Sky's Justification Of The Offside

[Sheffsteel]

Although i feel shit about the decision i would hate technology to to come into the decisions, after all, we are having a discussion on was it or wasn't it. This is what footy is about. Controversy breeds conversation and gives us the chance to make up our own minds . Leave things like this to the officials. We will get bad decisions for other teams going our way and will take it.

It just proves that even with video technology mistakes (regards black and white events) can be made.

 

[GrayBlade]

That Lino couldn't even get this offside right, probably as easy an offside decision as he could get. Just look where he's standing, no excuse whatsoever. I'd hope his performance will be assessed because this level of incompetence wouldn't happen in a Sunday league game.

 

[MobileBlade]

View attachment 29553

That Lino couldn't even get this offside right, probably as easy an offside decision as he could get. Just look where he's standing, no excuse whatsoever. I'd hope his performance will be assessed because this level of incompetence wouldn't happen in a Sunday league game.

If you go back a few seconds and then keep that rolling at no stage does Freeman ever go into an offside position. That decision was truly baffling

 

[mosbolad]

In the first photo we can clearly see he is played onside by JFK's limousine.

However in photo 2 taken immediately at the same time we can see the referee is now running and his line of sight would be obscured by the man behind him in the pork pie hat.

 

[GrayBlade]

If you go back a few seconds and then keep that rolling at no stage does Freeman ever go into an offside position. That decision was truly baffling

I've done a bit of digging about the Lino.

 

[Blend-it-like-Harris]

Like cricket - it will come. Those that don't believe it or don't like it are living in La La Land. The sooner the better, and then all those dick-heads who make the oh so obviously stupid statement - "These things even themselves out over the season" can go whistle in the wind.

 

[Bladesman]

View attachment 29553

That Lino couldn't even get this offside right, probably as easy an offside decision as he could get. Just look where he's standing, no excuse whatsoever. I'd hope his performance will be assessed because this level of incompetence wouldn't happen in a Sunday league game.

Dodgy as hell that decision, you couldn't make it up. It is almost on par with the Morgan/Gerrard "foul".

I was watching the match with a Wednesday fan and even he couldn't believe how useless that linesman was.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

View attachment 29553

That Lino couldn't even get this offside right, probably as easy an offside decision as he could get. Just look where he's standing, no excuse whatsoever. I'd hope his performance will be assessed because this level of incompetence wouldn't happen in a Sunday league game.

Oh yes it would.

 

[oldblade]

Fair point, the second picture shows his leg and white boot offside. You can just see Jack's white boot in the first picture. Extremely marginal but not as bad a decision as first thought. Although you can't say he is offside from the first angle.

We didn't get the rub of the green but we probably didn't deserve a point.

They got the ball in the net once. So did we. Both were goals as defined by the laws of the game. Why did we not deserve a point?

 

[GrayBlade]

Oh yes it would.

Ok well maybe, but you get my drift. This guy's supposed to be a professional, not the left back's Dad.

 

[UnitedBlade]

They got the ball in the net once. So did we. Both were goals as defined by the laws of the game. Why did we not deserve a point?

They weren't both goals as defined by the laws I'm afraid, look up Law 5.

 

[carthesis]

1st pic Clarke is free 2nd pic player has both arms around him as well no way is that the same picture

Late to the party, but how that isn't a penalty i'll never ever know.

 

[More Bladier than thou]

Are we going to sue them ?

 

[Sheffsteel]

Are we going to sue them ?

We'll wait until the end of the season and if we go down by 1 point we might decide to sue the linesman. You can bet Mccabes already seeking advice from his legal team....joking of course.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

I replied to the lad who put a picture up which still shows JOC onside but that was still not in sync with the moment the ball was hit in the first picture.

Let's be right.
It's still an incredibly tight decsion, and we are talking split seconds here. The Lino can't see the ball being struck and can't look in two places at once.
As it is it's been found to be an error this time, and he keeps his flag down and he would have been lauded for a great bit of officiating.
This happens in football, you generally win some and lose some. The human element is part of the game.

