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

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

Their definition is fine (other than the stupid bit about including shirt sleeves), it just doesn’t always seem to be applied properly.

The biggest hole in your argument above would obviously be a well-timed diving header.

Still not bitter.

MOTD suggested it was his knee which was offside - his feet were clearly behind the defenders - unbelievable - that said it did look offside to the naked eye at normal speed.

[Orgoner]

Scabby own goals shouldn’t count either...

[Tichi1]

Their definition is fine (other than the stupid bit about including shirt sleeves), it just doesn’t always seem to be applied properly.

The biggest hole in your argument above would obviously be a well-timed diving header.

Still not bitter.

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.

[joellufcprice]

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.

They should stop this bloody nonsense of these 'exact' decisions, sick of seeing it. There is no precise way to show the exact moment a pass was made and there is no exact point on the body measurment that gives it. These nonsense decisions should ALWAYS stand as a goal unless it is clearly offside i.e. there is daylight between the players. Bamfords should have stood as far as I'm concerned. Too much with VAR is still down to interpretation. Interpret exactly when to freeze frame the ball being passed, interpret the exact location of back of heel, exact location etc etc.

This absolute nonsense is ruining the game, it isn't enjoyable seeing goals for (or against us) being chalked off because some dweeb in stockley park can put lines on someones forearm to show they were 1cm offside, is that REALLY gaining an advantage? No.

On top of this referees and particularly linesmen have just given up trying, they don't even bother now they just depend on VAR under the guise of 'letting play continue' how many times have blatant offsides gone uncalled and then the attacking team won a corner because linesman just hasn't bothered.

[ozleeds]

To simplify the "offside" rule, and make it an easy decision for the Ref/VAR, why not introduce a simple understandable definition - ie - If Either foot, or part of a foot is beyond the last defender then you are offside. End of - no elbows, backsides, forearms above the sleeve, kneecaps etc etc etc - who could argue then?

Too obvious to ever happen though spose

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.

[Orgoner]

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.

Not true. It’s been all over the place.

As of now it is supposedly any part of the body you can lawfully score with.

Except the addition of the stupid shirt sleeves bit, which is bobbins - no goal should ever be allowed for any arm part below the top of the shoulder.

[ozleeds]

Not true. It’s been all over the place.

As of now it is supposedly any part of the body you can lawfully score with.

Except the addition of the stupid shirt sleeves bit, which is bobbins - no goal should ever be allowed for any arm part below the top of the shoulder.

And who said you can't score with any part as only the hands are off-limits than again Maradona was a master of that lol.
Again I stress the feet should be the rule as it is the only part of the body on the ground.
I hate Bamf he is causing so much controversy I can't take it I tell you lol.

[WTF11]

To simplify the "offside" rule, and make it an easy decision for the Ref/VAR, why not introduce a simple understandable definition - ie - If Either foot, or part of a foot is beyond the last defender then you are offside. End of - no elbows, backsides, forearms above the sleeve, kneecaps etc etc etc - who could argue then?

Too obvious to ever happen though spose

Precisely.

[LeedsFTW]

The problem imo opinion is that everyone wants the offside rule to be clearly defined, I.e. Black & white for all to comprehend. However the reality is that it will always be a rule which needs those grey areas to allow common sense to prevail.

Regrettably the biggest problem with the offside rule, is club managers whom also cry blue murder if their is anyway at all of claiming a decision has gone against them. You never here anything g about the 100's of offside decisions that called correctly.

[Orgoner]

I guess what I’m really questioning is whether their equipment is precise enough enough to support the levels of accuracy they’re claiming.

And I’m still not bitter.