Rival watch

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.

 

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



Goal 2

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

 

So basically sprinting as a sport is bollocks then ?

 

We did, but you usually never found out who was right

 

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 ?

 

Spoiler alert (it's always me) .