SMFC v HMFC

[The Master]

2 minutes ago, tam the bud said:

From the pictures, i wouldn't say it was close.

You’re right. 

It’s a clear offside. 

[ford prefect]

12 minutes ago, The Master said:

You’re right. 

It’s a clear offside. 

That's the point though. It's not clear. 

[willywastecoat]

14 minutes ago, The Master said:

Well, no, because the whole point of VAR checking offsides is because the linesmen can’t know when the decision is this close. 

When a decision is that close it should go to the attacking team M8,one player leaning forward and another leaning back shouldn't define an offside.

[Bobby_F]

22 minutes ago, The Master said:

Well, no, because the whole point of VAR checking offsides is because the linesmen can’t know when the decision is this close. 

The decision wasn’t close.  

Everyone knew it was onside.  

[Bobby_F]

19 minutes ago, The Master said:

You’re right. 

It’s a clear offside. 

Troll. 

[Bobby_F]

6 minutes ago, willywastecoat said:

When a decision is that close it should go to the attacking team M8,one player leaning forward and another leaning back shouldn't define an offside.

I seem to remember pre-VAR days that on offsides the benefit of the doubt went to the attacking team.  

Not sure if that was an actual rule or not, but surely something like that should be in place with VAR. 

If you have to spend over 3 minutes playing about with lines then it obviously NOT anywhere near clear.

Well, actually it is clear, he’s onside.

Don’t want to sound paranoid here, but the same VAR official that took 204 seconds to rule that goal out, spent less than 10 seconds to confirm that Mandron did commit a foul.   

[The Master]

4 minutes ago, Bobby_F said:

The decision wasn’t close.  

Everyone knew it was onside.  

The lines show otherwise.  

[Bobby_F]

Just now, The Master said:

The lines show otherwise.  

 

47 minutes ago, Captain_Sensible said:

I appreciate that it’s a split second later but the photos from behind the goal indicate that Kingsley was fully inside the 6 yard box while the TV still indicates that he only had one foot in the 6 yard box.

The photos and the TV still don’t tie up, it’s very strange 

One possible reason for the 204 second delay - Photoshop.  

[willywastecoat]

6 minutes ago, Bobby_F said:

I seem to remember pre-VAR days that on offsides the benefit of the doubt went to the attacking team.  

Not sure if that was an actual rule or not, but surely something like that should be in place with VAR. 

If you have to spend over 3 minutes playing about with lines then it obviously NOT anywhere near clear.

Well, actually it is clear, he’s onside.

Don’t want to sound paranoid here, but the same VAR official that took 204 seconds to rule that goal out, spent less than 10 seconds to confirm that Mandron did commit a foul.   

We all konw a line has too be drawn somewhere which makes it subjective M8 or should that mean objective that's the problem.

Edited September 24, 2023 by willywastecoat

[The Master]

52 minutes ago, Captain_Sensible said:

I appreciate that it’s a split second later but the photos from behind the goal indicate that Kingsley was fully inside the 6 yard box while the TV still indicates that he only had one foot in the 6 yard box.

The photos and the TV still don’t tie up, it’s very strange 

If you watch the highlights you can clearly see how the footage and the photo match up. 

[djchapsticks]

Folk need to stop giving this 'The Master' character the time of day.

Disappointed that so many are biting at such low quality bait.

[The Master]

Just now, djchapsticks said:

Folk need to stop giving this 'The Master' character the time of day.

Disappointed that so many are biting at such low quality bait.

Pointing out how VAR works and that it’s not all some massive conspiracy against St Mirren isn’t bait.

[Bobby_F]

2 minutes ago, The Master said:

Pointing out how VAR works and that it’s not all some massive conspiracy against St Mirren isn’t bait.

Saying something is clearly offside when it took 204 seconds to find something they could use to justify chopping off the goal is 100% trolling.  

[The Master]

1 minute ago, Bobby_F said:

Saying something is clearly offside when it took 204 seconds to find something they could use to justify chopping off the goal is 100% trolling.  

I guess it was a mistake trying to make a joke in a thread full of St Mirren fans.

They weren’t “find(ing) something”. They were establishing which parts of which players were the furthest forward. That takes time.

Whether they should be taking that time is another question. But the rules as they are now mean they have to.

[ford prefect]

It's still not "clear" though, if you think it is you have a very different definition of the word than I do. I haven't checked but you probably thought it was clearly not over the line against you. Again on that occasion you were wrong.

[The Master]

2 minutes ago, ford prefect said:

It's still not "clear" though, if you think it is you have a very different definition of the word than I do.

My post was in response to someone saying it wasn’t close. It was a joke.

2 minutes ago, ford prefect said:

I haven't checked but you probably thought it was clearly not over the line against you. Again on that occasion you were wrong.

That was too inconclusive to overturn the on-field decision.

I know what you’re now going to say. And the response to that is that the lines for offside make it conclusive. 

[houston_bud]

I find it difficult to believe that anyone who watches football thinks that taking 3/4 mins to judge offsides that are so close that they're impossible for players or officials to see with the naked eye, improves the game.

[The Master]

1 minute ago, houston_bud said:

I find it difficult to believe that anyone who watches football thinks that taking 3/4 mins to judge offsides that are so close that they're impossible for players or officials to see with the naked eye, improves the game.

I didn’t say it does.

But those are the rules as they currently stand, and so referees and VAR are obliged to follow them. 

[houston_bud]

Just now, The Master said:

I didn’t say it does.

But those are the rules as they currently stand, and so referees and VAR are obliged to follow them.

I didn't say you did. I'm just utterly baffled that when they were coming up with this system, people didn't stop and say 'this is absurd'. And we've now had it in the game (across the world) for a few years and it's not been changed.

I genuinely don't know one fan who likes how offsides are called with VAR.

[Captain_Sensible]

44 minutes ago, The Master said:

If you watch the highlights you can clearly see how the footage and the photo match up. 

I took your advice and yeh, I actually now see he was offside. Kingsley literally does jump back in that split second and at the moment Boyd-Munce makes contact with the ball, Greive looks clearly offside to me.

I take back my earlier comments!