[Albion] Brighton & Hove Albion vs Leicester City *** Official Match Thread ***

[Dave the hatosaurus]

Plenty of quotes around yesterday and today from Rodgers confirming it absolutely was a planned thing……..glad the ref/lino didn’t miss it. Nobbish of him to complain about the offsides when he’s admitted the tactic

This really highlights what i have been thinking for a while now . If a team starts having a run of success in the prem then backroom analysts dissect the performances in minute detail to either find a way of counteracting their strengths or exploiting any weakness . Teams may have a period , even a season , of good results ( for example Sheff Utd ) but unless they continue to evolve they get found out . Football is fast becoming a game of cat and mouse , or was it always thus and i did not realise it ?

 

[dazzer6666]

This really highlights what i have been thinking for a while now . If a team starts having a run of success in the prem then backroom analysts dissect the performances in minute detail to either find a way of counteracting their strengths or exploiting any weakness . Teams may have a period , even a season , of good results ( for example Sheff Utd ) but unless they continue to evolve they get found out . Football is fast becoming a game of cat and mouse , or was it always thus and i did not realise it ?

100% correct re analysis, it’s basically forensic (junior does it for a living incidentally). Rodgers has been too clever for his own good though here and it hasn’t worked - tee hee.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Plenty of quotes around yesterday and today from Rodgers confirming it absolutely was a planned thing……..glad the ref/lino didn’t miss it. Nobbish of him to complain about the offsides when he’s admitted the tactic

But from what he originally said, it was the “not in the goalkeeper’s line of sight” stuff he was going by. That had me thinking that maybe he has a point, but wishe we’d go back to the “interfering with play” concept, which maybe they did do. I just thought how can a goalkeeper NOT be distracted by, or need to take in to account, someone who is standing about three feet away from him.

I’m confused now.

Edit - reading through other posts above is what was needed!

 

[Hugo Rune]

But from what he originally said, it was the “not in the goalkeeper’s line of sight” stuff he was going by. That had me thinking that maybe he has a point, but wishe we’d go back to the “interfering with play” concept, which maybe they did do. I just thought how can a goalkeeper NOT be distracted by, or need to take in to account, someone who is standing about three feet away from him.

I’m confused now.

Of course Barnes was ‘interfering with play’ both times as you point out. Sanchez needed to be ready to adjust if Barnes had got a touch both times rather than just concentrating on the shot. You can see his confusion with the first one especially.

However, our defence clearly did this on purpose having been instructed by Potter to do so. This won’t work against the Big Six or some of the more dodgy VAR officials. I’m not sure I’m a fan of this tactic, especially as we weren’t winning the first ball (twice).

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

The most predictable thing about this saga is we have a Leicester City forum 100 % united in its belief that the offsides were wrong and a Brighton forum 100 % united in the opposite view. This happens after just about every big decision. Fans see what what want to see then get involved in detailed and arcane explanations as to why they are right when the overwhelming evidence of the forums is that people form a view for partisan reasons. That’s why I am happy to be honest and admit I don’t really care about the officials getting decisions correct. I just want them to call it and allow us to get on with supporting our team. Some go for you and some against but it really doesn’t matter what the ‘correct’ decision is. On this occasion Leicester feel hard done by. Tough.

 

[dazzer6666]

The most predictable thing about this saga is we have a Leicester City forum 100 % united in its belief that the offsides were wrong and a Brighton forum 100 % united in the opposite view. This happens after just about every big decision. Fans see what what want to see then get involved in detailed and arcane explanations as to why they are right when the overwhelming evidence of the forums is that people form a view for partisan reasons. That’s why I am happy to be honest and admit I don’t really care about the officials getting decisions correct. I just want them to call it and allow us to get on with supporting our team. Some go for you and some against but it really doesn’t matter what the ‘correct’ decision is. On this occasion Leicester feel hard done by. Tough.

Definitely. The positive bit about this is a) more stuff being ‘let go’ by refs (against - the push on Maupay at Burnley, for - Maupay’s foul that was ignored are good examples of similar things) and b) VAR not over-ruling onfield decisions unless they are complete howlers (better interpretation and application of ‘clear and obvious error’).

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Definitely. The positive bit about this is a) more stuff being ‘let go’ by refs (against - the push on Maupay at Burnley, for - Maupay’s foul that was ignored are good examples of similar things) and b) VAR not over-ruling onfield decisions unless they are complete howlers (better interpretation and application of ‘clear and obvious error’).

