I guess you forgot to pay the bill and spent it on Nunez instead?
I’ve only seen it briefly but he looked fractionally onside to me.
Its not measured from the legs, it's from the furthest part of your body from which you can score and TAA was leaning further forward than Rashford. If you just look at the legs, it's offside. But if you look at all body parts you can score with, it's much less clear. Certainly from the human eye
If it's that close that it's still being debated after replays and stills you've got to be giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacker. Ruling goals out for someone's toe being 1mm offside was killing the game.
He’s marginally ahead of Gomez but the new margin of error rule determines that to be on.
I personally don’t want these goals ruled out - purely as a football fan
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 34 minutes ago
He’s marginally ahead of Gomez but the new margin of error rule determines that to be on.
I personally don’t want these goals ruled out - purely as a football fan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This
They relaxed the rules too stop having purrfectly good gols unaloud becuse a player was 3mm ‘offside’
Lino flags on.
Var ruin the celebrations looking.
Margin of error mean you have to be a shocker so should not need so long to confirm.
“ Anyway, I have seen still pictures and numerous replays of Rashford’s goal and for the life of me, can’t see how how he was onside.”
————————————
OP man quit with the VAR moaning! There’s been a change to the rules!!
Remember the Henderson disallowed goal against Everton where for some ridiculous reason the tip of Mane’s elbow was deemed offside and there was total outrage over it, well under the new ruling the goal probably and quite rightly would of stood.
The right decision was made the other night ok it benefited Utd but it’s also for the benefit of the game as a whole that these goals are given.
The only downside is the guys making the decisions on what they deem as marginal as we know they all seem to have different ideas on things.
Looked clearly offside to me
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 11 minutes ago
“ Anyway, I have seen still pictures and numerous replays of Rashford’s goal and for the life of me, can’t see how how he was onside.”
————————————
OP man quit with the VAR moaning! There’s been a change to the rules!!
Remember the Henderson disallowed goal against Everton where for some ridiculous reason the tip of Mane’s elbow was deemed offside and there was total outrage over it, well under the new ruling the goal probably and quite rightly would of stood.
The right decision was made the other night ok it benefited Utd but it’s also for the benefit of the game as a whole that these goals are given.
The only downside is the guys making the decisions on what they deem as marginal as we know they all seem to have different ideas on things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be added that we conceded a goal on the opening day in similar circumstances when Welbeck was technically offside, so it's not some sort of pro-United conspiracy
It was close enough not to be ruled out in my opinion.
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 11 minutes ago
“ Anyway, I have seen still pictures and numerous replays of Rashford’s goal and for the life of me, can’t see how how he was onside.”
————————————
OP man quit with the VAR moaning! There’s been a change to the rules!!
Remember the Henderson disallowed goal against Everton where for some ridiculous reason the tip of Mane’s elbow was deemed offside and there was total outrage over it, well under the new ruling the goal probably and quite rightly would of stood.
The right decision was made the other night ok it benefited Utd but it’s also for the benefit of the game as a whole that these goals are given.
The only downside is the guys making the decisions on what they deem as marginal as we know they all seem to have different ideas on things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be added that we conceded a goal on the opening day in similar circumstances when Welbeck was technically offside, so it's not some sort of pro-United conspiracy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep true and like i said mate it’s for the benefit of the game as a whole that those goals should stand, I just hope the decision making is consistent.
This is grasping at straws. When implemented correctly VAR is a great help to the officials, especially with the offside rule.
Klopp's high line has worked brilliantly as a strategy to take advantage of the technology and how it has been implemented, but the new margin for error will have an impact. So now perhaps tactically he needs to make some adjustments. One on ones with our keeper has become a weekly occurance.
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 11 minutes ago
“ Anyway, I have seen still pictures and numerous replays of Rashford’s goal and for the life of me, can’t see how how he was onside.”
————————————
OP man quit with the VAR moaning! There’s been a change to the rules!!
Remember the Henderson disallowed goal against Everton where for some ridiculous reason the tip of Mane’s elbow was deemed offside and there was total outrage over it, well under the new ruling the goal probably and quite rightly would of stood.
The right decision was made the other night ok it benefited Utd but it’s also for the benefit of the game as a whole that these goals are given.
The only downside is the guys making the decisions on what they deem as marginal as we know they all seem to have different ideas on things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be added that we conceded a goal on the opening day in similar circumstances when Welbeck was technically offside, so it's not some sort of pro-United conspiracy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep true and like i said mate it’s for the benefit of the game as a whole that those goals should stand, I just hope the decision making is consistent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's always the issue. As the imaginary line is moved as to what offside is, the players will always push towards that outer limit, so the actual decisions won't become any easier to make. We will see more goals though, which is a good thing
It was absolutely offside, by a small margin but it was clear as day.
