Cybereagles

Yes Bein sports has shown that the goal was indeed offside by a tiny fraction. I suspected such myself.

Is VAR really a good thing ?

Football is about the passion and great goals. Such a wonderful strike would have been cancelled by VAR.

I prefer when they said if the players are about even, give advantage to the attacker.

Are we really going to get scientific and measure by the millimeter who is on and offside.

I think technology is killing the sport personally. We dont need nitpicking every decision with scientific accuracy.

It kinda looked offside to me as well but I couldn't be sure. That's why he had enough time to switch to his right leg cos usually you strike that one time with your left.

Please post the pic of where exactly he was offside. I've watched a clip of the goal several times and I can't see how he is offside. The goal is at 8:00.

vancity eagle wrote:Yes Bein sports has shown that the goal was indeed offside by a tiny fraction. I suspected such myself.

Is VAR really a good thing ?

Football is about the passion and great goals. Such a wonderful strike would have been cancelled by VAR.

I prefer when they said if the players are about even, give advantage to the attacker.

Are we really going to get scientific and measure by the millimeter who is on and offside.

I think technology is killing the sport personally. We dont need nitpicking every decision with scientific accuracy.

If you are referring to the goal today, he was not offside.

balo wrote: If you are referring to the goal today, he was not offside.

Freeze it at 0:07 (the moment the ball was hit by Aina)...

Gotti wrote:

balo wrote: If you are referring to the goal today, he was not offside.

Freeze it at 0:07 (the moment the ball was hit by Aina)...

Super slim margins, Counsel.

The general spirit of the offside rule before robotic VAR attendants killed the game was if it appears even, give the benefit of the doubt to the offensive player in the interest of rewarding teams for taking risks (attacking).

green4life wrote:

Gotti wrote:

balo wrote: If you are referring to the goal today, he was not offside.

Freeze it at 0:07 (the moment the ball was hit by Aina)...

Super slim margins, Counsel.

The general spirit of the offside rule before robotic VAR attendants killed the game was if it appears even, give the benefit of the doubt to the offensive player in the interest of rewarding teams for taking risks (attacking).

Yes and I agree this is how it should be

BUT

If we had VAR, the goal would not have stood.

I am telling people we will all soon rue the frankestein monster that we created in demanding VAR.

vancity eagle wrote:

green4life wrote:

Gotti wrote:

balo wrote: If you are referring to the goal today, he was not offside.

Freeze it at 0:07 (the moment the ball was hit by Aina)...

Super slim margins, Counsel.

The general spirit of the offside rule before robotic VAR attendants killed the game was if it appears even, give the benefit of the doubt to the offensive player in the interest of rewarding teams for taking risks (attacking).

Yes and I agree this is how it should be

BUT

If we had VAR, the goal would not have stood.

I am telling people we will all soon rue the frankestein monster that we created in demanding VAR.

I thought so too at the time but we’ll take it, quarters and up will be another story...

DIMKA76 wrote:

Thank you jare. A picture is worth more than a thousand words.

No, he was not..a Burundi player to his right kept onside.

All I can say is Aina is a very wicked boy. He obviously learned a few, very useful tricks in Italy.

If it is marginal, advantage goes to striker.

DIMKA76 wrote: All I can say is Aina is a very wicked boy. He obviously learned a few, very useful tricks in Italy.

Aina’s overall performance was great and I think he should stay at LB when Ebuehi returns to RB.

Ighalo looks level with the defender in the middle. Even if he was marginally ahead the margin is too small to call it a definitive offside.

When we were denied two clear goals against South Africa I didn't see anyone posting pictures here to show that the goals were onside.

I think the off-side rule looks at the torso, head and not strictly the limbs.

It was. I called it out in the game thread.
Burundi was robbed

ohenhen1 wrote:If it is marginal, advantage goes to striker.

until VAR

He’s not offside in that pic

balo wrote:

DIMKA76 wrote:

Thank you jare. A picture is worth more than a thousand words.

JUST LIKE I SAW IT DURING THE MATCH...


...Ighalo was never ahead of the Burundi player. I watched him when he took off on his run and received the pass. The replay pasted here proves as much: One Burundian was slightly ahead of Ighalo. This is not a case of "if they are parallel..."
Bell

STILL, I'D SAY...


...get rid of the VAR and let's live with the occasional "marginal" errors. Soccer doesn't need it. It would ruin the game. It's not even perfect because there's still subjectivity in it and, like we witnessed in the women's WC, "small" countries could be victimized. The goal line replay is alright because it's quick but if they want to get rid of that too, it's ok with me.
Bell

Orion wrote:Ighalo looks level with the defender in the middle. Even if he was marginally ahead the margin is too small to call it a definitive offside.

When we were denied two clear goals against South Africa I didn't see anyone posting pictures here to show that the goals were onside.

Don't mind them - jor! They always look for a way to bring-down themselves. We scored a goal and won. Offside or not, I have taken it and that's it

Rawlings wrote:It was. I called it out in the game thread.
Burundi was robbed

I can't wait for Cameroon and Kenya to run a gangbang on the Waakye stars of Ghana, you will as usual disappear into only God knows where again