KingCavani
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2021
- Messages
- 1,264
Which I felt was ridiculous.This season it was announced that they'd give the benefit of doubt to the attacker on marginal offsides
g = window.googletag || {}; googletag.cmd = googletag.cmd || []; window.googletag = googletag; googletag.cmd.push(function() { var interstitialSlot = googletag.defineOutOfPageSlot('/17085479/redcafe_gam_interstitial', googletag.enums.OutOfPageFormat.INTERSTITIAL); if (interstitialSlot) { interstitialSlot.addService(googletag.pubads()); } });
Which I felt was ridiculous.This season it was announced that they'd give the benefit of doubt to the attacker on marginal offsides
That line looked incorrect. It certainly wasnt that far. Why have they not considered defender hand while drawing the line? That should also be considered because not every shot that hit hand is handballTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Right, but that's beside the point. If they updated the offside law with that caveat, then surely in this instance it isn't offside.Which I felt was ridiculous.
I agree.He was offside. Toes clearly ahead of the line.The defender’s aren’t. Never got the outrage over this. VAR has some serious problems but offside is offside. The line has to be drawn somewhere.
The outrage only ever comes when the decision goes the big sides’ way.
Gabriel literally fouled Doucoure and then rolled around and the ref bought it.Arsenal are rolling around now
The blue line was absolutely tiny, and Richarlisons foot was behind the red line. Look at my post above.They have though. If there is daylight between the lines then it’s offside. It’s clearly shown in the picture there is a gap between the lines so it’s offside. I’m not sure why it’s hard to grasp. That’s the rule just deal with it.
It is like they are treating it as a 3d model. They have done the vertical indices line from the tip of his boot to make Richarlison's offside line lower so they can make it out, but on a 2d image that will only make the line look further up the pitch and make it seem like he is offside.I agree.
What I can't understand is where they have drawn the red line, it's absolutely nowhere near Richarlison's toe. They've just blatantly drawn the lines wherever they feel like to make the gap bigger so they can justify the offside... What other decisions are they doing this with?
I suspect, with the thicker lines and the fact if the lines are touching then it's onside, if they drew the lines correctly they'd have to give the goal. They could see his toe was offside though so they didn't want to give it, so fudged the lines.
Richarlison’s foot is in the air, that was clear on the tb. I think the small vertical line below his foot is to judge the angle.I agree.
What I can't understand is where they have drawn the red line, it's absolutely nowhere near Richarlison's toe. They've just blatantly drawn the lines wherever they feel like to make the gap bigger so they can justify the offside... What other decisions are they doing this with?
I suspect, with the thicker lines and the fact if the lines are touching then it's onside, if they drew the lines correctly they'd have to give the goal. They could see his toe was offside though so they didn't want to give it, so fudged the lines.
It's pathetic.Arsenal time wasting is a bit embarrassing.
I stand corrected as I wrongly assumed the red line was competently drawn and it wasn’t until I zoomed in I saw it. Shambles. However, I do stand by my original point that had Richarlisons foot been where the red line is people would still be moaning.The blue line was absolutely tiny, and Richarlisons foot was behind the red line. Look at my post above.
Yellow. He got his studs down just in time.Gordon that is red card challenge