- Jul 24, 2005
- 30,536
- 46,630
I am not really sure how conclusive the film is. What I can say is that the on field decision was not clearly and obviously wrong therefore sticking with the decision of the referee is the right result. In cricket this is the approach taken and I think it is a good one as it keeps the officials on the pitch in charge of the game. the problem with our Rochdale game was decisions were overturned on less than obvious evidence which undermines the match officials completely
It's a strange concept that VAR isn't necessarily trying to get to the correct decision, but sometimes trying to see if the wrong decision was an acceptable error. I'm not sure football fans will ever accept allowing a decision that VAR has shown to be wrong.
With the Son offside decision they seemed to take ages trying to work out if it was offside when really it was so close either way that you could say within a few seconds that the linesman had made a reasonable decision.
What are you going on about lol?
Cut of grass? Dubious? Very odd?
The second image is computer generated from the first image...it takes reference points, i.e. Sons head, to show that he is clearly offside...not just about, look at his head in the first pic, compared to the heads of the defenders....there's no just offside about it, I have no idea why people are having trouble just accepting it tbh, thats the only thing that's odd imo.
I don't know why they don't move the lines to the part of the body that is offside. Why do they always show the line against the feet? it just creates confusion.