We're on tenterhooks here, which was the happy face?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] VAR v Southampton
- Thread starter Bob!
- Start date
We're on tenterhooks here, which was the happy face?
Even that shouldn't cancel the offside. Van Hecke was forced into trying to stop the ball by the player next to him who was offside.
Players in an offside position are flagged offside just for chasing a ball and making a defender play it.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
I was trying to explain the length of time, which doesn't mean excusing it. We know that VAR is faulty when they draw the wrong lines, from experience.
As it happens this time, it confirmed what the ref and lino had decided. Martin knows this and was making excuses.
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 12,397
Ref watch confirmed what most of us already knew.
I was rather surprised that VAR didn't look at their allowed goal.
It appeared to me that their number 9 pulled Pervis to the floor. He also had a sneaky look over his shoulder to ensure he had cleared a path for the goalscorer.
But we only have ourselves to blame for not picking up 3 points. By my reckoning that's 8 points dropped already this season from winning positions to shit teams (Forest, Ipswich, Wolves & Southampton).
We have got to learn how to beat the shit teams if we have aspirations of getting into the top 4.
It appeared to me that their number 9 pulled Pervis to the floor. He also had a sneaky look over his shoulder to ensure he had cleared a path for the goalscorer.
But we only have ourselves to blame for not picking up 3 points. By my reckoning that's 8 points dropped already this season from winning positions to shit teams (Forest, Ipswich, Wolves & Southampton).
We have got to learn how to beat the shit teams if we have aspirations of getting into the top 4.
We can’t have dropped points from a winning position against Ipswich, it finished 0-0.
We have also gained points from losing positions against Forest, Arsenal, Spurs and Manchester City. It’s all swings and roundabouts.
seagull_si
Active member
Sorry if already suggested, but a Simple rule change to say that if you are in the penalty area you are deemed to be interfering with play, so must stay onside at all times.
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 12,397
Wouldn't defending teams just have to stay outside the box to play opponents off?
seagull_si
Active member
Sorry I don't understand. Maybe I phrased it wrong. What I mean is that if a player is in the penalty area they are deemed to be interfering with play so much remain onside. An attacker could still make a run from an onside position or me behind the ball when its played (like now).
I just kind of think that if you are in the area you are effecting the actions of the defenders and keeper, so attacking players should be deemed offside in that situation.
I 100% believe that Bart's position for the non goal was such as he had to cover a potential shot from Armstrong.
Yep and the obvious point was made that the ref and lino had already deemed he was interfering with play and was offside - there was no need for VAR to get involved other than a rubber stamp "agree with onfield call". Complete waste of everyone's time.
Papa Lazarou
Living in a De Zerbi wonderland
I think some of the time was spent chekcing to see if JPvH touched the ball.
Howard Webb has said the goal should have stood. WTF is wrong with these people?
Bart is clearly looking at the Armstrong until the ball passes him. Offside is clearly the correct decision, and yet they're now saying it's incorrect
EDIT - so it may just be the stains manager claiming that Webb said that, and not be true
Bart is clearly looking at the Armstrong until the ball passes him. Offside is clearly the correct decision, and yet they're now saying it's incorrect
EDIT - so it may just be the stains manager claiming that Webb said that, and not be true
Last edited:
Blues Guitarist
Well-known member
If he touched the ball does that make a difference to offside? I thought the offside situation only changed if a defender made a controlled play. So a minor deflection is irrelevant.
mejonaNO12 aka riskit
Well-known member
That it's REALLY boring and Dermot Gallagher is not made for TV?
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
So Howard Webb is now saying two on field officials and VAR are wrong?Howard Webb has said the goal should have stood. WTF is wrong with these people?
Bart is clearly looking at the Armstrong until the ball passes him. Offside is clearly the correct decision, and yet they're now saying it's incorrect
It’s time he retired.
Justice
Dangerous Idiot
The game may not of played out the same had they been awarded the goal, they may have become very nervous trying to protect the lead who knows? You simply can’t say VAR cost them the game.
Justice
Dangerous Idiot
Indeed he should be backing his men, shambles Armstrong is playing trying to score in an offside position.
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 12,397
The second time Webb has bowed to online/media comments against us., on very subjective decisions.Howard Webb has said the goal should have stood. WTF is wrong with these people?
Bart is clearly looking at the Armstrong until the ball passes him. Offside is clearly the correct decision, and yet they're now saying it's incorrect
Claimed Kavanagh failing to book Pedro for kicking the ball away at Arsenal was a definite yellow. It wasn't.
Now claiming that a perfectly reasonable, subjective offside decision was wrong. It wasn't.
Cue every Prem manager getting on his case about consistency.
If he wants to open that can of worms, how about Downes getting away with multiple 2nd yellow cards, in comparison to Baleba's.
Bloke's a cock.
Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo
I believe in Joe Hendry
- Oct 4, 2003
- 12,212
If the defender has made a deliberate action to play the ball and makes contact it then he’d be playing everyone on side. However in that case because of Armstrong also being in an offside position it could still be given as offside as he also tried to play the ball and influenced JPVHs decision to attempt an interception/try to divert the ball from Armstrongs path.
Last season our opponents (think it was during the 5-0 win at Sheff United) had a goal disallowed when the ball hit Facundo Buonanotte and fell to a player in an offside position. Because it hit FB without him knowing anything about him it was deemed he wasn’t in control of the ball and the offside given.
If it's true that Webb said that then I disagree both in law and in common sense. I simply don't understand football any more - I'll also remind people that the panel adjudged Gibbs-White nasty challenge on Pedro didn't warrant a yellow card. Madness.