There's no way you can look at that and know his foot is the thing that's level or his shoulder, or even that the white line is completely perpendicular to the pitch. Some video editor has just drawn a microsoft paint white line across the screen that's probably almost straight. If it's offside, which there's no way we can tell clearly, then it's millimetres. But we can't see. Benefit of doubt to attacker.
Rival watch
- Thread starter Spurlock
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
You think that is a credible response when faced with several independent sources say the same thing: both goals were offside, and the free kick leading to the opening (offside) goal should never have been given.
Why ask for evidence if you're just going to ignore it?
If you read back, I actually asked for a clearer picture than the one I'd already seen.
Pictures of both decisions at moment of ball being kicked
Goal 1
You must log in or register to see images
Goal 2
You must log in or register to see images
Attachments
Which shows that he's offside.
You can say that it's a tough decision for the linesman, which it is, but it's still an incorrect one.
Whatever.Arsenal won it and we screwed up.Lets pick it up again and stop making average teams look good.
No-one is arguing the first. That's easy to see he's offside because the other defenders are right next to him so easy to compare who's closer to goal etc.
For the second though... that grainy picture with a microsoft paint white line hardly clearly shows that Lacazette's shoulder is ahead of whoever that Spurs player is at the top. Psh. Maybe. Not buying it. Tough decision for linesman yes... because even looking at a still of it makes it impossible to know if it's correct or not.
As I said, why ask for evidence if you're just going to ignore it?
His foot is level. His body's ahead of his foot. He's offside.
I would say benefit of doubt given to human in real time running the line.
You never got all these whinges before Sky Sports gave us 40 camera angles, super slow mo and freeze frame.
I'm disputing your opinion because your opinion is not evidence. That photo is the only evidence of anything and it's not conclusive. Saying it's not conclusive is not the same thing as completely ignoring it. There is no conclusive evidence that his foot is the thing that is level based on that photo.
You're disputing the images used by Sky and Bein Sports, not my opinion.
the worse thing about that image (the second goal ) is the position of the assistant who is not in a position to call it.Being ahead of play is going to give him the wrong angle.
It was the same assistant who told the ref to give a yellow card to Kane after three Woolwich players surrounded the ref to complain.
It was the same assistant who told the ref to give a yellow card to Kane after three Woolwich players surrounded the ref to complain.
Whatever happened to the "clear daylight" rule, this is bullshit at the moment, if the players feet are on the same line what advantage has been gained?
Does a sprinter with a long upper body gain an advantage because he can lean further forward at the start of the 100mtrs?
Does a sprinter with a long upper body gain an advantage because he can lean further forward at the start of the 100mtrs?
Not at the beginning but at the end. So if he starts with that advantage and they run at the same pace, he will cross the line first
Probably closer to the truth, I just think things were easier/simpler then.
You still don't find out who is right though, just who to believe. Have you seen the arguments of so called experts on TV football shows with the advantage of technology ?
