Not Sure What Thread/Where to put it (from Feb 2026)

buffybegood

Very sad, didn't he play for Arsenal as well at one point?

MunichHammer

buffybegood said:

Very sad, didn't he play for Arsenal as well at one point?

You're right, he did. He played 39 games for them between 1997 and 2002.

EXETERHAMMER

Sad news

MrsGrey

Probably not possible.

But if any spare tickets going for remaining home games, if a season ticket holder (or friend of season ticket holder who's also a season ticket holder) wants to fill their seat, let me know.

Obviously will compensate appropriately.

Would be nice to get to a game while I languish on the waiting list.

IronHerb

Hold that thought MrsG. I've sent you a DM.

alderz

This looks really wrong

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c04xk952zd4o

claretandbluesky

alderz said:

This looks really wrong

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c04xk952zd4o

I can't even believe this is being trialed and feel it's come about not because they feel the offside rule is wrong but because they can't reconcile the idea of small margins still being offside.

We have the technology to rule accurately on the rule now and are doing so, sometimes you will just get the call and other times not but the call is not wrong. If they really want to try and address the issue of small margins then I think they could use a rule that at least two points on the players body must be offside rather than just one, so a foot knee hip or shoulder. Personally I would leave it as it is, if it's offside it's offside. As Alderz said, this looks really wrong.

buffybegood

The only change I'd consider, and mostly so that it speeds up VAR checks, would be to use specifically the feet of both the attacker and the last defender, but that would probably be more difficult to rule in real time (and thus for 99% of games played across the country that don't use VAR).

alderz

I think that if they have the semi-automatic one thing now it should just be that. If that can’t tell then it’s too close to call.

ScotHammer

Like many, I dislike how VAR is being used. I’m fed up with good goals being disallowed because someone was offside by 1cm, or there was a slight foul 5 mins before! Many players would not call something as foul play, but are “rescued” by VAR.

Why couldn’t we be like (lesser) sports and give each team, say, three reviews per game. If you are correct you keep the review, if you’re wrong you lose it. This would mean players wouldn’t claim every little thing, and allow the referees to do their jobs, without relying on VAR to check everything.

What’s happened to “clear and obvious error”? Why don’t we question what we should i.e. clear offsides that affect goals, serious foul play, etc., and let the game flow as it should (IMO)?

We now can’t celebrate good play, just in case, and wait for VAR. Yes, there will be errors, but is that not part of the game?

alderz

Imagine using all your reviews and then getting absolutely mugged on a rubbish offside call to get relegated.

ScotHammer

alderz said:

Imagine using all your reviews and then getting absolutely mugged on a rubbish offside call to get relegated.

I’d suggest the team involved shouldn’t use their earlier reviews so frivolously.

claretandbluesky

ScotHammer said:

Like many, I dislike how VAR is being used. I’m fed up with good goals being disallowed because someone was offside by 1cm, or there was a slight foul 5 mins before! Many players would not call something as foul play, but are “rescued” by VAR.

Why couldn’t we be like (lesser) sports and give each team, say, three reviews per game. If you are correct you keep the review, if you’re wrong you lose it. This would mean players wouldn’t claim every little thing, and allow the referees to do their jobs, without relying on VAR to check everything.

What’s happened to “clear and obvious error”? Why don’t we question what we should i.e. clear offsides that affect goals, serious foul play, etc., and let the game flow as it should (IMO)?

We now can’t celebrate good play, just in case, and wait for VAR. Yes, there will be errors, but is that not part of the game?

It's this 'clear offside' which is the issue ofthe trial as at present if the attacking player is beyond the last defender he is offside and we have the technology to draw lines and see who was on or offside. So the argument by some is that you should be allowed to be a little offside. I don't understand that part unless we prefer implementing a rule via one linesperson some distance away and often not in line with play rather than a technology which can get it right. I guess the argument is I still prefer the game to move quicker even if the decision is wrong and can be shown to be wrong very quickly.

alderz

ScotHammer said:

alderz said:

Imagine using all your reviews and then getting absolutely mugged on a rubbish offside call to get relegated.

