Bamford's fore arm was off side what a joke

[Mullet 293]

No doubt most have seen this where Bamford pointed where he wanted the ball only for his fore arm to be ruled offside by VAR. 

For a system where another trained professional is supposed to help the referee make the right decision VAR is complete boll*!ocks.

If the rule is that a pointing hand can be offside the rule makers are f^cking tw^ts.

So glad we don't have to put up with that every week, I'd rather not be in the premier league. 

[Branston Pickle 4,132]

I see what you’re getting at, but a) it was Leeds and b) it was Bamford, so that counters any ridiculousness and makes it ok 👍 

[nutty nigel 7,899]

This could be the final straw for supporters in stadiums. We learnt last season that you can't celebrate a goal. Football is now for spectators and tv.

[Surfer 1,547]

It was an utterly ridiculous decision. Time for a rule change / clarification of the rules referees. And don't give me that BS about can't change rules mid-season. Yes you can. You are collectively ruining football. 

[splendidrush 720]

I wonder what the decision would have been if it were LiVARpool.....

[Beefy is a legend 224]

The greatest positive to our Championship relegation is that we don't have to put up with this ridiculousness.

[Dr Greenthumb 789]

5 hours ago, Mullet said:

No doubt most have seen this where Bamford pointed where he wanted the ball only for his fore arm to be ruled offside by VAR. 

For a system where another trained professional is supposed to help the referee make the right decision VAR is complete boll*!ocks.

If the rule is that a pointing hand can be offside the rule makers are f^cking tw^ts.

So glad we don't have to put up with that every week, I'd rather not be in the premier league. 

Nearly as bad as when no body part of Pukki was offside and Tottenham still got the decision!

[Don’t be Krul 452]

I haven't seen the incident but if it was only his hand/arm in an offside position, then surely the goal should've stood. I wait to be corrected but I thought that if a part of the body was offside and that part is capable of scoring a goal, then offside it is (foot, leg, head etc.). But as you can't score with your arm or hand, provided no other part offside then perfectly good goal? But as someone said it was Leeds and Lord Bamford 😁

[The Real Buh 3,757]

It’s a great view from the championship

watching it all burn 

Prediciton: Leeds go down and their fans never get to see a live premier league game.

[horsefly 5,301]

Very naively the authorities controlling the game are under the misapprehension that it's possible to specify the rules of the game in a way which excludes the need for interpretation. So in this instance you are deemed offside if any part of your body is in front of the defenders at the time the ball is passed. But had those authorities even the briefest acquaintance with the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein they would know that there is no such thing as a rule that determines its own application separately from interpretation. Wittgenstein pointed out that the application of any rule can only be determined within the context of the practice in which it is applied. In other words, a judgement has to be made in a specific context whether a rule in that instance requires a particular course of action.

The whole point of the offside rule is to prevent players gaining an advantage by standing beyond the defensive line. The game would be a poor spectacle if such behaviour was permitted. Thus, the application of the rule must be made in the context of achieving this particular good. And thus it becomes obvious to all but the brain-dead that Bamford's arm, Pukki's little finger, did not in any way whatsoever breach the good that the the offside rule was instituted to protect. 

The problem is not with VAR as such but with the idea that VAR can be used to determine the application of the rules of the game without interpretation. VAR is really nothing more than the opportunity to take advantage of a slow-motion replay in order to get decisions right. It does not prevent the need for a referee to interpret the rules. 

If only the footballing authorities understood Wittgenstein's fundamental point about rules and rule following then we might begin to use VAR in a way that enhances a referee's ability to interpret the rules of the game for the good(s) of the game.

[Pritch 3]

1 hour ago, Don’t be Krul said:

I haven't seen the incident but if it was only his hand/arm in an offside position, then surely the goal should've stood. I wait to be corrected but I thought that if a part of the body was offside and that part is capable of scoring a goal, then offside it is (foot, leg, head etc.). But as you can't score with your arm or hand, provided no other part offside then perfectly good goal? But as someone said it was Leeds and Lord Bamford 😁

They changed the point of offside from tip of the shoulder to the cuff on the arms(short-sleeve), so when Bamford was pointing where he wanted the ball the cuff of his sleeve was offside - apparently you can legally score using the part of the arm above that which is just as much a load of ****e as the offside part of the rule.

I feel ridiculous having just typed that nonsense out, let alone come up with the rule in the first place.

