[Albion] VAR v Southampton

southstandandy · Nov 30, 2024

I suspect though that if this had happened at the other end going against us, we'd never hear the end of it.

Personally for me, I thought we got lucky.

Brian Munich · Nov 30, 2024

The offside player was making a deliberate run to the near post taking JPVH with him and causing Bart to have to take up a near-post position. If that’s not affecting the game then what is?

lizard · Nov 30, 2024

I don't get how anyone's arguing it, other than it taking 5 minutes for the clowns to fail to overturn the on-field decision.
Who remembers back when we had one disallowed as Burn (I think) was ambling about near the corner flag?

superseagull1994 · Nov 30, 2024

ATFC Seagull said:
So what was the on field decision?

I think the ref and lino after a very long discussion ruled offside, hence the ridiculously late flag. However some of my mates are convinced the flag was linked to the input of the VAR.

Disallowed for offside after consultation with both linos

Justice · Nov 30, 2024

City get the goal at Wolves for the exact same offence and this league really isn’t corrupt.

Swimboy64 · Nov 30, 2024

jcdenton08 said:
First they checked the goalscorer’s position, he was just onside - very close. Then they checked Armstrong’s position - the guy on the near post - and he was a yard or two offside. They then had to decide whether his movement (a flick of his leg behind him) constituted an attempt to interfere with play while offside.

They concluded it did, and gave offside.

And that Denton is a spot on report on the whole thing. I watched on tv and couldn’t understand why they took as long as they did.I think we were very lucky as Armstrongs flick of his leg could have been seen as running actuon

Swimboy64 · Nov 30, 2024

Swimboy64 said:
And that Denton is a spot on report on the whole thing. I watched on tv and couldn’t understand why they took as long as they did.I think we were very lucky as Armstrongs flick of his leg could have been seen as running actuon

Action

Han Solo · Nov 30, 2024

Justice said:
City get the goal at Wolves for the exact same offence and this league really isn’t corrupt.

This will happen from time to time as long as the ambition from the lawmakers is to make the offside (and hands) laws as intricate as possible.

When the laws of the game require a bunch of refs needs to spend five minutes scanning Adam Armstrongs soul after a possible desire to kick the ball with the back of his feet... no shit they get it wrong sometimes.

GrizzlingGammon · Nov 30, 2024

A player offside in the box should be classified as interfering, simple.

Deadly Danson · Nov 30, 2024

Justice said:
City get the goal at Wolves for the exact same offence and this league really isn’t corrupt.

To be honest the City goal was very different and at the time the ball was played he was not interfering with play so that was the correct decision. As was this.

trueblue · Nov 30, 2024

GrizzlingGammon said:
A player offside in the box should be classified as interfering, simple.

Totally agree. Though in the current climate of pedantic idiocy, we'd then wait 5 minutes while they checked whether a player was outside the box or one of his toes had crept a centimetre on to the line.

tedebear · Nov 30, 2024

jcdenton08 said:
First they checked the goalscorer’s position, he was just onside - very close. Then they checked Armstrong’s position - the guy on the near post - and he was a yard or two offside. They then had to decide whether his movement (a flick of his leg behind him) constituted an attempt to interfere with play while offside.

They concluded it did, and gave offside.

Just don't know why it took so flipping long...

El Turi · Nov 30, 2024

Armstrong was offside and tried to flick the ball. Under the rules, it seems like a simple decision to me so I don’t get the outrage?

mejonaNO12 aka riskit · Nov 30, 2024

GrizzlingGammon said:
A player offside in the box should be classified as interfering, simple.

So a player gets to the byline, pulls it back for someone to shoot and score....and the goal is ruled offside because the player who pulled it back originally is now standing offside?

Ok

beorhthelm · Nov 30, 2024

someone once said words to effect of if they aren't interferring with play, what the f*** are they doing on the pitch. it's such an idiotic concept to introduce to the already fine line rule of offside. then when a ball is played long and the left back otherside of the pitch is offside they'll call it, so it's not even applied consistently. how does it improve the game, what problem does it solve?

pasty · Nov 30, 2024

El Turi said:
Armstrong was offside and tried to flick the ball. Under the rules, it seems like a simple decision to me so I don’t get the outrage?

This. I’ve seen both BBC and Sky on tv this morning referring to a “hugely controversial” var call. It clearly wasn’t. Armstrong was offside. Clear as day. And by taking a defender with him on his run obviously was affecting play. Ridiculous amount of time taken to get to the right decision and once again Sky et al trying to whip up controversy where there is none.

Sussexscots · Nov 30, 2024

Correct decision.

If we are deemed 'fortunate ' here, then Stains were fortunate that Downes was still on the pitch to score when he should have been off for a second yellow.

Triggaaar · Nov 30, 2024

Bodian said:
Not sure about the highlighted bit. Different streams gave different reasons. One said it was because of the flick, another said he was simply interfering by distracting the keeper. Either way - he was miles offside and clearly interfering with play (in my opinion).

This. I don't see why it matters whether he tried to flick the ball or not, you can see Bart reacts to him being there and prepares for a shot from him, so he's clearly interfering with play.

Dick Swiveller · Nov 30, 2024

Pretty much in line and I could see how clearly Armstrong was off. Looked like he tried to play it so looked clear. But I would genuinely have taken the original (first 20 seconds) decision to allow it if it mean an end to this farce. The flag going up so, so late and then the wait with nothing on the screen. I don't care if it gets most things right - get VAR in the bin.

Bodian · Nov 30, 2024

Dick Swiveller said:
Pretty much in line and I could see how clearly Armstrong was off. Looked like he tried to play it so looked clear. But I would genuinely have taken the original (first 20 seconds) decision to allow it if it mean an end to this farce. The flag going up so, so late and then the wait with nothing on the screen. I don't care if it gets most things right - get VAR in the bin.

The 'original' decision was not to allow it - lino flagged it as offside, even if he did take his time.

The VAR delay wasn't about the Armstrong involvement. It took them about 4 minutes to work out that the scorer was onside with lines and so on. Then about 10 more seconds to rule that Armstrong was offside and interfering. If they had done it the other way round it would have been done and dusted in no time.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Albion] VAR v Southampton

WEST STAND ANDY

teH lulZ

Well-hung member

Active member

Dangerous Idiot

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Legal Alien

Injured

Well-known member

A. Virgo, Football Genius

A different kind of pasty

3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 3, 3, 3, 3 ,3 ,3 3 coach chuggers

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page