Under The Lights
ORDER NOW
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Its been tested and trailed with refs trained for 2/3 years ,no amount of fixs will sort it and any they come up with will add more problems to VAR,for me.Been said before, VAR is not the problem. Its the standard of officials using it.
Until they improve, VAR wont
Its been tested and trailed with refs trained for 2/3 years ,no amount of fixs will sort it and any they come up with will add more problems to VAR
In italy before it was used in the prem league,refs even after looking at screen were giving pens for utterly nothing it looked like, and going over months in spain loads moaned about it,not sure on both nowAgree there are elements such as the 0.01mm offside crap.
But it doesnt cause as much chaos in Europe than it does here.
Why does that mean he was offside? He didn't move towards the ball to try and change the direction or make the keeper think the ball would change direction.He moved his feet out the way so he was then offside.
VAR would be improved if the checker didnt know what team the decision was for. If the camera footage he watched was just black and white silhouettes it would take all bias out of it.
Im now convinced that there is an unconcious bias in football toward the brand clubs, its like when a rop team score a great goal its lauded but if a lower or championship club score the same goal its somehow inferior. Bias.
Also being 2mm offside is just ridiculous.
It's an absolute technicality - but he did change the natural movement of the ball, it would've hit him if he hadn't moved (technically "dummying" it) but also if he wasnt there it's a goal.Why does that mean he was offside? He didn't move towards the ball to try and change the direction or make the keeper think the ball would change direction.
But this didn't make the keeper think the ball direction would change which is what the rule is about. So if the keeper can see the ball which he could at all times then the rule is about if the offside player makes the keeper think the ball will change direction to deceive him which doesn't happen. De Gea tries to get back from the deflection and can't get there.It's an absolute technicality - but he did change the natural movement of the ball, it would've hit him if he hadn't moved (technically "dummying" it) but also if he wasnt there it's a goal.
The bad part is that this is so polarising. No rule should have this sort of argument.
Basically, get up off your backside when you go down and that won't happen...and it wasnt a foul because the phase of play continued to a shot so advantage was technically played.
He moved his feet was he was then in play so interfering.Why does that mean he was offside? He didn't move towards the ball to try and change the direction or make the keeper think the ball would change direction.
He moved his feet was he was then in play so interfering.
But like I just said the rule states if the offside player moves to try and touch the ball to deceive the keeper in the direction of the ball then it's offside. He never did that at all.He moved his feet was he was then in play so interfering.
Exactly or the movement makes the keeper think the ball will change direction as they try or pretend to touch it. That never happened.Players coming back from an offside position move out of the way of the ball all the time and it's not an offside.
Nowhere in rules of offside does it say moving out of the way makes you active. Only if you impede a player from playing the ball or block a goalkeepers line if sight.
Nope.He moved his feet was he was then in play so interfering.
Yep, and to back it up it was disallowed.Nope.