I’d suggest the team involved shouldn’t use their earlier reviews so frivolously.

I don’t think it solves the problems, personally.

BubblesNeverDies

Taty had a goal disallowed earlier in the season where he was judged to be offside by a few cms. However he was moving away from the opposition goal meaning the minimal advantage was negated. I think in such circumstances VAR should take that into account.

ASLEFshrugged

Id imagine the offside part of VAR will eventually be done by AI so decisions will be a lot quicker, maybe buzzed directly to the ref the same as the ball crossing the goal line is now

Indeed, AI could be great. Imagine the players crowding around the ref trying to influence a decision…

https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1400/1*xqdikA8xTvyUsXQDO5CbVA.jpeg

Kuchinghammer

Well it's clear and obvious to me that a toe offside gives no clear and obvious advantage to the forward, so clearly and obviously play should be allowed to continue 🙄

buffybegood

Kuchinghammer said:

Well it's clear and obvious to me that a toe offside gives no clear and obvious advantage to the forward, so clearly and obviously play should be allowed to continue 🙄

But if that toe is all that just about makes contact with a ball fizzed across the 6 yard box to score, then that surely is a clear and obvious advantage to the attacker.

IronHerb

Clear and obvious does not apply to offside.

alderz

Kuchinghammer said:

Well it's clear and obvious to me that a toe offside gives no clear and obvious advantage to the forward, so clearly and obviously play should be allowed to continue 🙄

Clear and obvious is nothing to do with the offside rule, as it stands. It's onside or it's offside.

MrsGrey

This is why I can't get it n board with a shift that will allow 'a little bit offside'.

It will just add another opportunity for subjective judgements and inconsistency. i think we have enough of that sort of thing already.

Fortuneseeker

MrsG, We used to have "a little bit offside" before VAR & still do on some occasions now.

alderz

Fortuneseeker said:

MrsG, We used to have "a little bit offside" before VAR & still do on some occasions now.

Did we? Do we? I'm pretty sure it's literally offside or not...

Fortuneseeker

Apologies I am "well old enough" to remember the days when it was shown on MotD that a player was offside when viewed from a particular angle. Recently I am thinking of the Wirtz goal at Craven Cottage when for some technical reason his goal stood. Here is the explanation -

Wirtz was aided by the five centimetres of tolerance, more commonly referred to as thicker lines, which exists in the Premier League's version of SAOT.

claretandbluesky

In my view offside is offside but do we want it to be correctly applied or the best a guy with a flag at the side of the pitch can see? I will always want a correct call even if it's sometimes so disappointing to see an important goal called offside, I live with that a lot better than a great goal called offside when it wasn't or a goal against us being given when it shouldn't.

buffybegood

For me, offside is offside, and whatever the rule as to what constitutes offside is, there will always be cases where some is marginally onside or marginally offside; there has to be a line somewhere regardless of what the currently determined interpretation of the rule is.

I agree with c&bsky, and, tbh, this should be the easiest part of VAR as it's factual and not open to interpretation.

alderz

Fortuneseeker said:

Apologies I am "well old enough" to remember the days when it was shown on MotD that a player was offside when viewed from a particular angle. Recently I am thinking of the Wirtz goal at Craven Cottage when for some technical reason his goal stood. Here is the explanation -

Wirtz was aided by the five centimetres of tolerance, more commonly referred to as thicker lines, which exists in the Premier League's version of SAOT.

But that’s not “a bit offside” it’s on or offside based on the laws

Edit: and the first thing isn’t a bit offside it’s a bad decision

Kuchinghammer

Yes, I understand the 'rules are rules' brigade, and there's no avoiding var decisions. However, I was thinking more of the spirit of the law, which is usually along the lines of "if a player gains an advantage by (whatever) then (whatever) is not allowed"

ASLEFshrugged

Our away game at Newcastle on Sunday 17th May has been moved from 3pm to 5:30pm (live on Sky)

Slacker

I’ve always thought it should be that if the feet are level then the player is onside.