Youllneverwinaway 0 Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Few things of note on this one. As per Whistleblower last year, offside is determined if ANY part of the body is ahead of the defender so whilst it is clear from that picture Beasley is STILL onside, i think its fair to say that its closer than i thought from the many times watching it on Saturday. Secondly - It is physically impossible for a linesman to know when the ball leaves the foot of the player making the pass and then compute and compare it to where the striker is at that exact point. Thirdly - Look at the linesman in tha picture. He is looking straight across. How the hell does he know when Mendes releases that pass? Fourthly - Boyd....why was he still on that park? Finally - Thomson should be absolved from all blame as you can see from the picture he is facing the play and Beasley is behind him with a player in between. He could not under any circumstances over-rule the decision. Now to extend that into what can be done. If there was the challenge thing using video evidence, the keeper could claim he stopped when the linesman raised the flag. And we all know that if we go back to the Tims game versus St Mirren, Smith studied the video evidence and still decided he was fecking right. So in both instances, we wouldnt have benefitted from decisions being overturned Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSuedeSambas 53,917 Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Sorry mate but there is no way you can defend the linesmen. It was an awful decision. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOLUWDC 1 Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 what an easy decision to make Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmytto 220 Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Sorry mate but there is no way you can defend the linesmen. It was an awful decision. Terrible decision. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youllneverwinaway 0 Posted August 25, 2008 Author Share Posted August 25, 2008 Just to be clear guys, when im saying how can he tell, im alluding to that he should be at least looking a little to the side in order to aid himself. Clearly from the picture he is only looking along the line. Not absolving him from the blame. Just puting some perspective on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1690 Posts 71 Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Few things of note on this one. As per Whistleblower last year, offside is determined if ANY part of the body is ahead of the defender so whilst it is clear from that picture Beasley is STILL onside, i think its fair to say that its closer than i thought from the many times watching it on Saturday. Secondly - It is physically impossible for a linesman to know when the ball leaves the foot of the player making the pass and then compute and compare it to where the striker is at that exact point. Thirdly - Look at the linesman in tha picture. He is looking straight across. How the hell does he know when Mendes releases that pass? Fourthly - Boyd....why was he still on that park? Finally - Thomson should be absolved from all blame as you can see from the picture he is facing the play and Beasley is behind him with a player in between. He could not under any circumstances over-rule the decision. Now to extend that into what can be done. If there was the challenge thing using video evidence, the keeper could claim he stopped when the linesman raised the flag. And we all know that if we go back to the Tims game versus St Mirren, Smith studied the video evidence and still decided he was fecking right. So in both instances, we wouldnt have benefitted from decisions being overturned It will look closer to the linesman because he's in a bad position to judge Beasleys position relative to the defender. But you just have to take a look at the big, white 18 yard line as a ready made guide. Edit, it's not 'any part of the body' it's any part bar the hands and arms since outfield players can't use them! Boyd? Useless. He must see he's in an offside position and move accordingly. As to where he's looking, did you know eyes can move in their sockets?!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOLUWDC 1 Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 it wasn't a difficult decision at all Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youllneverwinaway 0 Posted August 25, 2008 Author Share Posted August 25, 2008 Few things of note on this one. As per Whistleblower last year, offside is determined if ANY part of the body is ahead of the defender so whilst it is clear from that picture Beasley is STILL onside, i think its fair to say that its closer than i thought from the many times watching it on Saturday. Secondly - It is physically impossible for a linesman to know when the ball leaves the foot of the player making the pass and then compute and compare it to where the striker is at that exact point. Thirdly - Look at the linesman in tha picture. He is looking straight across. How the hell does he know when Mendes releases that pass? Fourthly - Boyd....why was he still on that park? Finally - Thomson should be absolved from all blame as you can see from the picture he is facing the play and Beasley is behind him with a player in between. He could not under any circumstances over-rule the decision. Now to extend that into what can be done. If there was the challenge thing using video evidence, the keeper could claim he stopped when the linesman raised the flag. And we all know that if we go back to the Tims game versus St Mirren, Smith studied the video evidence and still decided he was fecking right. So in both instances, we wouldnt have benefitted from decisions being overturned It will