Playing devil's advocate here ... can we be 100% sure that the line is at a precise 90 degrees? If not did VAR confirm the basis for it's decision?jamesedwards wrote: ↑Sun Jan 04, 2026 4:40 pmThat onside VAR decision just then proves beyond doubt that the offside detection system is flawed.
No dangling body parts, no variance in height, no possibility of deceptive angle playing tricks.
Just one foot planted on the floor vs another, with the added benefit of a clear natural line for comparison.
A clear 6 inches offside, yet goal given. Irrefutable proof that it's not fit for purpose.
As for a flawed system ... was it one of the new 'automatic' decisions or a human interpreting the picture ... if the latter it's not the system it's the human that's flawed (subject to my first point). But I understand your doubt James and you are right to question it. Frankly I prefer Cricket's use of it's version of VAR (unless it's in Australia!) ... it must be a clear and obvious error. There is no way that photo shows a clear and obvious error.
