In reply to Aston94

Aston94 said:

---

Rudyjax said:

---

Aston94 said:

---

Rudyjax said:

---

Aston94 said:

---

Yeah, if we are going to have the technology and want it to be used then if you are offside you are offside. I personally think offside should be changed to promote more scoring, but if the rule is what it is, he was offside, no matter if it is a foot or a half an inch.

---

Are we sure that is the exact frame the ball was struck?

---

I mean that is part of the VAR technology, first to get exact moment ball was struck and then to look at position of player.

---

I've seen multiple frames they can use and I'm not convinced each time it's the correct frame. It's eyeballed.

And they may have gotten this one right, but this is more a criticism in the offside var in general.

---

Like I said, I would like the rules changed, I would actually prefer we go back to no VAR and let the people on the field decide. There are some bad calls, but they are on the field and see fouls in the flow, not looking frame by frame.

But according to the rules as currently established, Wright was offside. I don't like it, but it was the correct decision by the VAR.

---

If you assume that this picture is right, he is offside.

My point is nothing tells me that this is the exact moment the ball was struck. They're just eyeballing it. I don't care if he is or isn't offside in this case. I care that they get it right, and nothing tells me they got it right based on this photo.

In reply to Rudyjax

Rudyjax said:

---

Aston94 said:

---

Rudyjax said:

---

Aston94 said:

---

Rudyjax said:

---

Aston94 said:

---

Yeah, if we are going to have the technology and want it to be used then if you are offside you are offside. I personally think offside should be changed to promote more scoring, but if the rule is what it is, he was offside, no matter if it is a foot or a half an inch.

---

Are we sure that is the exact frame the ball was struck?

---

I mean that is part of the VAR technology, first to get exact moment ball was struck and then to look at position of player.

---

I've seen multiple frames they can use and I'm not convinced each time it's the correct frame. It's eyeballed.

And they may have gotten this one right, but this is more a criticism in the offside var in general.

---

Like I said, I would like the rules changed, I would actually prefer we go back to no VAR and let the people on the field decide. There are some bad calls, but they are on the field and see fouls in the flow, not looking frame by frame.

But according to the rules as currently established, Wright was offside. I don't like it, but it was the correct decision by the VAR.

---

If you assume that this picture is right, he is offside.

My point is nothing tells me that this is the exact moment the ball was struck. They're just eyeballing it. I don't care if he is or isn't offside in this case. I care that they get it right, and nothing tells me they got it right based on this photo.

---

this. that was my beef as well. IF this photo is accurate as of ball strike, I get it....but is it?

In reply to Rudyjax

Rudyjax said:

---

Aston94 said:

---

Rudyjax said:

---

Aston94 said:

---

Rudyjax said:

---

Aston94 said:

---

Yeah, if we are going to have the technology and want it to be used then if you are offside you are offside. I personally think offside should be changed to promote more scoring, but if the rule is what it is, he was offside, no matter if it is a foot or a half an inch.

---

Are we sure that is the exact frame the ball was struck?

---

I mean that is part of the VAR technology, first to get exact moment ball was struck and then to look at position of player.

---

I've seen multiple frames they can use and I'm not convinced each time it's the correct frame. It's eyeballed.

And they may have gotten this one right, but this is more a criticism in the offside var in general.

---

Like I said, I would like the rules changed, I would actually prefer we go back to no VAR and let the people on the field decide. There are some bad calls, but they are on the field and see fouls in the flow, not looking frame by frame.

But according to the rules as currently established, Wright was offside. I don't like it, but it was the correct decision by the VAR.

---

If you assume that this picture is right, he is offside.

My point is nothing tells me that this is the exact moment the ball was struck. They're just eyeballing it. I don't care if he is or isn't offside in this case. I care that they get it right, and nothing tells me they got it right based on this photo.

---

Well I would need the 5 photos before and the 5 photos after to verify that is the actual moment the ball was kicked. Those I don't have, but the VAR did have them.

In reply to Aston94

Aston94 said:

---

Rudyjax said:

---

Aston94 said:

---

Rudyjax said:

---

Aston94 said:

---

Rudyjax said:

---

Aston94 said:

---

Yeah, if we are going to have the technology and want it to be used then if you are offside you are offside. I personally think offside should be changed to promote more scoring, but if the rule is what it is, he was offside, no matter if it is a foot or a half an inch.

---

Are we sure that is the exact frame the ball was struck?

---

I mean that is part of the VAR technology, first to get exact moment ball was struck and then to look at position of player.

---

I've seen multiple frames they can use and I'm not convinced each time it's the correct frame. It's eyeballed.

And they may have gotten this one right, but this is more a criticism in the offside var in general.

---

Like I said, I would like the rules changed, I would actually prefer we go back to no VAR and let the people on the field decide. There are some bad calls, but they are on the field and see fouls in the flow, not looking frame by frame.

But according to the rules as currently established, Wright was offside. I don't like it, but it was the correct decision by the VAR.

---

If you assume that this picture is right, he is offside.