look closer to the linesman because he's in a bad position to judge Beasleys position relative to the defender. But you just have to take a look at the big, white 18 yard line as a ready made guide. Edit, it's not 'any part of the body' it's any part bar the hands and arms since outfield players can't use them! Boyd? Useless. He must see he's in an offside position and move accordingly. As to where he's looking, did you know eyes can move in their sockets?!! He would have to have action man eyes to see Mendes from the direction he is facing. and the right eye would have to be broken for him to keep his eye on the line as well Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rankin1873 69 Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Let's be clear on this one, it was the LINESMANs mistake. The ref asked him twice are you sure and he said yep. Then after the match he said are you sure once again, the linesman said yep. Then Walter said that it was onside and the referee was raging at the linesman. I know this cause my PE teacher is mates with the referee, canny mind his name though:\ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1690 Posts 71 Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Few things of note on this one. As per Whistleblower last year, offside is determined if ANY part of the body is ahead of the defender so whilst it is clear from that picture Beasley is STILL onside, i think its fair to say that its closer than i thought from the many times watching it on Saturday. Secondly - It is physically impossible for a linesman to know when the ball leaves the foot of the player making the pass and then compute and compare it to where the striker is at that exact point. Thirdly - Look at the linesman in tha picture. He is looking straight across. How the hell does he know when Mendes releases that pass? Fourthly - Boyd....why was he still on that park? Finally - Thomson should be absolved from all blame as you can see from the picture he is facing the play and Beasley is behind him with a player in between. He could not under any circumstances over-rule the decision. Now to extend that into what can be done. If there was the challenge thing using video evidence, the keeper could claim he stopped when the linesman raised the flag. And we all know that if we go back to the Tims game versus St Mirren, Smith studied the video evidence and still decided he was fecking right. So in both instances, we wouldnt have benefitted from decisions being overturned It will look closer to the linesman because he's in a bad position to judge Beasleys position relative to the defender. But you just have to take a look at the big, white 18 yard line as a ready made guide. Edit, it's not 'any part of the body' it's any part bar the hands and arms since outfield players can't use them! Boyd? Useless. He must see he's in an offside position and move accordingly. As to where he's looking, did you know eyes can move in their sockets?!! He would have to have action man eyes to see Mendes from the direction he is facing. and the right eye would have to be broken for him to keep his eye on the line as well He needs to keep looking between the furthest forward players, keeping his position in line with the last defender imo, and whoever has the ball otherwise he isn't doing his job properly. That's one of the linesmans main jobs after all, calling for offsides. He's positioned himself in line with Boyd which is wrong imo as it's the last defenders position that's vital in where offsides happen. Also, standing in line with Boyd, Beasley looks like he's in line with the sheep defender whereas if the linesman was in line with the sheep, it would be easy to see Beasley was onside. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFC999 0 Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Billy Baxter :gallows: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davy1shoe 63 Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Boyd should have been onside was annoying as this shoulsdnt be happening. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clarkie 43 Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Sorry, off subject, but who's the bouncy in your sig Youllneverwinaway? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J_RFC87 761 Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Andrew Considine put his hand above his head right away, as soon as Mendes hit the ball. He must have eyes on the back of his head yea? Pity he plays like he hasn't got any in the front of his head. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon. 7 Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Its not even a close decision, there is daylight ffs! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukestreetsoup 69 Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Few things of note on this one. As per Whistleblower last year, offside is determined if ANY part of the body is ahead of the defender so whilst it is clear from that picture Beasley is STILL onside, i think its fair to say that its closer than i thought from the many times watching it on Saturday. Secondly - It is physically impossible for a linesman to know when the ball leaves the foot of the player making the pass and then compute and compare it to where the striker is at that exact point. Thirdly - Look at the linesman in tha picture. He is looking straight across. How the hell does he know when Mendes releases that pass? Fourthly - Boyd....why was he still on that park? Finally - Thomson should be absolved from all blame as you can see from the picture he is facing the play and Beasley is behind him with a player in between. He could not under any circumstances over-rule the decision. Now to extend that into what can be done. If there