Now if they have changed it so it needs to be a bigger error, I'm all for it but the amount of times we had goals ruled out last year for even more marginal offsides makes that a bitter pill to swallow.
comment by Angus Young (U3979)
posted 24 minutes ago
It was absolutely offside, by a small margin but it was clear as day.
Now if they have changed it so it needs to be a bigger error, I'm all for it but the amount of times we had goals ruled out last year for even more marginal offsides makes that a bitter pill to swallow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not if! They have changed it.
The rule changed last summer where thicker lines were introduced which would give the attacker the advantage.
Unless it establishes an unequivocal criteria, the rule change is bound to cause trouble. And it's plain wrong too.
The technology available offers an exact way of determining what's offside and what isn't, but the rule change now winds it back to the subjective criteria of the officials - only now the decision is going to be made having been able to watch it back several times and from every possible angle.
It was bad enough in the old days when they didn't have the technology. We could often suspect foul play, but the officials always had the excuse of saying they'd awarded what they'd seen.
What's their excuse going to be now though? It's only a matter of time before there are crucial goals disallowed for slimmer margins than 'more offside' goals awarded to title/top 4/relegation rivals the week before. It's going to happen. We all know it's going to happen. And we're all going to scream blue murder when it goes against our team.
Football isn't dancing or some other subjective competition where you KNOWINGLY award goals for 'nice' play if a goal has infringed the rules of the game. As frustrating as armpit offsides might be, they're the right decision and at least theoretically can be applied objectively across the board regardless of whether the beneficiary is a footballing juggernaut or a relegation struggler.
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 minute ago
Unless it establishes an unequivocal criteria, the rule change is bound to cause trouble. And it's plain wrong too.
The technology available offers an exact way of determining what's offside and what isn't, but the rule change now winds it back to the subjective criteria of the officials - only now the decision is going to be made having been able to watch it back several times and from every possible angle.
It was bad enough in the old days when they didn't have the technology. We could often suspect foul play, but the officials always had the excuse of saying they'd awarded what they'd seen.
What's their excuse going to be now though? It's only a matter of time before there are crucial goals disallowed for slimmer margins than 'more offside' goals awarded to title/top 4/relegation rivals the week before. It's going to happen. We all know it's going to happen. And we're all going to scream blue murder when it goes against our team.
Football isn't dancing or some other subjective competition where you KNOWINGLY award goals for 'nice' play if a goal has infringed the rules of the game. As frustrating as armpit offsides might be, they're the right decision and at least theoretically can be applied objectively across the board regardless of whether the beneficiary is a footballing juggernaut or a relegation struggler.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the technology really exact? I don't think it is.
comment by Meet her at the love parade (U6468)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 minute ago
Unless it establishes an unequivocal criteria, the rule change is bound to cause trouble. And it's plain wrong too.
The technology available offers an exact way of determining what's offside and what isn't, but the rule change now winds it back to the subjective criteria of the officials - only now the decision is going to be made having been able to watch it back several times and from every possible angle.
It was bad enough in the old days when they didn't have the technology. We could often suspect foul play, but the officials always had the excuse of saying they'd awarded what they'd seen.
What's their excuse going to be now though? It's only a matter of time before there are crucial goals disallowed for slimmer margins than 'more offside' goals awarded to title/top 4/relegation rivals the week before. It's going to happen. We all know it's going to happen. And we're all going to scream blue murder when it goes against our team.
Football isn't dancing or some other subjective competition where you KNOWINGLY award goals for 'nice' play if a goal has infringed the rules of the game. As frustrating as armpit offsides might be, they're the right decision and at least theoretically can be applied objectively across the board regardless of whether the beneficiary is a footballing juggernaut or a relegation struggler.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the technology really exact? I don't think it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To within millimetres or perhaps a couple of centimetres at most, which is probably the best you can do. It certainly allows for making a clear ruling for the vast majority of cases. Imo, many fans have been sucked in by the completely subjective opinions of pundits who, more likely than not, are just happy to have some extra wiggle room to avoid looking like idiots each time they commit to an opinion only to be proved wrong by the replays.
The broader and the fuzzier the margin, the more cases you open to being judged subjectively. In other words, the more you open up the outcome of the game to being impacted by the subjective opinion of people with potentially vested interests in one outcome or other.
You're going to get cases being allowed like Rashford's goal, which, from the only still I got to see, looked around a foot offside - and you're going to get cases that look far more marginal being disallowed.
