[Salopbaggie]

Offside is offside where 3 inches or 3 feet, we would have been screaming from the rafters if it had been given as a goal and our opposition had scored it.  I do question though if a linesman can call that and be sure about it.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't wash with me.  From the first codified offside rule in 1863 through to the 2005 clarification about which parts of the body are liable to be considered offside, the purpose of the laws have always concerned the *advantage* an attacker derives from his position.  That's the *spirit* of the law; a man who's three feet offside is gaining a clear and obvious advantage over the defender, which he isn't with three inches.  But sadly it's not the *letter* of the law, which is why we're in this mess: the men who drafted the rules didn't imagine that computers and laser beams would be used to enforce them to the most absurd degree imaginable, resulting in fewer goals all round.

So no, I wouldn't be screaming from the rafters if it went the other way.  And I don't think you'd find any example of me ever doing so on here for a marginal call.  Screaming at our players to defend the ball into the box better, perhaps, but as for the attacking player?  He's positioned himself well (in that his body is in line with the defender's), he's taken the chance, good for him.  I don't care where his toes were when the ball was played, because he can't realistically whip out a slide rule and measure them for himself, and it has no bearing on the outcome.  Awful, awful use of technology.

I agree with the point on the framers of the rules of the game and what they envisaged when they designed the rules, but the 'current' rules are still the rules. If you took your position and you allowed an 'spirit of the law advantage', the matter then becomes a subjective decision and a rule in any game should never be subjective if it does not have to be. Once you allow say 3" discretion, then all you have actually done is said "to be offside an attacking player must be no more than 3"ish past the last defending player". What happens when the next player is advanced a further 3" then another 3", do you then say well its only another 3". It is like saying "well the wife is only just pregnant, so we will ignore it", she is either pregnant or she isn't. I am not saying I like the rules on offside, but the rules are the rules and the answer is, if you disagree with a rule, you campaign to change it, not ignore it. My aunt did not like football and always used to say, "football would be a much more interesting game, if the players had to play with their laces tied together", maybe that is the answer .

[Stairs]

I hate the modern game mostly because of money but also because of the new rules; hand-ball, not interfering with play, offside, 11 substitutes, ball line technology and of course VAR.

I love ball line technology - its perfect, just line tennis and cricket - it can't be argued with.

The only other thing, even though I hate it, I can reluctantly accept is offside. We can change the rule on what is offside e.g. big toe, head, chest but once decided the computer draws the line and it is binary. Simple fact of offside or not. This season it is the big toe and I am fine with it - next season it could be trailing foot and I will again be fine with it.

But goals will be scored or disallowed based on fine margins all the same.

[Blue Baggie]

Is Pereira, Diangana and Grant suffering from the same sickness. Loss of form, lack of interest and just taking the easy money?
None of them are as poor as they are showing.
Or am I being over critical ?

[Ska'dForLife-WBA]

Offside is offside where 3 inches or 3 feet, we would have been screaming from the rafters if it had been given as a goal and our opposition had scored it.  I do question though if a linesman can call that and be sure about it.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't wash with me.  From the first codified offside rule in 1863 through to the 2005 clarification about which parts of the body are liable to be considered offside, the purpose of the laws have always concerned the *advantage* an attacker derives from his position.  That's the *spirit* of the law; a man who's three feet offside is gaining a clear and obvious advantage over the defender, which he isn't with three inches.  But sadly it's not the *letter* of the law, which is why we're in this mess: the men who drafted the rules didn't imagine that computers and laser beams would be used to enforce them to the most absurd degree imaginable, resulting in fewer goals all round.

So no, I wouldn't be screaming from the rafters if it went the other way.  And I don't think you'd find any example of me ever doing so on here for a marginal call.  Screaming at our players to defend the ball into the box better, perhaps, but as for the attacking player?  He's positioned himself well (in that his body is in line with the defender's), he's taken the chance, good for him.  I don't care where his toes were when the ball was played, because he can't realistically whip out a slide rule and measure them for himself, and it has no bearing on the outcome.  Awful, awful use of technology.

I agree with the point on the framers of the rules of the game and what they envisaged when they designed the rules, but the 'current' rules are still the rules.  If you took your position and you allowed an 'spirit of the law advantage', the matter then becomes a subjective decision and a rule in any game should never be subjective if it does not have to be.  Once you allow say 3" discretion, then all you have actually done is said "to be offside an attacking player must be no more than 3"ish past the last defending player". What happens when the next player is advanced a further 3" then another 3", do you then say well its only another 3".  It is like saying "well the wife is only just pregnant, so we will ignore it", she is either pregnant or she isn't.  I am not saying I like the rules on offside, but the rules are the rules and the answer is, if you disagree with a rule, you campaign to change it, not ignore it.  My aunt did not like football and always used to say, "football would be a much more interesting game, if the players had to play with their laces tied together", maybe that is the answer    .

My solution to that, of course, would simply be to remove VAR from the game altogether. Without computers fussing over literally millimetres of ground, you go back to offside being something that can be spotted by the naked eye in a split second, which means that nine times out of ten, it's a clear and obvious decision that the attacking player would be deriving an undeniable advantage from. (And yes, I'm aware that the lineman last night flagged in real time for the offside; however, I strongly suspect that since the introduction of VAR, linos are getting flag-happy because they know they've got video tech to check the decision, similar to umpires in cricket with LBW. Five years ago, I don't think that goal gets flagged with the naked eye, and most sane people up and down the country would have shrugged their shoulders at the replays suggesting his toes were "offside").

[Baggiebob(BBB)]

Maybe the answer is to keep VAR and add 3 to six inches. So Var line then 3 inch line, and all in between is ok so a goal will stand.  
Maybe too simple, like me

[Salopbaggie]

Discussed it on here and FIFA have confirmed trials next season in China of a new way of deciding offside decisions. In a nutshell, I think it involves reversing the way it is decided at present, so if any part of the attacking player is still onside, then the player is onside.

[WBA-Josh]

Unchanged team.

[Slick_Footwork]

We are definitely the better side, the side trying to play football and get at them.

But Newcastle are very athletic defensively and we don't seem to have the pace and spark to create anything with them sat in. It's easy to see their tactic, sit in and then hit us on the counter with a big boot.

Fortunately their big boots are low quality and they have no height up front, so we're able to mop it up.

I do feel this could be a game with a sting in the tail if Carroll comes on though. I just see him bossing O'Shea on their hikes forward.

So we need to score early. Which is going to be difficult when everything is breaking down with Pereira. Far too slow, ponderous and uncompetitive yet again. Surely Robbo or Snodgrass should be on in his place, they just do more all-round. You need players who are willing to graft when you're in this mess.

[Salopbaggie]

Carroll, if one of their players are going to sink us, probably killing the season it would have to be Gayle, I think though this is the first game this season when I have not been watching from 'behind the sofa'. Not brilliant by a long way, but not embarrassing either, its not unreasonable based on the first half to get something from it, though it will probably end up a draw (after we take the lead and Gayle scores in the 92nd minute) extending the agony.

[Baggie_One]

Do we have anyone that can shoot ? So many times we get into a chance of shooting and then pass it back, left or right. Poor cross. Painful