The question is, do we want more technology controlled matches?
On sky's "evidence" it seems to me that the technology needs to be ramped up a bit to make sure it's fit for purpose....or that the person responsible for providing the footage isn't either a cheating prick or a fucking incompetent.
But for crucial decisions like these there has to be a justification for getting the decision right at all costs. 30 seconds out to review the footage would have made no difference to the game. The ball was dead.
Even if it's so close it's difficult to be 100% certain the law states the decision should go with the attacking side.

If this was the way it worked then everyone would accept it, no reason to doubt, no point of argument.

In Cricket, they can track a small ball travelling at 90 mph, take into account its flight and movement off the pitch to accurately predict where the ball will travel if it hadn't been deflected/stopped by the batsmen.
You can't tell me that they can't develop a system to definitively tell if a man has wandered beyond the last defender.

As you say, the human element of officiating means you will be on the wrong end of some of these tight calls from time to time. I can live with that, gutting though it is in these circumstances. What has boiled my piss more than anything on this occasion is the fact that Sky are choosing to deliberately mislead the public by showing an image from a moment after the ball was played to try to insinuate he was offside. That’s absolutely disgraceful.

 

[Harrisblade]

As you say, the human element of officiating means you will be on the wrong end of some of these tight calls from time to time. I can live with that, gutting though it is in these circumstances. What has boiled my piss more than anything on this occasion is the fact that Sky are choosing to deliberately mislead the public by showing an image from a moment after the ball was played to try to insinuate he was offside. That’s absolutely disgraceful.

We could treat Sky Sports channels the same way that Liverpool did the Sun newspaper?

 

[MobileBlade]

We could treat Sky Sports channels the same way that Liverpool did the Sun newspaper?

Could do. Might wait until after the Leicester game. Hang on. Might wait till after the pig game....

 

[Ron_Justice]

As you say, the human element of officiating means you will be on the wrong end of some of these tight calls from time to time. I can live with that, gutting though it is in these circumstances. What has boiled my piss more than anything on this occasion is the fact that Sky are choosing to deliberately mislead the public by showing an image from a moment after the ball was played to try to insinuate he was offside. That’s absolutely disgraceful.

What l don't understand is, what's SKY's motive for their actions? If United draw, what have SKY lost? If the linesman drops a bollock, what has SKY lost? Unless SKY are somehow trying to become the defacto officiator for the game in the UK, why would they bother to manipulate the evidence?

I can think of plenty of tinhat theories, but personally, l suspect the reason is far simpler - The intern in the editing suite either dropped a bollock or they're Boro/pork.

 

[oldblade]

They weren't both goals as defined by the laws I'm afraid, look up Law 5.

As I said, both were goals within the laws of the game, but one side was credited with their goal. The other side wasn't.

Rule 5 merely says the referee has full authority to enforce the laws of the game. On this occasion, in conjunction with other officials, he failed to enforce the laws of the game.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

What l don't understand is, what's SKY's motive for their actions? If United draw, what have SKY lost? If the linesman drops a bollock, what has SKY lost? Unless SKY are somehow trying to become the defacto officiator for the game in the UK, why would they bother to manipulate the evidence?

I can think of plenty of tinhat theories, but personally, l suspect the reason is far simpler - The intern in the editing suite either dropped a bollock or they're Boro/pork.

Possibly but surely the analysts should see what we all see. That the 2 frames weren't from the same moment. It was so bloody obvious. Very strange all round and I can't fathom the reasoning or recall having seen anything like it.

 

[Ron_Justice]

Possibly but surely the analysts should see what we all see. That the 2 frames weren't from the same moment. It was so bloody obvious. Very strange all round and I can't fathom the reasoning or recall having seen anything like it.

