Patrick Bamford

For everything Leeds United related and everything not - Have your say... the Marching on Together way!
Forum rules
Please be sure you are acquainted with the forum rules outlined within our FAQs.

Help support the site by using our Amazon Affiliate link when making any purchases from Amazon.
Cjay
Superstar
Superstar
Posts: 12406
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:01 pm

Re: Patrick Bamford

Post by Cjay »

:clap:
User avatar
Smudge3920
Site Contributor
Site Contributor
Posts: 4787
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:08 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Patrick Bamford

Post by Smudge3920 »

I am so choked about this decision I cannot write about it yet ...
.
User avatar
BobHirst
First Team
First Team
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:20 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Patrick Bamford

Post by BobHirst »

Smudge3920 wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:43 am I am so choked about this decision I cannot write about it yet ...
.
The offside call via VAR is way biased in favor of the defender.
The defender is generally looking towards the ball with his hands, arms, knees, toes, head and body generally in front of him pointing away from the goal. In the case of the attacker, his hands, arms, knees, toes, head and body are generally in front of him pointing towards the goal. I think this gives the defender a big advantage over the attacker.
Since we are being so precise with the offside call I think we need a rule change.
Proposal 1. If there is 100% daylight between any part of the defender and any part of the attacker then the attacker is offside.
Proposal 2. Just compare the position of the feet in relation to the goal. If any part of the defenders foot is nearer to the goal then the attacker is not offside.
Surely a lot easier to rule on than what we currently have.
User avatar
Smudge3920
Site Contributor
Site Contributor
Posts: 4787
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:08 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Patrick Bamford

Post by Smudge3920 »

Bob it is even worse than that for me ... we need a machine to determine if he is offside it is MM's...so how the hell can the linesman see it from the otherside of the park and raise his flag?... IMO the linesmen now are being precautionary and wanting to preserve their image... they know VAR will come to their aid...if they call it offside oh what a ferkin linesman he is ... it is now gone from the absurd to the ridiculous
User avatar
1964white
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 93767
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:46 am
Twitter: @1964white

Re: Patrick Bamford

Post by 1964white »

Cjay wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:02 am
:clap:
Well said Paddy

Lets hope his comment doesn't get him in trouble with the PL/FA officials.
White Riot
Manager
Manager
Posts: 4858
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:02 pm

Re: Patrick Bamford

Post by White Riot »

Smudge3920 wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:43 am I am so choked about this decision I cannot write about it yet ...
.
Dead right mate, I'm fooking fuming, just as I was at Palace when we were fooking robbed there :evil:

Bamford, and us, have lost two goals and potentially six points because of this VAR fooking shite.

He's justified in his reaction, I hope these FA cnuts don't penalize him, as the lad is having a great season and scored two brilliant goals that have been unfairly chalked off.

As I said in another post, this is a different matter when we're sitting pretty, but imagine if we were in a relegation dogfight and those two decisions cost us our PL place after all these years fighting to get back up?

Fook the FA, refs, linespersons and especially these fooking VAR cnuts :rant:

These w**kers wouldn't be so brave if they had a packed Elland Road screaming at them :x
White Riot
Manager
Manager
Posts: 4858
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:02 pm

Re: Patrick Bamford

Post by White Riot »

1964white wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 8:19 am Well said Paddy

Lets hope his comment doesn't get him in trouble with the PL/FA officials.
If Paddy is penalized for this, Bielsa and the players should not turn up for any interviews pre and post match for the rest of the season. It's generally just a bunch of half-wits asking them stupid questions anyway and trying to provoke and antagonize Bielsa.

If we're contractually obliged to do these interviews then just turn up and say "No comment" to every question.

The FA, PL, VAR, EFL, etc are making a mockery of the beautiful game, so they can all go and fook themselves :rant:
White Riot
Manager
Manager
Posts: 4858
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:02 pm

Re: Patrick Bamford

Post by White Riot »

BobHirst wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 5:06 am The offside call via VAR is way biased in favor of the defender.
The defender is generally looking towards the ball with his hands, arms, knees, toes, head and body generally in front of him pointing away from the goal. In the case of the attacker, his hands, arms, knees, toes, head and body are generally in front of him pointing towards the goal. I think this gives the defender a big advantage over the attacker.
Since we are being so precise with the offside call I think we need a rule change.
Proposal 1. If there is 100% daylight between any part of the defender and any part of the attacker then the attacker is offside.
Proposal 2. Just compare the position of the feet in relation to the goal. If any part of the defenders foot is nearer to the goal then the attacker is not offside.
Surely a lot easier to rule on than what we currently have.
Correct Bob, if they're deciding this by a gnat's chuff then we need to have absolute clarity and your suggestions are very good.

