“Robbed of a point” – Leeds star Patrick Bamford risks a potential ban as he tweets his outrage over disallowed goal vs Wolves

Posted by

We have seen the occasional example of VAR working well and helping a ref reach the correct decision, but it really does feel like it’s caused more problems than it solved.

When it was introduced it was meant to prevent clear and obvious errors from happening – Think of an incident like Zidane’s headbutt in the World Cup Final if that was missed, rather than drawing lines on a screen to arrive at some questionable offside calls.

Leeds saw the prefect example of this tonight as Patrick Bamford saw a late equaliser chalked off for offside against Wolves, and the images that were used don’t really seem to clear anything up.

In many ways you can understand the process that led to the decision standing because the linesman initially flagged for offside, but the replays and stills are too close to call so it can’t fall under the “clear and obvious” category to have it overturned.

The problem here is the images don’t seem capable of identifying the exact frame when the ball is played forward, while the lines are drawn at a different angle to the play so they don’t get to view the incident right along the line.

Bamford is obviously furious about this after the game, but you have to fear he might face some repercussions for this tweet:

The problem for Bamford is the FA would much rather silence criticism rather than dealing with the actual problem, so expect some kind of charge for “bringing the game into disrepute” to follow in the next few days

More Stories Patrick Bamford


  1. Use the feet to decide offside, Bamford’s feet are clearly onside. The goal, like at Crystal Palace is disallowed for anticipation, which used to be rewarded.

    1. Clear and obvious is only for penalties, for offsides its there to be reviewed, if its offside or onside only VAR will decide not the referee or linesman

    1. Ryan I,m a wolves fan – we,ve had bad var decisions also – for me it,s a goal – what a strike – var in the coming years will be no different than referees making a mistake – so what,s the difference – see you guys next season…

  2. Most of Bamford’s body is offside. Just take it on the chin as we do – Leeds are not the only side to lose out to a marginal decision.

  3. It’s about what part of the body is offside. Bamford hand can’t score a goal. The defender’s foot is in play. It’s not offside. We either have to make the rule about feet or the chest, it’s utter nonsense to give offside when the hand is further forward than the rest of the body.

  4. He was flagged offside before VAR even got involved. In this case VAR actually gave him a chance of being onside rather than the other way round.

    I thought Bamford was supposed to be intelligent?

    Wolves have had plenty of tight offside calls or just general VAR decisions go against them that don’t get analysed to this degree afterwards. But because the media fawn over Leeds and their defensively dreadful running around at a million miles an hour style we have to hear about it over and over.

  5. Offside is offside – the Palace decision was right due to a stupid (t shirt) rule that needs changing. My problem with wolves decision is even if decision correct we have never seen a shot that confirms it – picture looks like defenders foot playing onside by a lot – if its not, surely not beyond wit of var to show angle that proves the point beyond argument even if cms in it. moot point because cooper et al should have made own goal irrelevant anyway.

  6. Offside is not covered by the “clear and obvious” rules. Offside is binary, it is or it isn’t offside. Bamford was offside. Clear and obvious is only used for subjective decisions, offside is a factual decision.

    The “problem” in this article is not the FA silencing criticism, rather it is the article misrepresenting the situation.

Comments are closed