Search results

I don't think clear daylight is fair as that is a massive advantage to the attacker. My view would be that it should be the feet that determine offside.

Surely the edge of your shoulder is further than your armpit? That is, if the ball hits the outside of your shoulder then that's another arms width further than your armpit.

That's because it's only a projection by the umpire or Hawkeye as to whether the ball will go on to hit the stumps. If they stop the film at the moment the ball is still in contact with the player passing, it's not subjective whether someone is on or off. Granted they need to stop it at the...

I've had a look at some of the still photos and am inclined to agree. It is bizarre that with high definition cameras, they can't get a better still shot!

Why was it ludicrous? I haven't seen any evidence suggesting that he was actually onside or that the lines were drawn in the wrong place. Frustrating as it was, it wasn't a ludicrous decision.

They just need 8 fixed cameras covering the lines from each end.

As Sussex Guy said, VAR has highlighted the inadequacies of the current crop of refs (and some recently retired). I think part of the problem is that for too long the ref on the pitch was the sole arbiter of what was or wasn't a foul. Now, they can make a decision and rather than seeing that...

Sorry but I disagree. Offside shouldn't be subjective, either you're off or you're on. They could change the law to say the lines are only drawn at the feet rather than a part of the body that you can legitimately score with but that would need IFAB to do that. If it becomes subjective as you...