I'm absolutely fuming about these decisions that have cost Paddy and us big style.
CHAPELALLMAN
Subs Bench
Subs Bench
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 11:57 am

Re: Patrick Bamford

Post by CHAPELALLMAN »

BobHirst wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 5:06 am The offside call via VAR is way biased in favor of the defender.
The defender is generally looking towards the ball with his hands, arms, knees, toes, head and body generally in front of him pointing away from the goal. In the case of the attacker, his hands, arms, knees, toes, head and body are generally in front of him pointing towards the goal. I think this gives the defender a big advantage over the attacker.
Since we are being so precise with the offside call I think we need a rule change.
Proposal 1. If there is 100% daylight between any part of the defender and any part of the attacker then the attacker is offside.
Proposal 2. Surely a lot easier to rule on than what we currently have.
And also not offside if the feet of defender and attacker are level. It should all be based on the position of the feet and no other part of the body - I can't believe that officials are judging based on knees, elbows, noses or even a finger pointing at where the forward wants the ball...
User avatar
Byebyegeegee
Subs Bench
Subs Bench
Posts: 709
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2020 5:14 pm
Location: God’s own county (north)

Re: Patrick Bamford

Post by Byebyegeegee »

CHAPELALLMAN wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:52 am And also not offside if the feet of defender and attacker are level. It should all be based on the position of the feet and no other part of the body - I can't believe that officials are judging based on knees, elbows, noses or even a finger pointing at where the forward wants the ball...
This!

Absolutely, if we are going by millimetres and it seems that with VAR we are, then it should only be the feet that are taken into consideration. Brilliant suggestion Bob and Chapel 👏🏻
CHAPELALLMAN
Subs Bench
Subs Bench
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 11:57 am

Re: Patrick Bamford

Post by CHAPELALLMAN »

Byebyegeegee wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 10:18 am This!

Absolutely, if we are going by millimetres and it seems that with VAR we are, then it should only be the feet that are taken into consideration. Brilliant suggestion Bob and Chapel 👏🏻
:tup:
User avatar
Lumiukko
Subs Bench
Subs Bench
Posts: 960
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2020 8:29 pm
Location: Santa Monica, USA

Re: Patrick Bamford

Post by Lumiukko »

Agree, since VAR are being so macro about this, then only feet should be taken into consideration as that truly is the starting position of the players.

Part of me likes the idea of an "umpires call" where if the lino doesn't flag, then if it is too close to judge on VAR it is given as whatever the lino said. Unfortunately, I reckon linesmen will just flag every time to let VAR take the flak. And in Bamford's case still would have been offside.
User avatar
John in Louisiana
Site Contributor
Site Contributor
Posts: 5646
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:09 pm

Re: Patrick Bamford

Post by John in Louisiana »

CHAPELALLMAN wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:52 am And also not offside if the feet of defender and attacker are level. It should all be based on the position of the feet and no other part of the body - I can't believe that officials are judging based on knees, elbows, noses or even a finger pointing at where the forward wants the ball...
Exactly.
User avatar
1964white
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 93767
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:46 am
Twitter: @1964white

Re: Patrick Bamford

Post by 1964white »

User avatar
1964white
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 93767
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:46 am
Twitter: @1964white

Re: Patrick Bamford

Post by 1964white »

What a breath of fresh air Paddy is :) an educated footballer too!

User avatar
Smudge3920
Site Contributor
Site Contributor
Posts: 4787
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:08 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Patrick Bamford

Post by Smudge3920 »

Lumiukko wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:03 pm Agree, since VAR are being so macro about this, then only feet should be taken into consideration as that truly is the starting position of the players.

Part of me likes the idea of an "umpires call" where if the lino doesn't flag, then if it is too close to judge on VAR it is given as whatever the lino said. Unfortunately, I reckon linesmen will just flag every time to let VAR take the flak. And in Bamford's case still would have been offside.
IMO that is what is happening already...linesmen flagging " just in case" as then the responsibility is taken from them.
User avatar
BobHirst
First Team
First Team
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:20 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Patrick Bamford

Post by BobHirst »

Bamford has won me over. I still think he misses too many 'good' chances to score but he makes up for it with his other play. I have watched many premier league games this season and I have been watching particularly the contributions of the various strikers. Bamford works harder than any of the other strikers and at the same time is one of the leading scorers in the league.
Well done Patrick.
We do need another one though!
User avatar
Smudge3920
Site Contributor
Site Contributor
Posts: 4787
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:08 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Patrick Bamford

Post by Smudge3920 »

User avatar
John in Louisiana
Site Contributor
Site Contributor
Posts: 5646
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:09 pm

Re: Patrick Bamford

Post by John in Louisiana »

The more I see of, and here from, Bamford, the more I like him, Smudge.
User avatar
Lumiukko
Subs Bench
Subs Bench
Posts: 960
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2020 8:29 pm
Location: Santa Monica, USA

Re: Patrick Bamford

Post by Lumiukko »

Agree. Bamford is an ideal ambassador for the club, smart, concise, doesn't take himself too seriously, seems to have his finger on the pulse, and clearly an interviewer's dream.
Post Reply