80

I assume it's only playing parts of your body, but aye, someone like Isak just needs to stick a leg out.

We don't play a high line as an offside trap, you're right, but a rule change as extreme as the example I posted would raise the risk and pain of getting your calculations wrong so high that it wouldn't be tolerable anymore. Get it wrong under the current rules and you've got a solid chance of recovering, which makes the risk acceptable. I agree the example you've given there created by the current VAR-enforced rules is appalling, but I don't agree that either extreme is in keeping with the spirit of the original law. And I don't think the VAR issue can be dismissed. Offside as an idea was there to keep competitive tension in the game and prevent it being purely run by quarterbacks hoofing it from one end of the pitch to the other. It was done by the eye and it didn't really matter whether one instance was precisely the right decision or not either (so long as the referees were impartial) as the risk of the decision going against you, whether you were attacking or defending, was enough to generally keep players honest. In de facto terms, offside used to mean 'does it look fair?'. It didn't really matter too much whether it was a nose or an arse past a defender, so long as it felt about right and kept the game fun. Which let tweaks like the 90s daylight rule be introduced. The newly suggested daylight rule in the world of VAR is way more extreme than the old version, though. Combine it with 'not interfering with play' and it's a recipe for disaster. I keep saying it as a joke, but I'm serious - if you want to choose the right body part to judge offside with, go with the perineum. It lets feet, heads and chests cause no problem, but doesn't put defenders at a game changing disadvantage.

The bottom two characters - I'm struggling to see if the man in red is playing the woman in blue onside when they're frozen still, nevermind if they were in full motion. Obviously, no defence could risk a situation like that happening so in real life they'd just keep the attacker half a yard in front of them at all times. There'll be a lot more battling so it'd probably fuck Isak's career

And conversely, attackers 'not affecting play'. Total horseshit.

People are driving themselves mad in here. Watch the games play, shout your lungs out to help get the right result. That's all that really matters. Stattos still think we're significantly more likely to qualify than Chelsea, Forest and Villa, and we only need to beat two of them.

Wow that's classless.

I like the thinking, although we'd be lacking a lot of physicality in the centre if so. He's never going to be the tallest or quickest. He's more of a Bruno stand in, in fact.

Haven't watched this, but saw an interview with him a couple of years ago which was very similar. Said the same things about us being relegated soon after etc. etc. Dunno if it's dementia or he's told the same self comforting lies so many times he actually appears to believe them.

And all of this too.

Exactly.

I feel like he's got something big in him for the end of this season. I thought today might be the day. But I'm surprised at what people have said here, I didn't think he was very good at all. More in keeping with his early season form - as were most of the team.

Hopefully just a blip!

Haven't seen anyone questioning Eddie, but that's because I haven't been looking. Crazy if people are getting that upset by today's result. It's a pity, but we're a very good team with clearly the best manager out of the remaining 3 opponents we have and a huge amount still to play for - we're 1/4 on with the bookies still apparently. This is strictly not the time to panic.

I think it was a confused attempt to be best friends with both clubs. Probably causing more harm than good for himself though.