VAR - The use of the monitor

[Magic hat FC]

It doesn't.

So you can't score from an offside position if the defenders makes contact?

 

[Trigger Blade]

But as we have seen on here, we seem unhappy when non-subjective decisions are made.
The Lundstram toe and the two Wolves ones (Moutinho and Neto I think), were both objective decisions, by the letter of the law, correct.


I'm not sure there's a solution which appeases everyone.

I don’t recall the detail of either of the Wolves decisions, but the Lundstram one was not objective at all, it was absolutely subjective. The decision was roundly criticised by all and sundry for that very reason at the time.

The subjectivity came about because of how far the VAR ref decided to go back to include Lunny in his considerations, an entirely subjective decision. If he had decided more conventionally that the passage of play that led to the goal started with Dier’s poor clearing header, absolutely nobody would have complained that VAR should have gone back all the way to Lunny’s offside toe.

Even then, the margins that the cameras, with lines drawn and picture quality are being asked to work to are so fine, more than can be expected of that technology, the notion of objectivity is laughable, it’s all entirely subjective. Even down to the point that if Lunny had been wearing different coloured boots the camera couldn’t have picked them up.

 

[Swannyblade]

I don’t recall the detail of either of the Wolves decisions, but the Lundstram one was not objective at all, it was absolutely subjective. The decision was roundly criticised by all and sundry for that very reason at the time.

The subjectivity came about because of how far the VAR ref decided to go back to include Lunny in his considerations, an entirely subjective decision. If he had decided more conventionally that the passage of play that led to the goal started with Dier’s poor clearing header, absolutely nobody would have complained that VAR should have gone back all the way to Lunny’s offside toe.

Even then, the margins that the cameras, with lines drawn and picture quality are being asked to work to are so fine, more than can be expected of that technology, the notion of objectivity is laughable, it’s all entirely subjective. Even down to the point that if Lunny had been wearing different coloured boots the camera couldn’t have picked them up.

100% bang on!
Absolutely no need to go back to the passage of play that preceded the one for the goal - ball was cleared, so attack starts from here.
Unreliable image - too blurred to stick precise, pin-point accurate lines on it. Also the issue of determining when a ball is "played" Is it when the foot first makes contact with the ball, or when the ball leaves the foot? Too bigger margin for error to accurately call this incident.

 

[CentralQuay]

So you can't score from an offside position if the defenders makes contact?

Let me get your understanding correct.

Hypothetical......

Messi crosses a ball in towards Suarez, who is stood in an offside position.
The ball actually hits the full defenders outstretched leg, and kindly falls straight to Suarez.
Suarez puts the ball in the net.

Are you saying the above would or would not stand?

 

[CentralQuay]

I don’t recall the detail of either of the Wolves decisions, but the Lundstram one was not objective at all, it was absolutely subjective. The decision was roundly criticised by all and sundry for that very reason at the time.

The subjectivity came about because of how far the VAR ref decided to go back to include Lunny in his considerations, an entirely subjective decision. If he had decided more conventionally that the passage of play that led to the goal started with Dier’s poor clearing header, absolutely nobody would have complained that VAR should have gone back all the way to Lunny’s offside toe.

Even then, the margins that the cameras, with lines drawn and picture quality are being asked to work to are so fine, more than can be expected of that technology, the notion of objectivity is laughable, it’s all entirely subjective. Even down to the point that if Lunny had been wearing different coloured boots the camera couldn’t have picked them up.

Although I don't think Lundstram's goal should be disallowed in what is referred to as the 'spirit' of the game, the way the rules are written, the ref had every right to disallow it.

I've pointed out before, the wording of what constitutes the end of a phase is not clear.

It's only clear in being unclear. As the Lundstram offside shows, as by the law, it could or could not be given as offside.