VAR

[Lastfootstamper]

I've played around with the image in Photoshop and it does look to me like Moreno is very fractionally offside using thin lines. I don't agree with this approach but I can see why it was given. It's also one where I bet if VAR didn't exist it would be given offside by the linesman almost every time due to Moreno running from a very offside position before the header.

I do wonder about the 'stand behind the keeper' tactic on this one. If the play is to get Moreno active it is dangerous to do this as it will always be difficult for him to be onside in time, I guess the point is he will always be unmarked so that is the trade off?

Was it because he was offside?

[frankmosswasmyuncle]

What Baldy said!

[The Edge]

It doesn't work

In today's example, one of the biggest problems is that you can't pinpoint the exact moment when Watkins has actually made contact with the ball.  That is actually quite important when the margins are as tight as they are, as a split second earlier or later then the picture would look different.

Correct. And that has always been the elephant in the room as far as I'm concerned. Who decides which frame they use to determine the decision? The frames are something like 100th of a second and moving the image one frame forward or backwards makes all the difference. It's literally down to someone's opinion of which frame to go with.

[OCD]

I've played around with the image in Photoshop and it does look to me like Moreno is very fractionally offside using thin lines. I don't agree with this approach but I can see why it was given. It's also one where I bet if VAR didn't exist it would be given offside by the linesman almost every time due to Moreno running from a very offside position before the header.

I do wonder about the 'stand behind the keeper' tactic on this one. If the play is to get Moreno active it is dangerous to do this as it will always be difficult for him to be onside in time, I guess the point is he will always be unmarked so that is the trade off?

I think there was a momentary hesitation from Moreno to get back onside, and with all the coaching we do on offside, you would think he would have got his position right. Perhaps he would have done if he had been a little more switched on and acted quickly.

[Somniloquism]

In the Netherlands, they use quite fat lines for VAR, and if they're touching, then the player is automatically onside.  I quite like that approach, because it removes the possibility of someone being offside due to a shoelace or a nose.

Incorrect. If they are touching, it goes with the on-field decision. So again, in ours it would have been ruled offside. And tbh, isn't it still just moving the margin of error (if close) to still where they draw the lines. Yes they might be touching on this frame but woudn't be on that one.

[Somniloquism]

I've played around with the image in Photoshop and it does look to me like Moreno is very fractionally offside using thin lines. I don't agree with this approach but I can see why it was given. It's also one where I bet if VAR didn't exist it would be given offside by the linesman almost every time due to Moreno running from a very offside position before the header.

I do wonder about the 'stand behind the keeper' tactic on this one. If the play is to get Moreno active it is dangerous to do this as it will always be difficult for him to be onside in time, I guess the point is he will always be unmarked so that is the trade off?

I think there was a momentary hesitation from Moreno to get back onside, and with all the coaching we do on offside, you would think he would have got his position right. Perhaps he would have done if he had been a little more switched on and acted quickly.

I think first and foremost, he is there to stop an easy claim for the keeper. As soon as he felt the keeper "give up", he was always going to be tight to get back on side and into that position.

[Somniloquism]

I don't think they are talking about offside from the corner but from the free kick - which shouldnt have been - where Casemiro challenges for the ball from an offside position.  In that case Casemiro was in line with the flight of the ball and jumped for it. 

That would only have any relevance here though if the offside was against Bailey which it wasn't.  It was on Moreno.  Harshly and questionable only if they used his elbow as a marker as he couldnt score with that (unless you are Patrixk Bamford)

Well a goal would also have had to be scored for VAR to get involved! Surely that is the relevance on why last weeks was not given as offside and this weeks was. So why use it?

[Smithy]

In the Netherlands, they use quite fat lines for VAR, and if they're touching, then the player is automatically onside.  I quite like that approach, because it removes the possibility of someone being offside due to a shoelace or a nose.

Incorrect. If they are touching, it goes with the on-field decision. So again, in ours it would have been ruled offside. And tbh, isn't it still just moving the margin of error (if close) to still where they draw the lines. Yes they might be touching on this frame but woudn't be on that one.

Ah, that's interesting, my mistake.  I actually quite like that.  Keep with the onfield decision where possible, speed everything up.

[Somniloquism]

Would it speed it up? I haven't seen their matches to confirm. But the slowness in the non-automated systems is still the freeze when it is played, then getting the angles to draw the lines. The only thing theirs does is decide that very close is ok. Maybe with the leeway, they are not as exact at drawing the lines so can be faster, but even in that system, there will be the debate that if they had drawn them more exact, the decision would have been different.

It would also be interesting if they still use it because they released a press release in the summer about the super Hi-Def cameras that have now been fitted in all the grounds to help with offside and all the quotes about the 5cm lines seem to be from 2020 or so. So maybe with 400fps cameras, they can be more exact.

[darren woolley]

The Moreno goal should have stood and that foul on Ollie in the box was definitely a penalty.

[The Edge]

The Moreno goal should have stood and that foul on Ollie in the box was definitely a penalty.

Succinct and accurate. I like it.

[ChicagoLion]

The Moreno goal should have stood and that foul on Ollie in the box was definitely a penalty.

Succinct and accurate. I like it.

Yep

[baddowvillans]

I don't think they are talking about offside from the corner but from the free kick - which shouldnt have been - where Casemiro challenges for the ball from an offside position.  In that case Casemiro was in line with the flight of the ball and jumped for it. 

That would only have any relevance here though if the offside was against Bailey which it wasn't.  It was on Moreno.  Harshly and questionable only if they used his elbow as a marker as he couldnt score with that (unless you are Patrixk Bamford)

Well a goal would also have had to be scored for VAR to get involved! Surely that is the relevance on why last weeks was not given as offside and this weeks was. So why use it?

I never said it was relevant I said it the incident that others were referring to. 

[VillaTim]

I don't think they are talking about offside from the corner but from the free kick - which shouldnt have been - where Casemiro challenges for the ball from an offside position.  In that case Casemiro was in line with the flight of the ball and jumped for it. 

That would only have any relevance here though if the offside was against Bailey which it wasn't.  It was on Moreno.  Harshly and questionable only if they used his elbow as a marker as he couldnt score with that (unless you are Patrixk Bamford)

Well a goal would also have had to be scored for VAR to get involved! Surely that is the relevance on why last weeks was not given as offside and this weeks was. So why use it?

I never said it was relevant I said it the incident that others were referring to.

just block him.

[Somniloquism]

I don't think they are talking about offside from the corner but from the free kick - which shouldnt have been - where Casemiro challenges for the ball from an offside position.  In that case Casemiro was in line with the flight of the ball and jumped for it. 

That would only have any relevance here though if the offside was against Bailey which it wasn't.  It was on Moreno.  Harshly and questionable only if they used his elbow as a marker as he couldnt score with that (unless you are Patrixk Bamford)

Well a goal would also have had to be scored for VAR to get involved! Surely that is the relevance on why last weeks was not given as offside and this weeks was. So why use it?

I never said it was relevant I said it the incident that others were referring to.

Apologies, not aimed at you baddows specifically, but the others who were apparently using it as a reason for VAR letting an offside off against us if that was the one being mentioned. I had to quote you to see what the reply was aimed at, but removed the rest to avoid a quote-a-thon.