again, for the record: like you, mangan, and mcnicholas, i too think he was pretty likely offside and, ultimately, the result was probably correct. and, again, we do not see cucurella's feet in this angle - nor probably any angle they had available - and they always make a point to draw that line to show you how right they were when they do. that says to me "not enough conclusive evidence to overturn". if that is going to be the refrain for not overturning calls then it needs to be consistent and not "but this time, it looks like he was offside so probably?" if the call on the pitch was offside and you showed me this angle, it would still be "not enough conclusive evidence to overturn".