It'll just be a time thing. They had to act quickly, in the moment, so probably just quickly aligned timestamps on the two feeds - presumably a normal process for an editor. However, in this case those timestamps were misaligned so the discrepancy occurred. It's a case of man trusting the machine, but the machine wasn't calibrated correctly. IMO.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

It'll just be a time thing. They had to act quickly, in the moment, so probably just quickly aligned timestamps on the two feeds - presumably a normal process for an editor. However, in this case those timestamps were misaligned so the discrepancy occurred. It's a case of man trusting the machine, but the machine wasn't calibrated correctly. IMO.

That could be it but if so, it's extremely shoddy on the part of the pundits "analysing" as it was obvious to anyone with eyes that the frames weren't at the same moment.

 

[Ron_Justice]

Indeed, but tbf, JFH did say he didn't think it was off, even after seeing those images live on the air - presumably after seeing them shortly before for a rehearsal of sorts.

 

[UnitedBlade]

As I said, both were goals within the laws of the game, but one side was credited with their goal. The other side wasn't.

Rule 5 merely says the referee has full authority to enforce the laws of the game. On this occasion, in conjunction with other officials, he failed to enforce the laws of the game.

It's semantics but he did enforce the rules as the linesman considered Jack offside.
Law 5 is a law in its own right.

After a few viewings I would doubt that was right but the ref enforced the rules. However, we can't say any of the photos are perfectly timed for when Duffy kicked it. The ref having the final decision has lasted about 120 years but may change with technology.

Good luck on all corners in future as almost all could be challenged for shirt pulling. Assuming half go to the defence and half to the attack, we could have 4 penalties a game unless they can stop players cheating which virtually all do.

There will need to be rules on numbers of challenges but there will still be lots of marginal decisions. Do we then, like cricket, defer to the ref's original onfield decision?

No one can say what Sky dished up absolutely proved one way or the other. They are not set up for decision making.

 

[Treeton Blade]

Sky have just released an aerial shot from the matchday drone which proves O Connell WAS offside.

Well done Lino

 

[BushBlade]

The attacking side should always get the benefit of doubt is what was said when these new offside rules were brought in so even if it was marginal it's still a bad decision. Wanker!

That. Nothing more than that. He was guessing, whether it was off or not is immaterial, he couldn't see it was off and shouldn't have flagged. He made a mistake and it cost us.
But, in fairness, we barely deserved a point. If we'd played better and been 2-1 up it wouldn't have mattered so no point dwelling on it.

 

[Piffle and Tosh]

its that pruttons fault

 

[super_pig]

everyone apart from Prutton has said it was a goal.. channel 5. pigs in the boozer.. cardiff fans.. even boro fans
let's move on

 

[oldblade]

It's semantics but he did enforce the rules as the linesman considered Jack offside.
Law 5 is a law in its own right.

After a few viewings I would doubt that was right but the ref enforced the rules. However, we can't say any of the photos are perfectly timed for when Duffy kicked it. The ref having the final decision has lasted about 120 years but may change with technology.

Good luck on all corners in future as almost all could be challenged for shirt pulling. Assuming half go to the defence and half to the attack, we could have 4 penalties a game unless they can stop players cheating which virtually all do.

There will need to be rules on numbers of challenges but there will still be lots of marginal decisions. Do we then, like cricket, defer to the ref's original onfield decision?

No one can say what Sky dished up absolutely proved one way or the other. They are not set up for decision making.

No, he didn't enforce the laws. The linesman was mistaken. The decision was incorrect, so the laws have not been enforced. A falsehood has been enforced instead.

If a police officer arrested someone for disqualified driving on the basis of incorrect information that he'd received, he would not be enforcing the law because there would have been no breach of the law.

Fortunately, if the police make a mistake like that it can be rectified when the full facts are known. Unfortunately, in our case the mistake won't be rectified and a perfectly lawful goal (within the rules of the game) has been chalked off.

 

[vorpal blade]

Fortunately, if the police make a mistake like that it can be rectified when the full facts are known.

even if the particular footballer arrested has already served 2 years......

(backs out of conversation)