Offside - By an Arm!!!!

[Rowls]

Here's a picture of Lyle Foster which proves he was offside - by an arm.



Here's a picture of Bruno Fernandes which proves he was onside - his arm isn't interfering with play.

[Goody1975]

Here's a picture of Lyle Foster which proves he was offside - by an arm.



Here's a picture of Bruno Fernandes which proves he was onside - his arm isn't interfering with play.

It looks the same but the dark patch on another angle seems to be his captain's armbands.

[Rowls]

It looks the same

I've truncated your post Goody. I am sorry and don't mean to be rude it's just that I think you might be onto something with just those few words.

[martin_p]

It’s the redness of the shirt that makes it onside.

[SurreyClaret]

It really shouldn't be this subjective and take so long to make these decisions. Just change offside to be where the furthest forward part of each players head is, and a lot of this faffing around goes away.

[burnmark]

The Chelsea defender’s foot is playing him on.

[Rowls]

The Chelsea defender’s foot is playing him on.

Yes exactly.

The blue circle thingy is playing the player off in the top photo but playing him on in the second photo.

[IanMcL]

Here's a picture of Lyle Foster which proves he was offside - by an arm.



Here's a picture of Bruno Fernandes which proves he was onside - his arm isn't interfering with play.

Yes and yet you can’t svorecwith your arm. It really is totally bias. Prostitute League. I say who, I say when, I say how much!

[agreenwood]

Yes, I don’t really understand it either.

His shirt sleeve/bicep appears to be closer to the goal than the defenders foot and I thought that was why Foster had been penalised.

Then again, they said they’d released the wrong image for Foster’s goal, so **** knows.

This all feels far more convoluted than it needs to be.

[burnmark]

The actual image of the incident is a little clearer. It is close, but on second viewing last night, I changed my initial thought and said it was onside.

[agreenwood]

The actual image of the incident is a little clearer. It is close, but on second viewing last night, I changed my initial thought and said it was onside.

So the problem may just been the shite AI images they are releasing.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Is the other United player not offside?

Is that “interfering with play” still a thing?

[wilks_bfc]

So the problem may just been the shite AI images they are releasing.

No the problem is that they don’t know their arse from their elbow

[burnmark]

Is the other United player not offside?

Is that “interfering with play” still a thing?

I did think that when I was uploading the photo.

[Ric_C]

This whole arms thing is ******** anyway. Try running in on goal with one arm tied behind your back. Surely you use your arms for momentum forward?

Also defenders can use their arms to drag players back, so don't now why the line isn't drawn from any part of the defender. Would make it a lot easier to spot, and allow more goals.

I still think there should be a much wider margin for error to allow goals in tight situations. The tech is getting better, but it completely goes against why the offside law was brought in in the first place.

[Culmclaret]

Essentially arguments can be made on both sides in situations like these….and we know what that means!

[Ashingtonclaret46]

Essentially arguments can be made on both sides in situations like these….and we know what that means!

Yes, however, you have to remember that those running the game say that offside is black and white, you are either on or you are off and VAR proves this.
I have always been of the opinion that VAR, goal line technology apart, is one of the worst things to be introduced into football.
All the discussions about top level games every week relate to VAR and its interpretation. The game itself is never the focus, it is always VAR which takes prominence and this goes on week in and week out. Foster's involvement was 30 August but is being compared at length to an incident 3 weeks later, what is the point? No argument needed, VAR says it is black and white, Claret is offside but Red is onside.

Meanwhile at Ossett yesterday, Ashington got their first league win of the season without any outside interference except the weather. Proper football.

[Cirrus_Minor]

Surely having an arm in an offside position doesn't matter because you aren't allowed to use your arm, it's called 'handball'.

[Ric_C]

Surely having an arm in an offside position doesn't matter because you aren't allowed to use your arm, it's called 'handball'.

Yeah but say if you "beat" the offside trap just after the halfway line and sped off towards goal and scored, aren't you using both arms to maintain your speed to keep you ahead of the chasing defenders? This is what I mean when I think the powers that be have lost their heads on what offside is or why it is in place.

[mybloodisclaret]

No the problem is that they don’t know their arse from their elbow

Oh I think they know exactly what they are doing.

[dsr]

Yes, however, you have to remember that those running the game say that offside is black and white, you are either on or you are off and VAR proves this.
I have always been of the opinion that VAR, goal line technology apart, is one of the worst things to be introduced into football.
All the discussions about top level games every week relate to VAR and its interpretation. The game itself is never the focus, it is always VAR which takes prominence and this goes on week in and week out. Foster's involvement was 30 August but is being compared at length to an incident 3 weeks later, what is the point? No argument needed, VAR says it is black and white, Claret is offside but Red is onside.

Meanwhile at Ossett yesterday, Ashington got their first league win of the season without any outside interference except the weather. Proper football.

And while they are claiming that VAR proves offside, they are also claiming that they have the technology to do it. So they are claiming that they can tell, to an accuracy far better than 1/100th of a second, when that ball first touched the United man's head.