[The Real Buh 3,757]

1 hour ago, Don’t be Krul said:

I haven’t seen the incident but if it was only his hand/arm in an offside position, then surely the goal should've stood. I wait to be corrected but I thought that if a part of the body was offside and that part is capable of scoring a goal, then offside it is (foot, leg, head etc.). But as you can't score with your arm or hand, provided no other part offside then perfectly good goal? But as someone said it was Leeds and Lord Bamford 😁

 

[Rich T The Biscuit 676]

42 minutes ago, The Real Buh said:

It’s a great view from the championship

watching it all burn 

Prediciton: Leeds go down and their fans never get to see a live premier league game.

That's just mean, they should at least them them see the last home game once relegation has been achieved 😂

For the record, as much as I'd love to see them go down, I don't think they will. 

[shefcanary 2,943]

7 minutes ago, Pritch said:

They changed the point of offside from tip of the shoulder to the cuff on the arms(short-sleeve), so when Bamford was pointing where he wanted the ball the cuff of his sleeve was offside - apparently you can legally score using the part of the arm above that which is just as much a load of ****e as the offside part of the rule.

I feel ridiculous having just typed that nonsense out, let alone come up with the rule in the first place.

Yep, there was a part of his arm that could be used to score, that was offside.  And it was Bamford and Dirty ...., so no further debate required.

#Leeds, Leeds are falling apart again!#

#VAR!  VAR! #

I apologise for those that find the current interpretation of the VAR rules and my lightheartedness offensive, but you probably haven't lived through the cheating crap Dirty foisted on football during 60's and 70's and the sanctimonious **** some of their "fans" have spouted since.

Now Pukki's disallowed goal on the other hand ..  .

[The Real Buh 3,757]

2 minutes ago, Rich T The Biscuit said:

That's just mean, they should at least them them see the last home game once relegation has been achieved 😂

For the record, as much as I'd love to see them go down, I don't think they will. 

They have some good players and play some good football

but so did we

they’ll go down like we did I predict. 

[Rich T The Biscuit 676]

They can make offside so much simpler. 

It should be based on the part of the body that the player scored with 🤷‍♂️

[Rich T The Biscuit 676]

Just now, The Real Buh said:

They have some good players and play some good football

but so did we

they’ll go down like we did I predict. 

Don't disagree but there seem to be worse teams in the division. 

[The Real Buh 3,757]

1 minute ago, Rich T The Biscuit said:

Don't disagree but there seem to be worse teams in the division. 

Never underestimate Leeds going full Leeds and pulling a Leeds

[ron obvious 1,710]

20 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Very naively the authorities controlling the game are under the misapprehension that it's possible to specify the rules of the game in a way which excludes the need for interpretation. So in this instance you are deemed offside if any part of your body is in front of the defenders at the time the ball is passed. But had those authorities even the briefest acquaintance with the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein they would know that there is no such thing as a rule that determines its own application separately from interpretation. Wittgenstein pointed out that the application of any rule can only be determined within the context of the practice in which it is applied. In other words, a judgement has to be made in a specific context whether a rule in that instance requires a particular course of action.

The whole point of the offside rule is to prevent players gaining an advantage by standing beyond the defensive line. The game would be a poor spectacle if such behaviour was permitted. Thus, the application of the rule must be made in the context of achieving this particular good. And thus it becomes obvious to all but the brain-dead that Bamford's arm, Pukki's little finger, did not in any way whatsoever breach the good that the the offside rule was instituted to protect. 

The problem is not with VAR as such but with the idea that VAR can be used to determine the application of the rules of the game without interpretation. VAR is really nothing more than the opportunity to take advantage of a slow-motion replay in order to get decisions right. It does not prevent the need for a referee to interpret the rules. 

If only the footballing authorities understood Wittgenstein's fundamental point about rules and rule following then we might begin to use VAR in a way that enhances a referee's ability to interpret the rules of the game for the good(s) of the game.

Alternatively, from a scientific point of view (avoiding discussions about the nature of 'The Good') every measurement has an error which depends on the accuracy of the measuring device, thus the mathematically exact relative positions of body parts & ball at the moment of contact can never be known. If examination of the replay shows the situation to be within those limits then you will never know if the player is offside or not.

The judgement then manifests as to whether you determine such a situation to be offside or not. Previously, when that situation was determined by linesman & referee in real time, the attacking player got the benefit of the doubt. There was no offside.

In trying to remove responsibility from the on pitch officials the FA are taking refuge in a lie, the lie that you can make perfect measurements, & in so doing also absolve themselves from any responsibility.

When I first started work I heard a manager say he was "off to make myself fire-proof" when something had gone wrong with a project. I didn't know what he meant at the time, but since then I've realised that the avoidance of blame is one of the prime motivations of people in authority.