True, VAR light is working this season. That’s partly why the Leicester fans are so upset. Then we have Lineker feeding it because, let’s face it, it’s the tv pundits and their over analysis that led us down the VAR route in the first place. He can’t separate his support from Leicester from his job but if roles were reversed his opinion would be as well. As would the opinions on Foxes Talk and NSC.

 

[Arthritic Toe]

Nothing wrong with the tactic from Rodgers - Barnes should have got onside before the ball was headed - his mistake.

 

[Curious Orange]

Nothing wrong with the tactic from Rodgers - Barnes should have got onside before the ball was headed - his mistake.

Quite, I don't think there is any questioning from either side as to whether Barnes was in an offside position when the ball was played.

As for the interfering with play bit, that is a judgement call for the officials, and he was damn close the goalkeeper.

 

[Machiavelli]

You’ve explained it so clearly.

Whilst that arrogant paragon of virtue Shearer just won’t open those slitty eyes or his mind.

Barnes was simply put there to impede Sanchez, he did and he 100% would’ve affected his judgement/vision to a certain extent. It doesn’t matter that the last incident was a well placed header. Unhindered without a midget there to put him off, Sanchez may’ve had slightly different positioning, he would certainly have just had one thing to concern himself with, saving the attempt.

Well played linesman, well played VAR and ref.

Leicester and Barnes - next time don’t be offside.

Well, just to be contrary on here. I think the second one should have been allowed. Yes, the Barnes thing is going on, but that's at the point of delivery of the corner.
When Ndidi headed the ball, Barnes was apart from Sanchez, and on the other side of his eyeline.
Agree about Shearer though. He was emphatic about Tarkowski's two-armed push on Maupay being fine, and then got all hissy-fitted about Maupay grabbing that lump's arm. Either both are fouls, or the former is.
But, then again, Shearer has been stealing a living for yonks. Even if he has improved, he's still getting away with it.
Also agree that it should have been awarded as a foul on keeper, rather than offside.

 

[Weststander]

Well, just to be contrary on here. I think the second one should have been allowed. Yes, the Barnes thing is going on, but that's at the point of delivery of the corner.
When Ndidi headed the ball, Barnes was apart from Sanchez, and on the other side of his eyeline.
Agree about Shearer though. He was emphatic about Tarkowski's two-armed push on Maupay being fine, and then got all hissy-fitted about Maupay grabbing that lump's arm. Either both are fouls, or the former is.
But, then again, Shearer has been stealing a living for yonks. Even if he has improved, he's still getting away with it.
Also agree that it should have been awarded as a foul on keeper, rather than offside.

I understand that argument.

But imho Barnes would've been in Sanchez's thinking, perhaps Sanchez would been in a different position without the interference.

Rodgers put Barnes there to have an effect.

 

[drew]

Well, just to be contrary on here. I think the second one should have been allowed. Yes, the Barnes thing is going on, but that's at the point of delivery of the corner.
When Ndidi headed the ball, Barnes was apart from Sanchez, and on the other side of his eyeline.
Agree about Shearer though. He was emphatic about Tarkowski's two-armed push on Maupay being fine, and then got all hissy-fitted about Maupay grabbing that lump's arm. Either both are fouls, or the former is.
But, then again, Shearer has been stealing a living for yonks. Even if he has improved, he's still getting away with it.
Also agree that it should have been awarded as a foul on keeper, rather than offside.

A bold statement. I've yet to see any evidence to support it!

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

I don't see how it was a foul on the keeper. That wouldn't have been a foul anywhere else on the pitch, certainly not if miles off the ball. It's the sort of jostling you see plenty of at corners at most.

The way I see it, the lino gave it, but was at a poor angle to judge whether Barnes was Sanchez eye line. Gave it just in case. VAR didn't overturn it because it barely overturns anything now.

The rules should be. If the player is offside, but isn't in eye line or isn't interfering with movement of GK when the shot or header is taken, then it shouldn't be offside. The second question would then be, is it a foul on GK. If it comes under normal jostling, then allow the goal. Keepers can't get complete protection.

 

[Machiavelli]

I don't see how it was a foul on the keeper. That wouldn't have been a foul anywhere else on the pitch, certainly not if miles off the ball. It's the sort of jostling you see plenty of at corners at most.

The way I see it, the lino gave it, but was at a poor angle to judge whether Barnes was Sanchez eye line. Gave it just in case. VAR didn't overturn it because it barely overturns anything now.