If that photo that they used to judge offside is taken 1/100th of a second to early or too late, then it is useless for such a tight offside. They do not have the intelligence to realise that.

[dsr]

Is the other United player not offside?

Is that “interfering with play” still a thing?

Yes, interfering with play is still a thing. If it wasn't, then offsides would be given for a forward offside 60 yards up the pitch while the goalkeeper rolls the ball to his full back.

[mybloodisclaret]

Screenshot_20250921_103821_Samsung Internet.jpg (435.65 KiB) Viewed 835 times

I'm confused here then sorry. If the blue line is Chelsea 23 end of body, or furthest part of body forwards, what is the red line? As it certainly isnt the furthest part of United 30's body as that would be his toe, which is ahead of blue 23.

The random line straight upto United 8's arm could literally be anything.

Number 30 must be interfering with play given his involvement and how close he is.

[quoonbeatz]

The blue line is the Chelsea offside line. The red is Utd onside line.

[mybloodisclaret]

The blue line is the Chelsea offside line. The red is Utd onside line.

How is united 30 past that line then?

[Colburn_Claret]

Gallagher always says, when he knows its a load of ********, that that is what THEY want.
Who the **** are THEY, because it certainly isn't the fans, it isn't the players, it isn't the managers, and it isn't FIFA, because these things don't happen in European leagues.

[quoonbeatz]

How is united 30 past that line then?

It was a joke but its clearly offside as sesko is interfering with play. Impossible to say he’s not.

[Rowls]

Yes, however, you have to remember that those running the game say that offside is black and white, you are either on or you are off and VAR proves this.
I have always been of the opinion that VAR, goal line technology apart, is one of the worst things to be introduced into football.
All the discussions about top level games every week relate to VAR and its interpretation. The game itself is never the focus, it is always VAR which takes prominence and this goes on week in and week out. Foster's involvement was 30 August but is being compared at length to an incident 3 weeks later, what is the point? No argument needed, VAR says it is black and white, Claret is offside but Red is onside.

Meanwhile at Ossett yesterday, Ashington got their first league win of the season without any outside interference except the weather. Proper football.

Thoughtful post Ashington.

The pictures prove that it isn't black and white. It's clearly ambiguous and it clearly depends on where the silly lines are drawn and then how they are interpreted. And even which freeze frame is chosen on which to make these decisions.

The pictures also clearly show how screwed we were at Old Trafford and how plastic these decisions are.

We need to bring back the concept if being level with defender.

The idea of being offside "by a pixel" or indeed, "by an arm" is damaging the game. It's impossible for a linesman to judge an offside decision by these standards and it's undermining them.

We could judge a player as being "level" by a number of ways:
1. A panel of refs could judge this blind via VAR to reach majority decision. Is the attacker "broadly level"? It's a simple question.
2. An algorithm could be written to quantify what is considered "broadly level" based on the avatar images. No silly lines necessary.
3. A man (or woman) could run up and down the line (we could call them 'linesmen') and given a flag. They are told that "broadly level" is onside.

[Rowls]

It's also impossible for players to manage the game if offsides are to be decided by the pixel.

A cunning attacker can learn to watch the line, time his runs, bend his trajectory. These are all.skills.

But when offside is judged "by the pixel" the element of skill is diminished and we're into the realm of pot luck or biased decision making.

If the concept of level is brought back into the game, then Lyle Foster and Bruno Fernandes both time their runs superbly. Great examples of playing off the last man.

As it is, there's a clear imbalance in the way the two incidents have been officiated and the referees are undermining their own authority.

[Ric_C]

all I can say is, that I was listening to this on the journey home, and when they said it was really close, I was 100% convinced UTD would get the decision

[Dyched]

I wouldn’t just rid of VAR. I’d get rid of offside full stop. The game would improve vastly without it.

[Plissken]

Welcome to long ball, goal hanging and 10-9 score lines.

[Dyched]

Welcome to long ball, goal hanging and 10-9 score lines.

Wouldn’t happen.

[Steddyman]

The actual image of the incident is a little clearer. It is close, but on second viewing last night, I changed my initial thought and said it was onside.

Isn't the number 30 offside, that the defender is having to mark and hold onto interfering with play? He 100% is if that is us attacking.

[Rowls]

Isn't the number 30 offside, that the defender is having to mark and hold onto interfering with play? He 100% is if that is us attacking.

Exactly.

He's not offside because a line hasn't been drawn next to his big toe.

[Corway]

Here's a picture of Lyle Foster which proves he was offside - by an arm.



If you look at Fosters arm the Man U players arm is sticking out just as much and circled to highlight that. Camera angles did not show it and VAR ignored that.
that.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

Isn't the number 30 offside, that the defender is having to mark and hold onto interfering with play? He 100% is if that is us attacking.

In days gone by he would have been flagged offside and a free kick given, however, they have messed about with the Law so much that, because he did not touch the ball, he is deemed to have not affected the goal being scored. You work it out because, in spite of playing, officiating in the middle and running the line at semi-pro level until 15 years ago, I can't understand the logic that, in this case, the guy is not interfering with the defender's actions.