How can that goal be disallowed for offside? He cannot score with his arm, var needs to be binned quicker than Donald
Bamford's arm
- Thread starter Blond Bombshell
- 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
-
It all reminds of modern music.
The 'product' is so perfectly packaged and 'improved' that it takes the heart and soul out of it.
'Ruining something good by improving it'
I've seen others on the SMB suggest things like a challenge that the team captain can make like in tennis, if you're correct you keep your right to challenge and if you're wrong that's you done for the rest of the game, it would mean only a few times in a game var would be used and would also mean whoever's in charge of VAR can't ruin games with **** decisions like that one.
Seems no reason we can benefit from the technology but stop it from ruining the game.
Seems no reason we can benefit from the technology but stop it from ruining the game.
All of these things are fine but it's becoming like having a row with your lass ....
... it eventually becomes so complicated you forget what the point of it all is and takes the fun out of it
And they call it progressIt all reminds of modern music.
The 'product' is so perfectly packaged and 'improved' that it takes the heart and soul out of it.
'Ruining something good by improving it'
Seen it said that cause you can score with the shoulder and bicep area that is offside but elbow below wouldn't as ya can't score, I then saw summit about that being the old handball rule and offside not being changed in line with it. Then I realised it's all too complicated and the reality is I'm not arsed about other teams so gave up thinking about it.
Seriously though I don't know the letter of the law/rule here but a bit if sense should tell the ref that there is no advantage gained there.
Seriously though I don't know the letter of the law/rule here but a bit if sense should tell the ref that there is no advantage gained there.
I think in cricket you get 2 or 3 challenges an innings it would stop the constant Var ****e if the captain had to call it
There's a Bamford Arms near me.
Just make it the position of the foot closest to goal. If it's any other part of the player, a taller player is disadvantaged.
For example, Peter Crouch and Danny Rose in the same sprinters pose, Crouch would be 3 foot offside every time
For example, Peter Crouch and Danny Rose in the same sprinters pose, Crouch would be 3 foot offside every time
It's still referee's (be it in a cupboard somewhere) making 'wrong decisions'!!
This is coming down to split seconds, literally fractions of a second which is total madness.
The offside law was created, specifically, to stop players hanging around in the opposition half which reduced the game to a series of undignified punts up to the opposition penalty area whereby goalkeepers were mobbed.
That doesn't happen now and Bamford's arm doesn't go against the essence of the law.
Unless we have even more advanced technology it's impossible to gauge exactly when a ball is first touched, and launched forward, compared to the exact moment the attacker's nose moves into an offside position .... absolutely impossible.
There's a famous photo of Jeff Astle heading a ball forwards. But at the moment he first makes contact the ball is still travelling backwards ...
... what would VAR have to say about that, is the player offside when the ball is first touched on when the momentum reverses?
The law is there to prevent players taking an unfair advantage.
Was Bamford seeking to circumvent the law and take advantage ... was he f**k!
It was exactly what football supporters want to see ...
.. not a monitor, little lines and a confused referee taking orders in an earpiece.
The offside law was created, specifically, to stop players hanging around in the opposition half which reduced the game to a series of undignified punts up to the opposition penalty area whereby goalkeepers were mobbed.
That doesn't happen now and Bamford's arm doesn't go against the essence of the law.
Unless we have even more advanced technology it's impossible to gauge exactly when a ball is first touched, and launched forward, compared to the exact moment the attacker's nose moves into an offside position .... absolutely impossible.
There's a famous photo of Jeff Astle heading a ball forwards. But at the moment he first makes contact the ball is still travelling backwards ...
... what would VAR have to say about that, is the player offside when the ball is first touched on when the momentum reverses?
The law is there to prevent players taking an unfair advantage.
Was Bamford seeking to circumvent the law and take advantage ... was he f**k!
It was exactly what football supporters want to see ...
.. not a monitor, little lines and a confused referee taking orders in an earpiece.
You must log in or register to see images
Said from the start should be judged on leading foot , would make it so much easier to determine ,would be common sense but our Football Authorities seem adverse to using common sense most of the time .
Totally agree, when you are crouched ready to spring the offside trap, so long as your feet are level, you are onside. Regardless of where your nose, arm or as in Bent's case, pecker are...
This^^.....The very reason the law was introduced has been forgotten and now being applied in situations that are not visible to the naked eye. It's almost as though there is a lucrative contract involved and the tail is wagging the dog
Last edited:
if your arm is in the penalty area but feet outside when you get fouled that is not a penalty so the same rule should apply to offside.
Spot on as per smug. The reality is (or was) that they used a 4 frames per second camera to determine offside. I can almost draw 4 frames per second!! Cricket use a high quality camera as they asked media companies to be heavily involved. Football said “nah we’ll give it into our mates” much like our conservative government spending £150m on non existent face masks!!
jobs fir the boys