By David Woods

10th Nov, 2020 | 9:02am

MOT View: Unseen VAR angle shows just how bad Mike Dean decision for Leeds v Palace was

The goal that wasn’t a goal for Leeds United in the game against Crystal Palace is still getting talked about. 

Andros Townsend was the latest to discuss it on talkSPORT (Breakfast show, Tuesday, 7am) and he’s ruffled the feathers of Leeds fans when he said that offside is offside, and that Mike Dean was right to chalk off Patrick Bamford’s goal.

However, even if you take the fact that the upper part of your arm is offside, and even if you accept the fact that the line drawn to the Palace defender (Nathaniel Clyne) is from his t-shirt line and not his shoulder, there are bigger questions to be asked about the decision.

This is the shot that has caused so many pundits to ask how the goal was given as offside.

However, there’s another VAR angle that we didn’t see used in the match that makes the decision by Mike Dean look even worse.

The Palace player next to Bamford appears to be clearly further back than Bamford. The line drawn from Bamford actually appears to be going through his legs.

His left foot is clearly playing Bamford’s arm onside.

Talking on The Football Show (Sky Sports, Monday, 11.30am), former Premier League referee Dermot Gallagher said that given the angle he had to work with, Mike Dean made the best call he could.

However, he also said he couldn’t back it or defend it.

When multiple camera angles are available, the question has to be asked, why weren’t additional angles given to Dean?

If he’d seen the image above then he surely wouldn’t have ruled the goal as offside.

And there are some Palace fans who think that this is the case as well.

It leaves a bitter taste in the mouth but no amount of arguing is going to get Bamford’s goal reinstated.

What it does say to us, though, is that there are real issues with VAR and the way it’s being implemented.

In other Leeds United news, ‘Incredible, very special’ – Palace star man drools over Leeds, gives verdict on Bamford ‘goal’