glasgowspur
Nayim
But if he hadn't the goal could have stood.VAR didn't stop play in this case, the linesman did.
Because they can't prove lino made error the will not overturn it.
There is no conclusive proof either way so do not stop play.
But if he hadn't the goal could have stood.VAR didn't stop play in this case, the linesman did.
The offside decision was incorrect (according to a former referee) but VAR's decision to uphold the original incorrect decision was correct... Clear as mud.
But if he hadn't the goal could have stood.
Because they can't prove lino made error the will not overturn it.
There is no conclusive proof either way so do not stop play.
Agreed, nothing great wrong with the technology, its how they implement it that has flawsnothing that happened there is the fault of VAR, the ref reacted to the flag then asked for VAR, without VAR it would have just been a FK to Swansea straight away
Agreed, nothing great wrong with the technology, its who they have implementing it that has flaws
Lack of the necessary cameras?
Looking at all the replays, it was insanely close to call, and I was thinking "isnt the advantage meant to go to the attacker?"
The original decision was wrong. A close one, but wrong.
What is the point of VAR if they cant correct instances like this?
Agreed, nothing great wrong with the technology, its how they implement it that has flaws
Someone is making money out of it that is the point, its a joke and it will ruin the game.
A solution in search of a problem
Did he blow his whistle? I thought he let play continue and then stopped Swansea from taking the free kick for the offside quickly so that the VAR review could take place?They couldn't have retrospectively given the goal because the ref blew his whistle before the ball went in. So the Swansea GK could have claimed he had stopped playing. So the review was entirely pointless
Is there actually any such thing as "The advantage going to the attacker".... Or is this something that is just trotted out by commentators?Looking at all the replays, it was insanely close to call, and I was thinking "isnt the advantage meant to go to the attacker?"
The original decision was wrong. A close one, but wrong.
What is the point of VAR if they cant correct instances like this?
Is there actually any such thing as "The advantage going to the attacker".... Or is this something that is just trotted out by commentators?
Is there actually any such thing as "The advantage going to the attacker".... Or is this something that is just trotted out by commentators?
I thought that the linesman's decision was correct at the time. It looked to me as though Son's knee at the very least was ahead of the back part of the defender's foot. I think the views later shown from a better angle on Match of the Day showed that Son was offside by a good yard or so.
The offside rule has been changed at least twice since then though hasn't it?Maybe it comes from here:
"We were all brought up on [the principle] 'If in doubt, give the offside'. Fifa deemed not enough goals were being scored so they are now saying the attackers get the benefit," Hackett said. "If the assistant referee is in any doubt about the decision he does not flag. The instructions they are receiving are to 'wait, wait, wait and see'.
An article from 2004 when they changed offside rules
A yard offside? I didn’t see MotD so not seen those pictures, but the footage shown at the time of the game showed it virtually level, maybe a knee off. Would love to know how the two views differ.Is there actually any such thing as "The advantage going to the attacker".... Or is this something that is just trotted out by commentators?
I thought that the linesman's decision was correct at the time. It looked to me as though Son's knee at the very least was ahead of the back part of the defender's foot. I think the views later shown from a better angle on Match of the Day showed that Son was offside by a good yard or so.
The offside rule has been changed at least twice since then though hasn't it?