The rules should be. If the player is offside, but isn't in eye line or isn't interfering with movement of GK when the shot or header is taken, then it shouldn't be offside. The second question would then be, is it a foul on GK. If it comes under normal jostling, then allow the goal. Keepers can't get complete protection.

Agreed, that's where I'm coming from.

 

[ozzygull]

I don't see how it was a foul on the keeper. That wouldn't have been a foul anywhere else on the pitch, certainly not if miles off the ball. It's the sort of jostling you see plenty of at corners at most.

The way I see it, the lino gave it, but was at a poor angle to judge whether Barnes was Sanchez eye line. Gave it just in case. VAR didn't overturn it because it barely overturns anything now.

The rules should be. If the player is offside, but isn't in eye line or isn't interfering with movement of GK when the shot or header is taken, then it shouldn't be offside. The second question would then be, is it a foul on GK. If it comes under normal jostling, then allow the goal. Keepers can't get complete protection.

I would have been livid if I was a Leicester fan on Sunday and been on the receiving end of those decisions, but I not so I am very happy. But it is probably the first time I have heard away fans moaning after a game they lost and not thought it was just sour grapes.

 

[sydney]

The most predictable thing about this saga is we have a Leicester City forum 100 % united in its belief that the offsides were wrong and a Brighton forum 100 % united in the opposite view. This happens after just about every big decision. Fans see what what want to see then get involved in detailed and arcane explanations as to why they are right when the overwhelming evidence of the forums is that people form a view for partisan reasons. That’s why I am happy to be honest and admit I don’t really care about the officials getting decisions correct. I just want them to call it and allow us to get on with supporting our team. Some go for you and some against but it really doesn’t matter what the ‘correct’ decision is. On this occasion Leicester feel hard done by. Tough.

Rogers has said he instructed Barnes to hamper Sanchez at corners , so given the normal argy bargy at corners if Sanchez just bulldozes Barnes out of the way to collect the ball is it a penalty...?? Bollox to Leicester anyway , we were due to beat them.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I don't see how it was a foul on the keeper. That wouldn't have been a foul anywhere else on the pitch, certainly not if miles off the ball. It's the sort of jostling you see plenty of at corners at most.

The way I see it, the lino gave it, but was at a poor angle to judge whether Barnes was Sanchez eye line. Gave it just in case. VAR didn't overturn it because it barely overturns anything now.

The rules should be. If the player is offside, but isn't in eye line or isn't interfering with movement of GK when the shot or header is taken, then it shouldn't be offside. The second question would then be, is it a foul on GK. If it comes under normal jostling, then allow the goal. Keepers can't get complete protection.

Barnes was interfering with the movement of the GK. He was too close to Sanchez for him to be able to run out and claim the ball. Steve Claridge made this clear when he was on Soccer Saturday. If Barnes had been another couple of feet away, then you'd be right.

 

[dazzer6666]

Rogers has said he instructed Barnes to hamper Sanchez at corners , so given the normal argy bargy at corners if Sanchez just bulldozes Barnes out of the way to collect the ball is it a penalty...?? Bollox to Leicester anyway , we were due to beat them.

So……maybe Potter realised this and told the defence to maintain a higher line to leave Barnes exposed to an offside call……….hence no-one on the post

 

[seaford]

I don't see how it was a foul on the keeper. That wouldn't have been a foul anywhere else on the pitch, certainly not if miles off the ball. It's the sort of jostling you see plenty of at corners at most.

The way I see it, the lino gave it, but was at a poor angle to judge whether Barnes was Sanchez eye line. Gave it just in case. VAR didn't overturn it because it barely overturns anything now.

The rules should be. If the player is offside, but isn't in eye line or isn't interfering with movement of GK when the shot or header is taken, then it shouldn't be offside. The second question would then be, is it a foul on GK. If it comes under normal jostling, then allow the goal. Keepers can't get complete protection.

/ /
I would not disagree with what you have said, but from the linesman's perspective it is a binary decision? The player is offside or not.
It is the referee with the help of VAR to decide on the interfering with play aspect. The lino did his job.

 

[Lindfield23]

Plenty of quotes around yesterday and today from Rodgers confirming it absolutely was a planned thing……..glad the ref/lino didn’t miss it. Nobbish of him to complain about the offsides when he’s admitted the tactic

Playing devil's advocate here, but could it be argued that by the time Barnes becomes offside (i.e. when Ndidi heads the ball - as you can't be offside directly from corners), he's stopped blocking Sanchez, and so stopped interfering with play?