And that that attempt to avoid responsibility, that cowardice, is why we've ended up with the steaming pile of horse manure that is VAR.

 

[Capt. Pants 4,974]

Haven't forgotten their w@nker fans wanting us relegated on a PPG basis and to replaced by them.

If VAR works horribly against them, then that's all fine with me.

[Canary Jedi 609]

I have to say I am enjoying being back in the Championship, we are competitive in games and none of that bloody VAR nonsense!

Pundit reaction here: 

Patrick Bamford: Did Leeds United striker have goal ruled out for pointing? https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54855596

I must say when you look at this picture you think how on earth is that offside?

Edited November 8, 2020 by Canary Jedi

[lake district canary 4,813]

4 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

In trying to remove responsibility from the on pitch officials the FA are taking refuge in a lie, the lie that you can make perfect measurements, & in so doing also absolve themselves from any responsibility.

Agreed, you would think though, that they could see that in absolving themselves from responsibility, they are just making it worse for themselves, making them look even more ridiculous.

It's being used in a ridiculous way and every time they tweak it - apparently now with using the "cuff" as a guidline - it's just bordering on lunacy. 

[lake district canary 4,813]

11 minutes ago, Canary Jedi said:

Patrick Bamford: Did Leeds United striker have goal ruled out for pointing? https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54855596

I never thought I would see an offside decision more ridiculous than the Pukki one against Spurs, but the Bamford one tops it.

Var should be scrapped.

 

Edited November 8, 2020 by lake district canary

[wcorkcanary 4,765]

This stupid cuff rule reminds me of a kid I was in the Army with, Nigel,the poor unfortunate had ears that seemed to be positioned on the side of his neck , rather than the side of his head. After finishing induction, which included getting kit sized and regulation haircut, we had our first parade inspection, the staff were merciless in their assessment of us.  Our sergeant major.....a  particularly sarky Coldstream Guardsman, stopped in front of Nige , turned to the duty sergeant and said " we get one clever dicky every year dont we Eddie ? Thinks by getting his ears lowered , he can grow his hair longer". 

As we speak, wealthier clubs are scouring the planet for players with short arms, so the cuff extends further down the arm.

Leeds or not, Bamford or not, it was a stupid decision to disallow the goal. Fair play to PB though..... he smashed his second ( first legal) .

[Nuff Said 5,937]

1 hour ago, Canary Jedi said:

I have to say I am enjoying being back in the Championship, we are competitive in games and none of that bloody VAR nonsense!

Pundit reaction here: 

Patrick Bamford: Did Leeds United striker have goal ruled out for pointing? https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54855596

I must say when you look at this picture you think how on earth is that offside?

But seriously, if he scored with that part of his arm, it would be disallowed wouldn’t it?

[lake district canary 4,813]

Really, all they have to do is simplify the use of VAR and that is to make the offside rule dependent on where your feet are and make it so the whole foot has to be offside so it gets rid of those stupid little toe being offside kind of decisions.   It's surely not that hard? 

[paul moy 235]

Just spotted this thread after posting on the other Leeds thread.  I love VAR while we are in the Champs as I tried explaining how awful it was to Leeds fans I knew who thought I was just making excuses for enjoying our relegation.  I loved hearing about this on the radio this morning.

[First Wazzock 1,003]

I thought it had been said that it's only body parts that you can legally score with that can be offside. And if that is the case that should have stood as a goal.

The problem as I see it is this.

VAR has the ability to see an offside which is millimetres - we've never had that before. No Linesperson has ever had x-ray vision, which has meant that there has been a few close calls either way i.e. goals scored which should have been disallowed and the other way round. We may have moaned about it but we accepted it, there has always been a margin for error. But, with VAR there is no margin for error, it's either offside or not. Technically it's correct every time, but it's not in the spirit of the game, it's not what we have been used to, and, it's not what we want. I don't want a goal to be scored and then we have a five minute wait to see if it's 'legal' or not, I want the game to flow, as I'm sure many others do too. Continuing with this will be the ruination of the game.

Edited November 8, 2020 by First Wazzock

[paul moy 235]

28 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Really, all they have to do is simplify the use of VAR and that is to make the offside rule dependent on where your feet are and make it so the whole foot has to be offside so it gets rid of those stupid little toe being offside kind of decisions.   It's surely not that hard? 

Agreed but then that would take a commonsense viewpoint.  

[canarycop 232]

LDC you are absolutely correct. It has to be the feet only as VAR doesnt take into account height of player, natural running movement of player and size of player all of which are different. Please authorities simplify this ridiculous rule so its feet only and we can see more goals and less controversy