My point is nothing tells me that this is the exact moment the ball was struck. They're just eyeballing it. I don't care if he is or isn't offside in this case. I care that they get it right, and nothing tells me they got it right based on this photo.

---

Well I would need the 5 photos before and the 5 photos after to verify that is the actual moment the ball was kicked. Those I don't have, but the VAR did have them.

---

Correct...but again it's not exact. So they're eyeballing one thing, then putting lines up for another.

I just hate it. They may be right. They may be wrong. But it's offside because that's what they decided it was.

If they can't tell by the naked eye, no lines, then play on.

I feel like the underlying problem is the rule itself. VAR is just exacerbating our frustration with the rule.

Cases like this bother me the most… the defender is moving into position and Haji is standing still. It's not like he's making a deep, unfair run (which is what the rule is designed to stop). Same goes for what we so often see in short-corners, where the ball played back to the corner taker gets called for offside, even though the corner taker is moving backwards and has zero intent of making an attacking move, and no defender is even bother coming out to get him, whether he's off or onside because they all know he's just going to jack up a cross.

I think Van Basten is right… the rule itself should be scrapped. It would be chaos, but teams would adapt and defenders would learn to stay back. It would spread the field out and make it more of a long passing game, which means less running and wear and tear on these players bodies. It's win-win.

In reply to deadbq03

deadbq03 said:

---

I feel like the underlying problem is the rule itself. VAR is just exacerbating our frustration with the rule.

Cases like this bother me the most… the defender is moving into position and Haji is standing still. It's not like he's making a deep, unfair run (which is what the rule is designed to stop). Same goes for what we so often see in short-corners, where the ball played back to the corner taker gets called for offside, even though the corner taker is moving backwards and has zero intent of making an attacking move, and no defender is even bother coming out to get him, whether he's off or onside because they all know he's just going to jack up a cross.

I think Van Basten is right… the rule itself should be scrapped. It would be chaos, but teams would adapt and defenders would learn to stay back. It would spread the field out and make it more of a long passing game, which means less running and wear and tear on these players bodies. It's win-win.

---

I don't know about scrapping the rule, but do agree that there needs to be more logic applied for centimeter type cases like this. The rule is to ensure players aren't taking advantage and clearly that's not the case here. Haji and the defender are in equally good positions and you can argue the defender has the advantage here as he's already moving while haji is starting from a static position.

In reply to gougler08

gougler08 said:

---

zgolfz85 said:

---

oh no said:

---

---

That was such garbage. Seemed sus af

---

I mean, it looks like the lines are drawn accurately...it's stupid of course to be splitting millimeters on offside calls, but rules are rules

---

I'm glad you said this. If he is offside by the rule's definition, then this is a non story. I think VAR at times can drag out the games but that's my only criticism of it. Technology is part of the game now and overall I think it gets the calls right.

In reply to deadbq03

deadbq03 said:

---

I feel like the underlying problem is the rule itself. VAR is just exacerbating our frustration with the rule.

Cases like this bother me the most… the defender is moving into position and Haji is standing still. It's not like he's making a deep, unfair run (which is what the rule is designed to stop). Same goes for what we so often see in short-corners, where the ball played back to the corner taker gets called for offside, even though the corner taker is moving backwards and has zero intent of making an attacking move, and no defender is even bother coming out to get him, whether he's off or onside because they all know he's just going to jack up a cross.

I think Van Basten is right… the rule itself should be scrapped. It would be chaos, but teams would adapt and defenders would learn to stay back. It would spread the field out and make it more of a long passing game, which means less running and wear and tear on these players bodies. It's win-win.

---

There's no need to scrap the rule. We would end up with players camping out by the goal just to stretch out the other team and the game would dramatically change.

Changing the rule to where it's the player's entire body vs a toenail could be doable but the rule is in place for very good reason.

In reply to zgolfz85

zgolfz85 said:

---

deadbq03 said:

---

I feel like the underlying problem is the rule itself. VAR is just exacerbating our frustration with the rule.

Cases like this bother me the most… the defender is moving into position and Haji is standing still. It's not like he's making a deep, unfair run (which is what the rule is designed to stop). Same goes for what we so often see in short-corners, where the ball played back to the corner taker gets called for offside, even though the corner taker is moving backwards and has zero intent of making an attacking move, and no defender is even bother coming out to get him, whether he's off or onside because they all know he's just going to jack up a cross.

I think Van Basten is right… the rule itself should be scrapped. It would be chaos, but teams would adapt and defenders would learn to stay back. It would spread the field out and make it more of a long passing game, which means less running and wear and tear on these players bodies. It's win-win.

---

I don't know about scrapping the rule, but do agree that there needs to be more logic applied for centimeter type cases like this. The rule is to ensure players aren't taking advantage and clearly that's not the case here. Haji and the defender are in equally good positions and you can argue the defender has the advantage here as he's already moving while haji is starting from a static position.

---

I appreciate that MLS doesn't draw lines on offside review for this very reason. If you can't tell he's off without using a visual aide, he's not off.

Pros and cons to the tech. I like ARs leaving their flags down in case there's a goal with the comfort in knowing that all goals are looked at by VAR. let them play. I don't like disallowed offsides goals because a computer says a very well-timed run was a centimeter off. Oh well. It is what it is right now.

