I am guessing it’s because the player on the floor manages to get a touch and Bowen jumps over the ball. Not a clear and obvious error I guess they deem it as?
Im just guessing, as the OP said it would be great to hear what VAR was actually saying on it. Regardless I disagree with the call
But surely whether or not a player is interfering with play could come under C and O? I can understand sorta why offside itself can’t be C and O, it’s a factual thing. But whether they interfere is a subjective call. I’m just trying to understand how VAR could come to that conclusionoffside does not conform to the clear obvious criteria.....
it gets checked for on or offside and regardless.
fouls etc come under clear obvious etc, offside does not
But surely whether or not a player is interfering with play could come under C and O? I can understand sorta why offside itself can’t be C and O, it’s a factual thing. But whether they interfere is a subjective call. I’m just trying to understand how VAR could come to that conclusion
Don't think so, offside is more factual. OK, there is some subjectivity in it but all they had to decide is did Bowen attempt to play the ball and in doing so impacted on an opponent. If you are stood in front of the keeper with your feet being where his hands want to be you can only be impacting him.But surely whether or not a player is interfering with play could come under C and O? I can understand sorta why offside itself can’t be C and O, it’s a factual thing. But whether they interfere is a subjective call. I’m just trying to understand how VAR could come to that conclusion
"Interesting" for the majority of refs next match at the dog and duck.not seen it but from the still, and the other posts, it does look , interesting
"Interesting" for the majority of refs next match at the dog and duck.
Not interesting for PL officials.
If PL want to "deviate", then they should have to explain why.
The still image isn't conclusive that Bowen doesn't touch the ball there. The build up does it come off Leeds defender to go through to that position?
Okay..... only if he is offside. From which point is he offside?the image shows interfering with an opponent.....glk..
The offside law does not say anything about "touching the ball". It does say that interfering with an opponent or seeking to gain an advantage while in an offside position is offside.The still image isn't conclusive that Bowen doesn't touch the ball there. The build up does it come off Leeds defender to go through to that position?
"abundantly clear". How does a still shot from the opposite side of Bowen not show he might have touched the ball before the other attacker?The offside law does not say anything about "touching the ball". It does say that interfering with an opponent or seeking to gain an advantage while in an offside position is offside.
If the player is in an offside position when the play occurs, that still shot makes it abundantly clear that he's interfering with the keeper. Admittedly, this is a match I haven't watched with so many other games going on today, but I'd really like to hear the thought process determining that this was not an offside offense.