was the challenge thing using video evidence, the keeper could claim he stopped when the linesman raised the flag. And we all know that if we go back to the Tims game versus St Mirren, Smith studied the video evidence and still decided he was fecking right. So in both instances, we wouldnt have benefitted from decisions being overturned Have you ever played football before youself? One of the most basic things you learn is 'Play Til The Whistle'. Awful decision. Cannot be justified in any way, and the man should never lineman above 3rd division again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youllneverwinaway 0 Posted August 25, 2008 Author Share Posted August 25, 2008 Few things of note on this one. As per Whistleblower last year, offside is determined if ANY part of the body is ahead of the defender so whilst it is clear from that picture Beasley is STILL onside, i think its fair to say that its closer than i thought from the many times watching it on Saturday. Secondly - It is physically impossible for a linesman to know when the ball leaves the foot of the player making the pass and then compute and compare it to where the striker is at that exact point. Thirdly - Look at the linesman in tha picture. He is looking straight across. How the hell does he know when Mendes releases that pass? Fourthly - Boyd....why was he still on that park? Finally - Thomson should be absolved from all blame as you can see from the picture he is facing the play and Beasley is behind him with a player in between. He could not under any circumstances over-rule the decision. Now to extend that into what can be done. If there was the challenge thing using video evidence, the keeper could claim he stopped when the linesman raised the flag. And we all know that if we go back to the Tims game versus St Mirren, Smith studied the video evidence and still decided he was fecking right. So in both instances, we wouldnt have benefitted from decisions being overturned Have you ever played football before youself? One of the most basic things you learn is 'Play Til The Whistle'. Awful decision. Cannot be justified in any way, and the man should never lineman above 3rd division again. Yeah i have. I agree about "play to the whistle" and Im unaware if the ref blew up prior to the ball hitting the net. If he didnt in this case then fair enough but i would then site Diamonds at the Piggery last year. The goal still wouldnt have stood, video evidence or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukestreetsoup 69 Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Few things of note on this one. As per Whistleblower last year, offside is determined if ANY part of the body is ahead of the defender so whilst it is clear from that picture Beasley is STILL onside, i think its fair to say that its closer than i thought from the many times watching it on Saturday. Secondly - It is physically impossible for a linesman to know when the ball leaves the foot of the player making the pass and then compute and compare it to where the striker is at that exact point. Thirdly - Look at the linesman in tha picture. He is looking straight across. How the hell does he know when Mendes releases that pass? Fourthly - Boyd....why was he still on that park? Finally - Thomson should be absolved from all blame as you can see from the picture he is facing the play and Beasley is behind him with a player in between. He could not under any circumstances over-rule the decision. Now to extend that into what can be done. If there was the challenge thing using video evidence, the keeper could claim he stopped when the linesman raised the flag. And we all know that if we go back to the Tims game versus St Mirren, Smith studied the video evidence and still decided he was fecking right. So in both instances, we wouldnt have benefitted from decisions being overturned Around 18 Metres away, give or take a metre. Easily close enough to hear the pass made. Sound travels at 340 meters per second so 0.058 seconds for the sound to travel 18 metres. Sound of the pass is in the official referee guidelines to help indication of a player being offside. edit - my measurements were a bit out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
whytes3 254 Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 The taig linesman should be hung for his dcision - wnaker Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stardog 11 Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Ludicrous decision. Although if fatty Boyd wasn't standing in no man's land it would've been a goal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy 68 Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 We can't make excuses for the officials. It was an appalling decision. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the goal machine 7,806 Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Ludicrous decision. Although if fatty Boyd wasn't standing in no man's land it would've been a goal. If the linesman knew the rules it would've been a goal. Just because you hate Boyd Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmytto 220 Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Ludicrous decision. Although if fatty Boyd wasn't standing in no man's land it would've been a goal. If the linesman knew the rules it would've been a goal. Just because you hate Boyd Pfft... The linesman was probably a tim, would you expect anything more? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlippinEck 3,708 Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 omfg, its all boyds fault Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae 15,287 Posted August 26, 2008 Share Posted August 26, 2008 He even has the 18 yard line to help him Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts