https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cvgrx8ml7m0o
And CHelsea have 3 in thier favour and none against
Am I misreading, or is that article trying to suggest we only had one bad decision from VAR this season!? Then suggests our net position being worse off by 4. Not sure how to treat the article looking at that.
Don't understand the list when some penalty decisions were given or not given count as VAR errors and some don't. However you will see we have had the most errors of -4.
The BBC are the truth. Do not question their facts.
The BBC is Ministry of Truth (Minitrue)
I assume it's based only on those VAR decisions that have been formally acknowledged and apologies given?
This is for the first half of the season but even then there's been more than one bad decision. Maybe, these are the mistakes that PGMOL have admitted to. Our true position in that table is a lot worse.
Quote from: FFC1987 on January 13, 2026, 12:05:30 PMAm I misreading, or is that article trying to suggest we only had one bad decision from VAR this season!? Then suggests our net position being worse off by 4. Not sure how to treat the article looking at that.
No it suggests we've been the worst off from VAR decisions, but the major ones that all got an individual breakdown are the ones where there was both a refereeing and VAR error. We've also got a callout in the next section which was the Bassey foul when United scored against us, which they admit the ref should've ruled out, and as a result wouldn't have had a VAR intervention/review if it had've been.
Quote from: sunburywhite on January 13, 2026, 01:16:11 PMThe BBC is Ministry of Truth (Minitrue)
They're just reporting what the Premier League has reported as being wrong. They're not claiming authority, so you might want to redirect your ire towards the relevant party here...
Quote from: demeant0r on January 13, 2026, 01:40:49 PMMaybe, these are the mistakes that PGMOL have admitted to. Our true position in that table is a lot worse.
It's mistakes that the Key Match Incidents Panel (which is a 5-man group that includes former footballers and meets every week) has identified. The purpose of the panel is to take the identification of errors out of the hands of the PGMOL.
What it isn't is a list of errors according to supporters who, perhaps, are not always as knowledgeable or as unbiased as we believe ourselves to be.
Something that stands out to me that illustrates the difficulty in assessing subjective infringements such as fouls and handball shouts is that in only 3 of the 13 mistakes the KMI Panel identified was it unanimous in a 5-0 vote that VAR had erred (of which Josh King's disallowed goal at Chelsea was one of those three).
Quote from: sunburywhite on January 13, 2026, 01:16:11 PMThe BBC is Ministry of Truth (Minitrue)
This has nothing to do with the BBC's interpretation of truth, they are reporting the Prem's list, so nothing to do with how truthful or accurate they are.
Quote from: _Putney_ on January 13, 2026, 12:32:00 PMThe BBC are the truth. Do not question their facts.
Well that's rather silly since it's not the Beeb's facts that are there to be questioned.
Does this include the Wirtz offside (5cm and all that)?
Quote from: FFC1987 on January 13, 2026, 12:05:30 PMAm I misreading, or is that article trying to suggest we only had one bad decision from VAR this season!? Then suggests our net position being worse off by 4. Not sure how to treat the article looking at that.
I think it's not being position wise worse off by four, but we've had 4 incidents go against us which have resulted in unfavourable decisions for us - so we've lost 4 goals from four bad VAR decisions - which from my understanding is them saying we're the worst off out of all the PL clubs for decisions that have gone against us
It also goes on to suggest that we had a further two cases - Bassey being pushed in the lead up to a Man Utd goal, and not having Andersen sent off vs Palace which were additional VAR worthy interventions that weren't made
Quote from: General on January 13, 2026, 03:30:47 PMQuote from: FFC1987 on January 13, 2026, 12:05:30 PMAm I misreading, or is that article trying to suggest we only had one bad decision from VAR this season!? Then suggests our net position being worse off by 4. Not sure how to treat the article looking at that.
I think it's not being position wise worse off by four, but we've had 4 incidents go against us which have resulted in unfavourable decisions for us - so we've lost 4 goals from four bad VAR decisions - which from my understanding is them saying we're the worst off out of all the PL clubs for decisions that have gone against us
It also goes on to suggest that we had a further two cases - Bassey being pushed in the lead up to a Man Utd goal, and not having Andersen sent off vs Palace which were additional VAR worthy interventions that weren't made
I agree the table takes a bit of working out - in part, I suspect, because it's not familiar to us.
What it does not indicate, however, is that the KMI panel have identified 4 incorrect decisions, each of which has resulted in a goal either being wrongly taken away from us or wrongly awarded against us.
It does show we have had four more VAR decisions go against us than in our favour and that, overall, we've been disadvantaged by 4 goals - either goals for us that VAR ruled out, or goals we conceded due to the intervention of VAR. (Of these, the Key Match-Incidents Panel have identified only one instance of VAR intervening incorrectly to change an on-field decision: Josh King at Chelsea.)
It also tells us 2 penalties have been awarded against us after VAR has sent the referee to the monitor. (If converted, these are not an addition to our 4-goal deficit; they are part of it.)
How many times VAR has intervened in our matches cannot be determined from the table.
The 2 additional incidents - one of which would have gone in our favour and the other against us - indicate the KMI Panel deemed the referee to have made a mistake which, nonetheless, did not meet the 'clear and obvious' marker to merit the involvement of VAR.
I presume the statistics are accurate; I certainly wouldn't trust myself to recall every instance VAR has seen fit to change an on-field decision this season.
(https://i.ibb.co/WW30qpCQ/01.jpg)
Aston Villa away we had 2 pens turned down Cash's handball and Kings pen
Kings goal v Chelsea
ESR v Palace (if we are going off the 5cm rule)
I don't even know anymore with VAR
3 penalty appeals vs Brighton
Josh King goal vs Chelsea
Cash handball vs Villa
Muniz og vs Man utd
Offside goal vs Liverpool
Muniz goal vs Brentford
Penalty vs Chelsea
The last two didn't cost us any points.
Quote from: fulhamfever on January 13, 2026, 10:27:21 PMAston Villa away we had 2 pens turned down Cash's handball and Kings pen
ESR v Palace (if we are going off the 5cm rule)
The two penalties were turned down by the referee. The Key Match-Incidents Panel considered neither decision to be a mistake. As such, VAR had no need to intervene and, therefore, neither incident is included in the data.
The article published on the BBC website has no mention of VAR making errors in determining whether a player is offside. Again, as such, the goal chalked off in the Palace game is not recorded in the table.
What the article shows is that Chelsea have benefitted from errors more than any other club - followed by Newcastle.
No club stands out as having suffered more than any other, although Manchester United (big club) are the only team to have two more VAR errors go against them than in their favour. Overall, perhaps, Brentford can lay claim to being most unfortunate: they have also had two VAR mistakes go against them - but offset by one in their favour. Alongside this, however, they've been disadvantaged by four refereeing errors that didn't meet the threshold for VAR intervention with only one similar mistake going their way.
If there were no VAR and football relied solely upon the match officials, according to the data, Manchester United and Crystal Palace would be able to point to the greatest number of obvious refereeing injustices. And Bournemouth, Everton and... wait for it... ourselves would be seen as the luckiest clubs to benefit from such dubious calls.
Right or wrong, it's how I interpret it all.
BBC and other news outlets crying out about city last night but when it happens to 'small old Fulham' no one really makes a big deal.
We still don't know if an apology from VAR was made regarding wirtz at Liverpool do we.
Whilst I'm not a fan of VAR I really quite enjoy when it goes against the big clubs because the majority of the time they get the decisions.
Quote from: Arthur on January 14, 2026, 01:31:57 AMIf there were no VAR and football relied solely upon the match officials, according to the data, Manchester United and Crystal Palace would be able to point to the greatest number of obvious refereeing injustices. And Bournemouth, Everton and... wait for it... ourselves would be seen as the luckiest clubs to benefit from such dubious calls.
Right or wrong, it's how I interpret it all.
Are we looking at different tables, or something? We are bottom of the VAR net decisions, which means we have had four more go against us than for us. Far from being the luckiest, we are the unluckiest.
Four goals that should not have counted against us, or should have counted for us (ie Josh King).
Two penalties that should not have been awarded against us or should have been awarded to us.
The table shows that Chelsea and Man U have been the greatest beneficiaries of the VAR people's largesse, followed by Palace and Newcastle. Palace's high position can probably be largely explained just by their matches against us.
Just as a matter of interest, how many dubious calls in our favour can you list, if we really are the most blessed of clubs?
Quote from: Thailand Mick on January 14, 2026, 01:08:51 AM3 penalty appeals vs Brighton
Josh King goal vs Chelsea
Cash handball vs Villa
Muniz og vs Man utd
Offside goal vs Liverpool
Muniz goal vs Brentford
Penalty vs Chelsea
The last two didn't cost us any points.
And the Martinez on King
Quote from: Baszab on January 14, 2026, 03:52:30 PMQuote from: Thailand Mick on January 14, 2026, 01:08:51 AM3 penalty appeals vs Brighton
Josh King goal vs Chelsea
Cash handball vs Villa
Muniz og vs Man utd
Offside goal vs Liverpool
Muniz goal vs Brentford
Penalty vs Chelsea
The last two didn't cost us any points.
And the Martinez on King
not a penalty for me.
Quote from: Rupert on January 14, 2026, 03:48:51 PMQuote from: Arthur on January 14, 2026, 01:31:57 AMIf there were no VAR and football relied solely upon the match officials, according to the data, Manchester United and Crystal Palace would be able to point to the greatest number of obvious refereeing injustices. And Bournemouth, Everton and... wait for it... ourselves would be seen as the luckiest clubs to benefit from such dubious calls.
Are we looking at different tables, or something? We are bottom of the VAR net decisions, which means we have had four more go against us than for us. Far from being the luckiest, we are the unluckiest.
The paragraph of mine you quote begins 'If there were no VAR...'
The table we are both looking at shows the consequences of VAR interventions. If there were no VAR, the match officials' original decisions would not have been overturned and the -4 in the net goals column (goals that have gone in the opposition's favour) would not exist. The 'dubious calls' to which I refer are on-field decisions, not VAR interventions.
Quote from: Rupert on January 14, 2026, 03:48:51 PMFour goals that should not have counted against us, or should have counted for us (ie Josh King).
Two penalties that should not have been awarded against us or should have been awarded to us.
I think you are misinterpreting the information. Yes, VAR interventions have meant that four more goals have either been awarded to the opposition or ruled out for us than vice-versa, but Josh King's is the only one that is deemed an error by the Key Match-Incidents Panel. Every other intervention by VAR in our matches, the Panel consider to be correct. Likewise with the penalties; VAR has been responsible for the award of two to the opposition - but this doesn't mean VAR were wrong to do so. You seem to be of the mindset that every time VAR gets involved, a mistake is made.
Quote from: Rupert on January 14, 2026, 03:48:51 PMThe table shows that Chelsea and Man U have been the greatest beneficiaries of the VAR people's largesse, followed by Palace and Newcastle.
This would be true if it were a table solely of the mistakes VAR has made. But it's not. If VAR intervenes and an on-field mistake is put right, there is no 'largesse' involved. The BBC article to which the O.P. refers informs that there were 47 VAR interventions across all matches in the first half of the season. Of these 47, the KMI Panel considers only 2 to be inappropriate (Josh King being one of the two). The Panel has, however, identified 11 instances in which VAR should have intervened but failed to do so (none of which occurred in matches involving us).
If VAR put right the wrongs of match officials without ever making a mistake, no club could claim to have been treated unfairly. Whether top or bottom of the statistics table, in terms of 'fairness', every club would be equal. Some teams, however, have benefitted from the 13 mistakes VAR has made. Manchester United are not one of those clubs. Chelsea are. United's position in the table is the result of VAR having to overturn a number of poor refereeing decisions that have gone against them (more than have worked in their favour).
Hi Arthur, the table refers to VAR mistakes, not VAR interventions. The times the powers that be acknowledge they got it wrong. Hence we are really getting seriously disadvantaged this season.
May I ask whether you have read the article in full?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cvgrx8ml7m0o
Below is the table that tells us how many mistakes VAR made in the first half of the season - not the table I posted earlier in the thread (although the mistakes are included in the previous one's data.)
(https://i.ibb.co/mCn4TtCk/02.jpg)
Your misunderstanding probably explains why my posts have made so little sense to you.
I'm coming to the conclusion that this is going nowhere. The full article refers to all errors, including those not acted upon. If VAR made no interventions at all then it would make no errors, according to that table. The multiple times it should have (and chose not to) intervene would still show on the other table. The one that we are bottom of with all those goals and penalties that were wrongly given/not given. Which makes your claim that we are one of the blessed rather hard to comprehend.
Anyway, feel free to respond if you wish, I am putting this to bed and will let you have the last word.
The table at the bottom clearly does not refer to VAR errors but to VAR interventions (correct or not). It shows that we would likely have been better off without VAR, but not because VAR makes errors, but because it has detected things that we would have otherwise gotten away with.
The first table is about errors.
However, the whole discussion is slightly flawed for several reasons:
- Firstly we cannot know the impact the existance of VAR has on the decisions by the referees. Would all calls actually have been the same if there was no VAR?
- Secondly, since this is still very subjective (mainly because of the clear and obvious mantra), it often feels like a coin toss whether VAR gets involved or not. They did manage to not get involved when Martinez took out King, for example, even though to me that looked like a crystal clear penalty if you look at other similar instances. There are of course countless similar instances, for which some VAR gets involved and some it doesn't, and it is really hard to see some sort of consistency. The eye test tells me that we have been quite badly treated overall.
- Lastly, there is obviously no consistency when applying something like to now famous 5 cm rule. This in itself makes kind of a mockery out of the whole thing.
Just my thoughts.
I think VAR has made the rules turn from the referee has the last word to a forensic examination of every microsecond.
The interpretations are bizare.
Two players making a reasonable attempt to play a loose ball used to be accepted but now the player that arrives a millisecond late and as a result touches the opponent gives away a foul, and potentially booked. A ball striking your arm can result in a free kick/penalty even if you have no way of removing your arm... an unatural position has been invented. If somebody drives the ball at you and you move your hands to protect your face or crown jewels, that is a natural position. I used to know what a hand ball and offside were, not any more.
The most bizare is the push in the back is no longer a fould.... bassey V man utd was pushed in the back, the player doing it scores and a goal is allowed. What is that about? The commentators say he should have been stronger; no, he was pushed from behind and as such it is a foul not two players jostling for position.
These are such easy things to put right but the people running the sport have no interest in making it simpler.
In our games I have seen so many errors that it is a joke and really spoiling the whole thing!
Quote from: Andrew on January 16, 2026, 09:50:45 AMI think VAR has made the rules turn from the referee has the last word to a forensic examination of every microsecond.
The interpretations are bizare.
Two players making a reasonable attempt to play a loose ball used to be accepted but now the player that arrives a millisecond late and as a result touches the opponent gives away a foul, and potentially booked. A ball striking your arm can result in a free kick/penalty even if you have no way of removing your arm... an unatural position has been invented. If somebody drives the ball at you and you move your hands to protect your face or crown jewels, that is a natural position. I used to know what a hand ball and offside were, not any more.
The most bizare is the push in the back is no longer a fould.... bassey V man utd was pushed in the back, the player doing it scores and a goal is allowed. What is that about? The commentators say he should have been stronger; no, he was pushed from behind and as such it is a foul not two players jostling for position.
These are such easy things to put right but the people running the sport have no interest in making it simpler.
In our games I have seen so many errors that it is a joke and really spoiling the whole thing!
The push on Bassey, if that was a Utd player the foul is given. The thing is, the Ref or var won't give it to us because of the general bias to big teams, that situation had always existed for the smaller clubs. Still not right and still infuriating.
Quote from: SuffolkWhite on January 16, 2026, 10:00:11 AMQuote from: Andrew on January 16, 2026, 09:50:45 AMI think VAR has made the rules turn from the referee has the last word to a forensic examination of every microsecond.
The interpretations are bizare.
Two players making a reasonable attempt to play a loose ball used to be accepted but now the player that arrives a millisecond late and as a result touches the opponent gives away a foul, and potentially booked. A ball striking your arm can result in a free kick/penalty even if you have no way of removing your arm... an unatural position has been invented. If somebody drives the ball at you and you move your hands to protect your face or crown jewels, that is a natural position. I used to know what a hand ball and offside were, not any more.
The most bizare is the push in the back is no longer a fould.... bassey V man utd was pushed in the back, the player doing it scores and a goal is allowed. What is that about? The commentators say he should have been stronger; no, he was pushed from behind and as such it is a foul not two players jostling for position.
These are such easy things to put right but the people running the sport have no interest in making it simpler.
In our games I have seen so many errors that it is a joke and really spoiling the whole thing!
The push on Bassey, if that was a Utd player the foul is given. The thing is, the Ref or var won't give it to us because of the general bias to big teams, that situation had always existed for the smaller clubs. Still not right and still infuriating.
Well I didn't like to say that agian because I have already said the same so mmany times. However, I suspect Wirtz's goal would have been ruled out at the other end, King's goal allowed if he would have been in blue, etc etc. The referees, many of them, have an integrity deficiency. This dates back to me for years but the first big one d'urso V middlesborough. I said when he became the substitute refereee on the day he would not let us win, and he didn't, then there was Halsey, and the list goes on and on, it really does not even out.
Quote from: Andrew on January 16, 2026, 09:50:45 AMI think VAR has made the rules turn from the referee has the last word to a forensic examination of every microsecond.
The interpretations are bizare.
Two players making a reasonable attempt to play a loose ball used to be accepted but now the player that arrives a millisecond late and as a result touches the opponent gives away a foul, and potentially booked. A ball striking your arm can result in a free kick/penalty even if you have no way of removing your arm... an unatural position has been invented. If somebody drives the ball at you and you move your hands to protect your face or crown jewels, that is a natural position. I used to know what a hand ball and offside were, not any more.
The most bizare is the push in the back is no longer a fould.... bassey V man utd was pushed in the back, the player doing it scores and a goal is allowed. What is that about? The commentators say he should have been stronger; no, he was pushed from behind and as such it is a foul not two players jostling for position.
These are such easy things to put right but the people running the sport have no interest in making it simpler.
In our games I have seen so many errors that it is a joke and really spoiling the whole thing!
Same as shirt pulling, even blatant pulls are being ignored, in the Morocco v Nigeria game a foul was given to Morocco even though he grabbed the Nigerian shirt and pulled him forward and they both fell, one of the commentators actually said the ref made the right decision, completely ignoring the shirt pulling was the reason they fell over.
This is doing my head in. I have not been well for a few days so in simple terms, my question is...How many points have we lost due to var (and maybe how many gained)..
Quote from: jarv on January 16, 2026, 03:03:42 PMThis is doing my head in. I have not been well for a few days so in simple terms, my question is...How many points have we lost due to var (and maybe how many gained)..
We don't know if we would have lost or gained points, if for example Kings goal was given, we could still have gone on to lose,
Quote from: Arthur on January 13, 2026, 06:54:09 PMQuote from: General on January 13, 2026, 03:30:47 PMQuote from: FFC1987 on January 13, 2026, 12:05:30 PM.......
......
I agree the table takes a bit of working out - in part, I suspect, because it's not familiar to us.
What it does not indicate, however, is that the KMI panel have identified 4 incorrect decisions, each of which has resulted in a goal either being wrongly taken away from us or wrongly awarded against us.
It does show we have had four more VAR decisions go against us than in our favour and that, overall, we've been disadvantaged by 4 goals - either goals for us that VAR ruled out, or goals we conceded due to the intervention of VAR. (Of these, the Key Match-Incidents Panel have identified only one instance of VAR intervening incorrectly to change an on-field decision: Josh King at Chelsea.)
It also tells us 2 penalties have been awarded against us after VAR has sent the referee to the monitor. (If converted, these are not an addition to our 4-goal deficit; they are part of it.)
How many times VAR has intervened in our matches cannot be determined from the table.
The 2 additional incidents - one of which would have gone in our favour and the other against us - indicate the KMI Panel deemed the referee to have made a mistake which, nonetheless, did not meet the 'clear and obvious' marker to merit the involvement of VAR.
I presume the statistics are accurate; I certainly wouldn't trust myself to recall every instance VAR has seen fit to change an on-field decision this season.
-----
I would agree 100% with this assessment, thank you Arthur!
Quote from: alfie on January 16, 2026, 04:46:20 PMQuote from: jarv on January 16, 2026, 03:03:42 PMThis is doing my head in. I have not been well for a few days so in simple terms, my question is...How many points have we lost due to var (and maybe how many gained)..
We don't know if we would have lost or gained points, if for example Kings goal was given, we could still have gone on to lose,
I think you will find that in the MOTD programe following the King outrage the panel (Danny and a knowledgeable female player) agrree that the King goal should have stood. They then went on to state that the two goals scored by the other team should have been disallowed. In the first there was clear pushing at a corner and in the second the Sessegnon 'handball' infringement should not have stood.
