Search results

And if "when the ball is played" is so imprecise that a VAR can choose whether to call onside or offside by a flick of a switch, that's rather a big responsibility. With the large "tolerance" to be applied in favour of the attack, plus frame manipulation, the sooner we get fully automated (and...

But offside is supposed to be an objective decision so there's no "C&O error" criterion. Which is daft, when it looks like the onfield decision wasn't even an error let alone C&O.

Semi-automated not fit for purpose. That's not an optical illusion. If the 5cm tolerance, and choice of frame, can't decide it, just get a ruler out.

Law states "A player who crosses a boundary line as part of a playing movement does not commit an offence" so next time perhaps the opposing player will run into Mr Arteta . . .? As an AR I've certainly barged managers and subs out of my way, if yelling "off my line" didn't work.

If he could easily have kicked the ball, doesn't that argue against DOGSO? Because if he hadn't handled it and kicked it the attacker couldn't have had an OGSO. If he'd dropped it like that and then picked it up in the area (second touch after releasing it), it wouldn't be DOGSO: "If the...

See above. Your "old" interpretation dates only from 2003. This is reverting to the "really old" interpretation.

IFAB Q&A used to be official, and effectively part of the laws. They could still be variable. Heading the ball when held by the GK was ruled an offence after the Crosby goal (link below for new readers), ruled permissible the following year, then ruled an offence again the year after. It may be...

Or we just go back to the sensible interpretation that everyone applied for over a century before the Americans managed to overthink it.

I'd missed that IFAB guidance. 20 years I've been waiting for that! That was after I'd had big arguments over the "new" interpretation versus how everybody used to know what the GK handling "outside the penalty area" meant.

It never crossed my mind for DOGSO. If there were reds to give out it would have been a second yellow for Rudiger (for a later foul), or a straight red for this in second video (played advantage, didn't go back for a yellow):

I was going to post this just for the laughs (Asencio had been barging and pushing Haaland for a few seconds before this): But then there was this.

Does inventing a peace prize for a fascist count?

My brain hurts. Just checking that that means that they know a player could be offside by up to 5cm (the tech's margin of error) but they then add another arbitrary (non-tech) 5cm which could compound the error. And that is compounded by choosing a frame that may or may not be closest to the...

Are you sure? Why double the 5cm? As an AR, without technology, I'd follow the guidance and only flag if I was sure the player was offside (benefit to the attacker) but even with the "any part of the body you can score with" definition I'd be upset if I missed someone offside by four inches...

No need for that. I have read it. "In every other competition, offside is given to the millimetre; in the Premier League there is 5cm grace which is effectively the width of the green line. Gudmundsson is given onside because his foot is within it. Guimaraes, too, was just ahead of Dias but...

So effectively he was offside, but we're calling it onside? Who decides who gets the benefit of the "grace"? Always to the attack, or always just going with the onfield flag or lack of it, or are they tossing a coin at Stockley Park?

Absolutely! (35 seconds in)

If it can show a player jumping when he isn't, why should anyone trust it?

I'd made a promise to myself not to start a thread about City games but - even after my wife said "The referee's decision is always right", which didn't help - this has to raise questions about the semi-automated offsides. Exhibit 1. From Futoffsides Exhibit 2. The cartoon drawn by SAOT...

".......give an explanation as to why ..." sounds like the players might have known what the correct decision should have been. No great matter so long as you didn't caution for dissent the attacking player if he complained about it! He won't be writing to PGMOL for an explanation.