In reply to deadbq03

deadbq03 said:

---

I feel like the underlying problem is the rule itself. VAR is just exacerbating our frustration with the rule.

Cases like this bother me the most… the defender is moving into position and Haji is standing still. It's not like he's making a deep, unfair run (which is what the rule is designed to stop). Same goes for what we so often see in short-corners, where the ball played back to the corner taker gets called for offside, even though the corner taker is moving backwards and has zero intent of making an attacking move, and no defender is even bother coming out to get him, whether he's off or onside because they all know he's just going to jack up a cross.

I think Van Basten is right… the rule itself should be scrapped. It would be chaos, but teams would adapt and defenders would learn to stay back. It would spread the field out and make it more of a long passing game, which means less running and wear and tear on these players bodies. It's win-win.

---

Very much agree with the idea here (and jeffk's comment), the intent was never that a guy leaned a fraction of a second earlier or reached past the defender as a ball was being played.

I'd much rather see either no VAR used and we return to pre-video chaos or adapt the rule to be something more like the centerline of the body. I don't care if a toe is 3 inches offside.

In reply to oh no

oh no said:

---

Pros and cons to the tech. I like ARs leaving their flags down in case there's a goal with the comfort in knowing that all goals are looked at by VAR. let them play. I don't like disallowed offsides goals because a computer says a very well-timed run was a centimeter off. Oh well. It is what it is right now.

---

Here's the thing. It's not called until the referee blows the whistle. So even if the flag comes up, players should keep playing.

The intent has to be examined here. It's like the technology has made everyone forget that the rule was designed to disallow cherry picking and offensive players simply hovering around goal.

A stroll down memory lane - slide 2

https://instagr.am/p/C6JcqYALlHA

I miss chubby Messi

Malik Tillman w/ his second.

Crafty finish.

9G -14A across all comps.

Who could’ve seen this coming .. #usmnt

pic.twitter.com/3iNxHrJrQr

— herculez gomez (@herculezg) April 25, 2024

In reply to oh no That ball was perfection.

Yep. I mean look at Chris Richards creating this chance for Palace ✌️🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/fjg6F3BfuJ https://t.co/dHfqwILMgk

— 🇺🇸 USMNTvsHaters (@USMNTvsHaters) April 27, 2024

Americans 🇺🇸 ratings for Juve vs Milan:

Pulisic: 3/10, disappointing, barely involved in the game and when involved nothing happened.

Musah: 4/10, shaky on defense in multiple occasions but was out of position and tried to make things happen.

Weah: 7.75/10, did a great job…

— Tactical Manager (@ManagerTactical) April 27, 2024

The pulisic falloff is concerning

In reply to zgolfz85

zgolfz85 said:

---

The pulisic falloff is concerning

---

FotMob gave him a 6.9.

Yeah I watched the match and thought Musah and Pulisic were much better than that rating above. I think sometimes these raters get into a "goal for good score" type ratings and ignore the rest of game.

In reply to Aston94

Aston94 said:

---

Yeah I watched the match and thought Musah and Pulisic were much better than that rating above. I think sometimes these raters get into a "goal for good score" type ratings and ignore the rest of game.

---

Tactical manager has an agenda.

In reply to PatAg I didn't know this account was a clown. He gave McKennie and Weah good grades and not CP or Musah, but I didn't watch the match; just figured our AC boys struggled.

Juventus will listen to offers from Premier League clubs for Tim Weah this summer.

Long-term admirers Everton are expected to revisit negotiations, and Aston Villa could reportedly be in the mix as well.

(via @joshua_reports) pic.twitter.com/j0ajxAkgwA

— USMNT Only (@usmntonly) April 27, 2024

IMO

Anonymous fan accounts posting highlights and links to stories from established journos = good

Anonymous fan accounts offering up their own rankings and analysis = probably junk

In reply to oh no

oh no said:

---

Juventus will listen to offers from Premier League clubs for Tim Weah this summer.

Long-term admirers Everton are expected to revisit negotiations, and Aston Villa could reportedly be in the mix as well.

(via @joshua_reports) pic.twitter.com/j0ajxAkgwA

— USMNT Only (@usmntonly) April 27, 2024

---

As an Everton supporter would love to see that.

(I will refrain from antagonizing jeffk other than this gif)

In reply to fig96

fig96 said:

---

oh no said:

---

Juventus will listen to offers from Premier League clubs for Tim Weah this summer.

Long-term admirers Everton are expected to revisit negotiations, and Aston Villa could reportedly be in the mix as well.

(via @joshua_reports) pic.twitter.com/j0ajxAkgwA

— USMNT Only (@usmntonly) April 27, 2024

---

As an Everton supporter would love to see that.

(I will refrain from antagonizing jeffk other than this gif)

---

go toffees....arsenal and everton here. Nice to have a team atop and abottom the table.

In reply to jeffk

jeffk said:

---

It would be a shame to see Timmy go to Everton only for them to get relegated and ruin the economy of the city of Liverpool.

---

Well played my friend.