Offside! Cant argue! Even if he was just onside, you couldnt complain if it was given off and shows how impossible it can be for the linesmen sometimes! Even with a slow motion replay we still cant agree! What would happen if video evidence came into play during the game, and officials/fans still couldn't agree! It would cause even more controversy no doubt!
Eh?? Play can be paused EXACTLY when the ball is played and lines drawn on the pitch to show on/offside according to the rules - it would certainly be more beneficial than the ****ing Hawkeye ****e which was used by sky for a ball which hit the crossbar at the weekend - I think simply to justify it's existence as it's only been used once in our game with Chelsea and we all knew that was in!!
Yeh that's fine but the incident there was just on side his arm is not in play it can't score goals.wilfred bony was clearly off side and his counted .yes it's hard for the officials.i know the refs are paid and are proffessional I asume the linesman are paid and are professional.the linesman in the Swansea game was very poor.
Agree it was marginal - but an incident in the second half summed our season up Villa had a throw in down our right hand side and when he took it his foot was in play - no foul throw given I actually thought at the time 'well they don't give foul throws nowadays so fairdo's' lo and behold ten minutes later we get pulled for a foul throw - just about sums the decisions that we get/don't get up
Onside, even the ****s on MOTD agreed with their computer thingy. The bloody officials are supposed to only give offside if they are certain, and as has been said give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker. I have never seen so many officials at our matches so eager to wave their flags or blow their whistles when Sunderland are in possession, you can see them twitching in readiness.
This is the real issue. The linesman simply doesn't have that luxury mate and you can see why he made the call in real time. To be able to see the ball kicked and the position of the attacker in a split second with a naked eye is impossible. I've argued that technology should be used for ALL major decisions for years and my opinion on that matter has strengthened in recent years not weakened. Even if it means a 30 second or 60 second pause in the game to quickly check a decision, surely the fact a correct decision is made is better for the game than to rely on a human being who cannot see everything at the same time.
Millions of pounds could potentially be lost on a wrong decision. We're light-years behind rugby, cricket, even tennis ffs.
It's shocking. We're stuck in the past. Took ages for goal line technology to be introduced and it will be ages before new technology is used.
Disagree mate, in real time as the linesman watched he could see the header of the ball and the motion of the attacker, both in his direct line of sight. This wasn't a 30 yard punt where his direction off sight had to move from one to the other. The linesman clearly had decided he was going to give offside no matter what. He in no way gave the attacker the benefit of the doubt as he is supposed to. If he actually wasn't sure he has to benefit the attacker.
2 inches offside !, the refs have binocular/zoom vision for our players. And if in doubt don't give SAFC the decisions.
Its always an easy decision from the comfort of our armchairs watching MotD replays where slow motion and lines can be drawn to debate it. In real time its virtually impossible to be correct every time and this is very, very close anyway. That split millisecond from seeing a header, deciding it was an attacking header or defensive header and whether the player was offside or not is so hard to do. These are real people not computers mate. What is very evident is that we all know we are so poor at attacking that we are desperately hanging on to these marginal calls as reasons we are struggling. If we had decent strikers then we wouldn't need these debates other than to discuss whether our 3rd or 4th goals were okay? Villa could have (should have) been 2 up in 10 mins. That changes the whole game for us but instead we struggled to break down and stop a pacy counter attacking team.
He had the benefit of standing in line and viewing along said line, you yourself have said it was CLOSE! Therefore the linesman should have given the benefit of the doubt to the attacker, this wasn't a blatant offside by any stretch of the imagination.. The linesman in this case made up his mind he was going to flag no matter what. There was a dreadful decision the other day for Liverpool where the player was at least two yards onside and the linesman flagged him off when the defenders claimed he was off. They are clearly making decisions based on where the player is when he touches the ball, in other words "guessing". If they don't know for sure they have to give the attacker the benefit of the doubt not waving defenders. They are not supposed to guess they are only supposed to give decisions on what they see clearly. It's like when Wes got sent of the time before last, the ref didn't accept what he actually saw, a damn fine tackle, but reacted to the way the oppo manager was screaming and shouting.
If the linesman was directly on line there was nothing in it. If he was closer to the goal line the perception is that the striker was offside. If the linesman was behind the players even by a couple of feet it is impossible to tell because it was s so close. The conclusion is that it was a dead heat and the goal should be given
Look, they said on MOTD it was onside so it must have been 'cos they're ALWAYS right and for once its in our favour, doesn't happen very often
This. The fact that there is so much debate shows how close it was, therefore attacker should be given the benefit of the doubt and the goal stands
I disagree, our strikers get so few chances they can't be expected to score many goals. Look at how many chances Man U got against Spurs?? does than mean Welbeck Rooney etc.. are not decent? If Fletcher is given the service he will score goals, as will Borini. They have proved they can do it, what they are lacking is the service. This is made even harder when we don't get the rub of the green with some of these borderline decisions. Its time to use technology imo. The game is so fast now its impossible for humans to be consistent. Each manager should get 2 challenges a half, this way the game would not be stopped for every single decision.
referees or linesmen can never be certain when it comes to the majority of their decisions! if, for example, they are 75% sure that a foul has been committed, they will give a foul! if they are 60% in favour that it was probably offside, they will give offside! its human nature, especially when having to make split second decisions! if officials only made decisions when they are 'certain' more wrong and controversial decisions would be made!
