Eakin's_teaboy
Member
So, we've seen people saying that they deliberately manipulated which frame they used and painted the line over Wan-Bissaka's toe in order to get the outcome that they wanted.
Well the thing is, the line shouldn't even have been painted from his toe.
The laws are clearly stated here in this pdf: https://www.thefa.com/-/media/files...aws-of-the-game/2023-24/law-11---offside.ashx
(also see Law 11 - Offside )
They appear to have taken the pdf down now, but from memory it basically states that the head, body and foot is what is considered in offside calls and that the "body" is considered as starting at the armpit area (therefore, the shoulder).
Basically, Wan-Bissaka's torso / shoulder is closer to the goal than his foot and is categorically playing Wright onside.
I have drafted up some diagrams from two separate views in order to demonstrate.
(If they don't work, see here:
For my own scrutiny, the pink lines are drawn based on parallel line mowing patterns on the pitch. These converge to give the vanishing point of the image. The blue lines are based on both the mowing of the grass and also the pitch markings, which are then lined up with the standing foot of Wan-Bissaka. A line is then drawn at normals to this line up to the shoulder in order to give the position on the pitch that correlates to where the defender is considered to "be" regarding the offside laws.
From this point on the pitch, a line is then drawn between it and the vanishing point in order to make a parallel line straight across the pitch at the position of the defender. As you can see, Wright is clearly behind this line in both images.
Even if you somehow doubt my images, you can clearly see from the FA's own images that the call was marginal in terms of using both player's feet, and yet they should not have been using Wan-Bissaka's foot, as his torso and shoulder were actually closer to the goal.
It was very telling how they normally deliberate on VAR calls for a very long period of time whereas with ours it was a quick decision to make sure they were not overly scrutinised. Notice how the pundits were very quick to say it is the correct call and sweep it under the rug too. They are trying to spin it that it is the rule that is wrong and needs changing rather than there is foul play at work here.
We should not let this go and need to make as many people aware of this as possible. It has been obvious that the game has been corrupt for years, but with VAR it just gives them more leverage to come to the decisions that they want to.
Well the thing is, the line shouldn't even have been painted from his toe.
The laws are clearly stated here in this pdf: https://www.thefa.com/-/media/files...aws-of-the-game/2023-24/law-11---offside.ashx
(also see Law 11 - Offside )
They appear to have taken the pdf down now, but from memory it basically states that the head, body and foot is what is considered in offside calls and that the "body" is considered as starting at the armpit area (therefore, the shoulder).
Basically, Wan-Bissaka's torso / shoulder is closer to the goal than his foot and is categorically playing Wright onside.
I have drafted up some diagrams from two separate views in order to demonstrate.
(If they don't work, see here:
For my own scrutiny, the pink lines are drawn based on parallel line mowing patterns on the pitch. These converge to give the vanishing point of the image. The blue lines are based on both the mowing of the grass and also the pitch markings, which are then lined up with the standing foot of Wan-Bissaka. A line is then drawn at normals to this line up to the shoulder in order to give the position on the pitch that correlates to where the defender is considered to "be" regarding the offside laws.
From this point on the pitch, a line is then drawn between it and the vanishing point in order to make a parallel line straight across the pitch at the position of the defender. As you can see, Wright is clearly behind this line in both images.
Even if you somehow doubt my images, you can clearly see from the FA's own images that the call was marginal in terms of using both player's feet, and yet they should not have been using Wan-Bissaka's foot, as his torso and shoulder were actually closer to the goal.
It was very telling how they normally deliberate on VAR calls for a very long period of time whereas with ours it was a quick decision to make sure they were not overly scrutinised. Notice how the pundits were very quick to say it is the correct call and sweep it under the rug too. They are trying to spin it that it is the rule that is wrong and needs changing rather than there is foul play at work here.
We should not let this go and need to make as many people aware of this as possible. It has been obvious that the game has been corrupt for years, but with VAR it just gives them more leverage to come to the decisions that they want to.