That's just about acceptable if you don't have the means to reach a fairer judgement, but when you have the technology to compare two separate cases and CLEARLY see that the tighter one's been disallowed and the clearer one given, it's going to raise all sorts of questions. More so when it's almost bound to sometimes even be the exact same official in the VAR room making the opposite decision. And with broader, fuzzier margins, you're just increasing the likelihood of that happening.
I thought it was offside but every team gets tight ones in their favour and against them at times.
Must admit it looked off to me and was surprised it was given.
Rashford's toe was over the line shown which I understand is now thicker to give more of a margin to the attacker but it seems they have also added a margin to the thicker line based on the evidence of Monday night.
However I'm not even annoyed by it as we didn't deserve anything. We couldn't do anything with our attacks despite pouring forward and left massive gaps for United counters which turned into dangerous attacks. If the shoe was on the other foot and Salah and Diaz had those gaps we'd have scored several goals. They should have scored more but for poor decision making/finishing.
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 46 minutes ago
Rashford's toe was over the line shown which I understand is now thicker to give more of a margin to the attacker but it seems they have also added a margin to the thicker line based on the evidence of Monday night.
However I'm not even annoyed by it as we didn't deserve anything. We couldn't do anything with our attacks despite pouring forward and left massive gaps for United counters which turned into dangerous attacks. If the shoe was on the other foot and Salah and Diaz had those gaps we'd have scored several goals. They should have scored more but for poor decision making/finishing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was thinking the exact same during the game about Diaz and Salah. While they had their moments during the game there was a lack of quality from Elanga and at times Rashford.
Rashford really needs to learn how to time his runs better. There is no player who gets caught offside more than him, in relation to minutes played. And whilst it was marginal on this occasion, I don't think it was that difficult a run to time properly and leave it without doubt that he was onside.
Just a long term peev for me.
Sign in if you want to comment
VAR
Page 1 of 2
posted on 23/8/22
I guess you forgot to pay the bill and spent it on Nunez instead?
posted on 23/8/22
I’ve only seen it briefly but he looked fractionally onside to me.
posted on 23/8/22
Its not measured from the legs, it's from the furthest part of your body from which you can score and TAA was leaning further forward than Rashford. If you just look at the legs, it's offside. But if you look at all body parts you can score with, it's much less clear. Certainly from the human eye
posted on 23/8/22
If it's that close that it's still being debated after replays and stills you've got to be giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacker. Ruling goals out for someone's toe being 1mm offside was killing the game.
posted on 24/8/22
He’s marginally ahead of Gomez but the new margin of error rule determines that to be on.
I personally don’t want these goals ruled out - purely as a football fan
posted on 24/8/22
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 34 minutes ago
He’s marginally ahead of Gomez but the new margin of error rule determines that to be on.
I personally don’t want these goals ruled out - purely as a football fan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This
They relaxed the rules too stop having purrfectly good gols unaloud becuse a player was 3mm ‘offside’
posted on 24/8/22
Lino flags on.
Var ruin the celebrations looking.
Margin of error mean you have to be a shocker so should not need so long to confirm.
posted on 24/8/22
“ Anyway, I have seen still pictures and numerous replays of Rashford’s goal and for the life of me, can’t see how how he was onside.”
————————————
OP man quit with the VAR moaning! There’s been a change to the rules!!
Remember the Henderson disallowed goal against Everton where for some ridiculous reason the tip of Mane’s elbow was deemed offside and there was total outrage over it, well under the new ruling the goal probably and quite rightly would of stood.
The right decision was made the other night ok it benefited Utd but it’s also for the benefit of the game as a whole that these goals are given.
The only downside is the guys making the decisions on what they deem as marginal as we know they all seem to have different ideas on things.
posted on 24/8/22
Looked clearly offside to me
posted on 24/8/22
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 11 minutes ago
“ Anyway, I have seen still pictures and numerous replays of Rashford’s goal and for the life of me, can’t see how how he was onside.”
————————————
OP man quit with the VAR moaning! There’s been a change to the rules!!
Remember the Henderson disallowed goal against Everton where for some ridiculous reason the tip of Mane’s elbow was deemed offside and there was total outrage over it, well under the new ruling the goal probably and quite rightly would of stood.
The right decision was made the other night ok it benefited Utd but it’s also for the benefit of the game as a whole that these goals are given.
The only downside is the guys making the decisions on what they deem as marginal as we know they all seem to have different ideas on things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be added that we conceded a goal on the opening day in similar circumstances when Welbeck was technically offside, so it's not some sort of pro-United conspiracy
posted on 24/8/22
It was close enough not to be ruled out in my opinion.
posted on 24/8/22
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 11 minutes ago
“ Anyway, I have seen still pictures and numerous replays of Rashford’s goal and for the life of me, can’t see how how he was onside.”
————————————
OP man quit with the VAR moaning! There’s been a change to the rules!!
Remember the Henderson disallowed goal against Everton where for some ridiculous reason the tip of Mane’s elbow was deemed offside and there was total outrage over it, well under the new ruling the goal probably and quite rightly would of stood.
The right decision was made the other night ok it benefited Utd but it’s also for the benefit of the game as a whole that these goals are given.
The only downside is the guys making the decisions on what they deem as marginal as we know they all seem to have different ideas on things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be added that we conceded a goal on the opening day in similar circumstances when Welbeck was technically offside, so it's not some sort of pro-United conspiracy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep true and like i said mate it’s for the benefit of the game as a whole that those goals should stand, I just hope the decision making is consistent.
posted on 24/8/22
This is grasping at straws. When implemented correctly VAR is a great help to the officials, especially with the offside rule.
Klopp's high line has worked brilliantly as a strategy to take advantage of the technology and how it has been implemented, but the new margin for error will have an impact. So now perhaps tactically he needs to make some adjustments. One on ones with our keeper has become a weekly occurance.
posted on 24/8/22
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by merrysupersteve (relaxed about the situation) (U1132)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 11 minutes ago
“ Anyway, I have seen still pictures and numerous replays of Rashford’s goal and for the life of me, can’t see how how he was onside.”
————————————
OP man quit with the VAR moaning! There’s been a change to the rules!!
Remember the Henderson disallowed goal against Everton where for some ridiculous reason the tip of Mane’s elbow was deemed offside and there was total outrage over it, well under the new ruling the goal probably and quite rightly would of stood.
The right decision was made the other night ok it benefited Utd but it’s also for the benefit of the game as a whole that these goals are given.
The only downside is the guys making the decisions on what they deem as marginal as we know they all seem to have different ideas on things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be added that we conceded a goal on the opening day in similar circumstances when Welbeck was technically offside, so it's not some sort of pro-United conspiracy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep true and like i said mate it’s for the benefit of the game as a whole that those goals should stand, I just hope the decision making is consistent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's always the issue. As the imaginary line is moved as to what offside is, the players will always push towards that outer limit, so the actual decisions won't become any easier to make. We will see more goals though, which is a good thing
posted on 24/8/22
It was absolutely offside, by a small margin but it was clear as day.
Now if they have changed it so it needs to be a bigger error, I'm all for it but the amount of times we had goals ruled out last year for even more marginal offsides makes that a bitter pill to swallow.
posted on 24/8/22
comment by Angus Young (U3979)
posted 24 minutes ago
It was absolutely offside, by a small margin but it was clear as day.
Now if they have changed it so it needs to be a bigger error, I'm all for it but the amount of times we had goals ruled out last year for even more marginal offsides makes that a bitter pill to swallow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not if! They have changed it.
The rule changed last summer where thicker lines were introduced which would give the attacker the advantage.
posted on 24/8/22
Unless it establishes an unequivocal criteria, the rule change is bound to cause trouble. And it's plain wrong too.
The technology available offers an exact way of determining what's offside and what isn't, but the rule change now winds it back to the subjective criteria of the officials - only now the decision is going to be made having been able to watch it back several times and from every possible angle.
It was bad enough in the old days when they didn't have the technology. We could often suspect foul play, but the officials always had the excuse of saying they'd awarded what they'd seen.
What's their excuse going to be now though? It's only a matter of time before there are crucial goals disallowed for slimmer margins than 'more offside' goals awarded to title/top 4/relegation rivals the week before. It's going to happen. We all know it's going to happen. And we're all going to scream blue murder when it goes against our team.
Football isn't dancing or some other subjective competition where you KNOWINGLY award goals for 'nice' play if a goal has infringed the rules of the game. As frustrating as armpit offsides might be, they're the right decision and at least theoretically can be applied objectively across the board regardless of whether the beneficiary is a footballing juggernaut or a relegation struggler.
posted on 24/8/22
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 minute ago
Unless it establishes an unequivocal criteria, the rule change is bound to cause trouble. And it's plain wrong too.
The technology available offers an exact way of determining what's offside and what isn't, but the rule change now winds it back to the subjective criteria of the officials - only now the decision is going to be made having been able to watch it back several times and from every possible angle.
It was bad enough in the old days when they didn't have the technology. We could often suspect foul play, but the officials always had the excuse of saying they'd awarded what they'd seen.
What's their excuse going to be now though? It's only a matter of time before there are crucial goals disallowed for slimmer margins than 'more offside' goals awarded to title/top 4/relegation rivals the week before. It's going to happen. We all know it's going to happen. And we're all going to scream blue murder when it goes against our team.
Football isn't dancing or some other subjective competition where you KNOWINGLY award goals for 'nice' play if a goal has infringed the rules of the game. As frustrating as armpit offsides might be, they're the right decision and at least theoretically can be applied objectively across the board regardless of whether the beneficiary is a footballing juggernaut or a relegation struggler.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the technology really exact? I don't think it is.
posted on 24/8/22
comment by Meet her at the love parade (U6468)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 minute ago
Unless it establishes an unequivocal criteria, the rule change is bound to cause trouble. And it's plain wrong too.
The technology available offers an exact way of determining what's offside and what isn't, but the rule change now winds it back to the subjective criteria of the officials - only now the decision is going to be made having been able to watch it back several times and from every possible angle.
It was bad enough in the old days when they didn't have the technology. We could often suspect foul play, but the officials always had the excuse of saying they'd awarded what they'd seen.
What's their excuse going to be now though? It's only a matter of time before there are crucial goals disallowed for slimmer margins than 'more offside' goals awarded to title/top 4/relegation rivals the week before. It's going to happen. We all know it's going to happen. And we're all going to scream blue murder when it goes against our team.
Football isn't dancing or some other subjective competition where you KNOWINGLY award goals for 'nice' play if a goal has infringed the rules of the game. As frustrating as armpit offsides might be, they're the right decision and at least theoretically can be applied objectively across the board regardless of whether the beneficiary is a footballing juggernaut or a relegation struggler.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the technology really exact? I don't think it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To within millimetres or perhaps a couple of centimetres at most, which is probably the best you can do. It certainly allows for making a clear ruling for the vast majority of cases. Imo, many fans have been sucked in by the completely subjective opinions of pundits who, more likely than not, are just happy to have some extra wiggle room to avoid looking like idiots each time they commit to an opinion only to be proved wrong by the replays.
The broader and the fuzzier the margin, the more cases you open to being judged subjectively. In other words, the more you open up the outcome of the game to being impacted by the subjective opinion of people with potentially vested interests in one outcome or other.
You're going to get cases being allowed like Rashford's goal, which, from the only still I got to see, looked around a foot offside - and you're going to get cases that look far more marginal being disallowed.
That's just about acceptable if you don't have the means to reach a fairer judgement, but when you have the technology to compare two separate cases and CLEARLY see that the tighter one's been disallowed and the clearer one given, it's going to raise all sorts of questions. More so when it's almost bound to sometimes even be the exact same official in the VAR room making the opposite decision. And with broader, fuzzier margins, you're just increasing the likelihood of that happening.
posted on 24/8/22
I thought it was offside but every team gets tight ones in their favour and against them at times.
posted on 24/8/22
Must admit it looked off to me and was surprised it was given.
posted on 24/8/22
Rashford's toe was over the line shown which I understand is now thicker to give more of a margin to the attacker but it seems they have also added a margin to the thicker line based on the evidence of Monday night.
However I'm not even annoyed by it as we didn't deserve anything. We couldn't do anything with our attacks despite pouring forward and left massive gaps for United counters which turned into dangerous attacks. If the shoe was on the other foot and Salah and Diaz had those gaps we'd have scored several goals. They should have scored more but for poor decision making/finishing.
posted on 24/8/22
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 46 minutes ago
Rashford's toe was over the line shown which I understand is now thicker to give more of a margin to the attacker but it seems they have also added a margin to the thicker line based on the evidence of Monday night.
However I'm not even annoyed by it as we didn't deserve anything. We couldn't do anything with our attacks despite pouring forward and left massive gaps for United counters which turned into dangerous attacks. If the shoe was on the other foot and Salah and Diaz had those gaps we'd have scored several goals. They should have scored more but for poor decision making/finishing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was thinking the exact same during the game about Diaz and Salah. While they had their moments during the game there was a lack of quality from Elanga and at times Rashford.
posted on 24/8/22
Rashford really needs to learn how to time his runs better. There is no player who gets caught offside more than him, in relation to minutes played. And whilst it was marginal on this occasion, I don't think it was that difficult a run to time properly and leave it without doubt that he was onside.
Just a long term peev for me.
posted on 24/8/22
Definitely onside
Page 1 of 2