Therefore no penalty, three VAR errors and three dropped points.
Quote from: Colton F.C. on January 16, 2026, 06:40:58 PMQuote from: alfie on January 16, 2026, 04:46:20 PMQuote from: jarv on January 16, 2026, 03:03:42 PMThis is doing my head in. I have not been well for a few days so in simple terms, my question is...How many points have we lost due to var (and maybe how many gained)..
We don't know if we would have lost or gained points, if for example Kings goal was given, we could still have gone on to lose,
I think you will find that in the MOTD programe following the King outrage the panel (Danny and a knowledgeable female player) agrree that the King goal should have stood. They then went on to state that the two goals scored by the other team should have been disallowed. In the first there was clear pushing at a corner and in the second the Sessegnon 'handball' infringement should not have stood.
Therefore no penalty, three VAR errors and three dropped points.
So the king goal stands, they may have gone on to score more who knows, we may have gone on to score more. You cannot say that we would have won or lost.
I guess if you think that then that's fine, I'm not going to argue.
Quote from: Sting of the North on January 16, 2026, 09:04:06 AMHowever, the whole discussion is slightly flawed for several reasons:
However flawed this discussion may be, it is, in my opinion, rather less flawed than the vast majority of discussions that take place around VAR and referees on this forum.
Firstly, the reasons you subsequently gave are not specific to this discussion; you could post them in
any thread about VAR.
Secondly, almost every other discussion relating to the impact of VAR is essentially a uncalibrated list of each individual's perceived errors. In other words, if someone believes a particular intervention or non-intervention by VAR to have been a mistake and another person thinks differently, it is one person's opinion against another's with, typically, no yardstick against which to assess who is correct.
In this instance, however, we have a yardstick. Via the Key Match-Incidents Panel - as independent and as knowledgeable a body as there currently is - there is now a 'line in the sand' which separates the incorrect from the correct. In other threads, each person has drawn this line wherever it has suited them - hardly a flawless way to conduct an examination of VAR.
Quote from: Andrew on January 16, 2026, 09:50:45 AMI used to know what a hand ball and offside were, not any more.
The rules may have been easier to understand but this doesn't necessarily make them fairer or improve football as a spectacle.
For example, when I started going to games, this goal (as you must know) would have been disallowed:
(https://i.ibb.co/s8YwYH0/03.jpg)
Wilson's wonderful touch and rifled finish, for what proved to be the winning goal, would have been ruled out due to a team-mate who neither impeded nor impacted the opposition's ability to prevent the ball finding the back of the net.
Now, you may tell me you would prefer to see Wilson's strike chalked off - that you would rather have an offside law that makes no allowances for a player in an offside position. Not me. I go to games for the excitement of seeing us score and win. It would be no consolation to have that joy taken away from me just to be be able to say that I find it dead easy to tell when a player is offside. If the offside law needs a caveat-or-three written into it to make football more thrilling and not burst my bubble for no good reason, then so be it.
Quote from: Arthur on Today at 02:22:05 AMQuote from: Andrew on January 16, 2026, 09:50:45 AMI used to know what a hand ball and offside were, not any more.
The rules may have been easier to understand but this doesn't necessarily make them fairer or improve football as a spectacle.
For example, when I started going to games, this goal (as you must know) would have been disallowed:
(https://i.ibb.co/s8YwYH0/03.jpg)
Wilson's wonderful touch and rifled finish, for what proved to be the winning goal, would have been ruled out due to a team-mate who neither impeded nor impacted the opposition's ability to prevent the ball finding the back of the net.
Now, you may tell me you would prefer to see Wilson's strike chalked off - that you would rather have an offside law that makes no allowances for a player in an offside position. Not me. I go to games for the excitement of seeing us score and win. It would be no consolation to have that joy taken away from me just to be be able to say that I find it dead easy to tell when a player is offside. If the offside law needs a caveat-or-three written into it to make football more thrilling and not burst my bubble for no good reason, then so be it.
you're right it's about opinions, for me I would have no complaints about Raul being given offside as he originally tried to gain an advantage and we don't know if that affected the defenders reason for holding a higher line but then I don't want to see Chuck given offside for a toe so I think you can even out the lost goals by allowing a greater tolerance on the distance but anyone involved in an offside goal is deemed interfering irrespective of which phase it was.