Wolves - v - Leeds United ***Matchday Thread***

[Orgoner]

I always thought the “torso” definition was the most sensible.

[WTF11]

To be fair it has always been in the rule book even back when I was playing. It states if any part of the body. That is the big one ANY PART.

"Of the body".....not shirt sleeve, hem of shorts etc.

[ozleeds]

"Of the body".....not shirt sleeve, hem of shorts etc.

What did I say didn't I say any part of the body those things aren't parts of the body are they.
We had one disallowed for a hand and one for a knee which constitutes the body.
The rules are clear are they right maybe not. Personally, I think the feet should be the focus point.

[WTF11]

What did I say didn't I say any part of the body those things aren't parts of the body are they.
We had one disallowed for a hand and one for a knee which constitutes the body.
The rules are clear are they right maybe not. Personally, I think the feet should be the focus point.

No they (the shirt, shorts etc) aren't, but they HAVE been used to give a VAR offside decision, which is bullsh1t.

[Orgoner]

Bit short on accuracy though...

[Orgoner]

Bit short on accuracy though...

Much like the officials applying VAR...

[WTF11]

Much like the officials applying VAR...

Amen 😉

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

If it was a "well timed" diving header - he wouldn't be offside surely ...

My original point was that maybe they should write a NEW rule - stating only the feet should count as being offside - this in my opinion would then be a clear definition that takes all the above woolyness out of the argument.

Makes sense and the simpler the rules (Assuming they are sensible) the better.

If a player arcs his run perfectly but uses arms for balance then that could potentially cause an offside if the arm is further up the pitch even though feet and torso judged to perfection.
With a header it would be judged offside from when the cross was made so again should be easy to judge as the point of heading would be later.