]

Right, we’ve determined the defenders shirt is ahead of the line, so how is it offside when Lyles shirt, hand and arm is ahead of the line?

It's offside because the front of Foster's shoulder is ahead of any point of the defender's body which is considered when offside decisions are determined. I can't really put it in any more simple terms than that.