[Albion] VAR v Southampton
- Thread starter Bob!
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
B-right-on
Living the dream
That's one thing I hate about VAR. What was it? 6-7-8 mins? Standing there not knowing wtf is going on and how bloody hard is it to draw a couple of lines from an arse or whatever.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 14,664
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.
They concluded it did, and gave offside.
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).
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Firstly they checked to see if JPVH made contact when he swung his leg out, as that would make any offside ruling superfluous. He didn’t. Then they checked to see if the scorer was offside, but he was onside by a smidgeon.
Finally, they looked to see if Armstrong, who was offside, and if he interfered with play, which they ruled he was interfering with play.
Finally, they looked to see if Armstrong, who was offside, and if he interfered with play, which they ruled he was interfering with play.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 14,664
Fair point, in my opinion that would’ve swayed the decision though.
I simply don't understand how Armstrong wasn't impacting on the play. He was active and therefore offside. Obvious at the ground, obvious on the first replay - it should have taken them 10 seconds.
Just play the VAR in the ground like they do in every other sport FFS
warmleyseagull
Well-known member
Armstrong tried to flick ball behind him so offside due to rule 11:
- clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
- making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
- Oct 17, 2008
- 14,664
Someone else pointed out the one given against us for Mwepu and I remember the outrage here. It was technically the correct application of the laws.
My point is how many times it isn’t enforced each week. In my opinion it was a fortunate decision for us that they deemed it offside.
Iggle Piggle
Well-known member
- Sep 3, 2010
- 5,991
I was a bad fan tonight and didn't go. I live near Coventry in my defence.
Anyway, a Cov fan walked into my living room handed me a beer, stared at the screen and said "That's offside"
That's literally how long it should have taken.
Anyway, a Cov fan walked into my living room handed me a beer, stared at the screen and said "That's offside"
That's literally how long it should have taken.
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
It took forever because they couldn't seem to get the lines up. They were obviously split on whether Armstrong was interfering with play, so were hoping Archer was offside to make it easy for them. Andy Townsend on the feed I was watching reckoned that Armstrong was attempting to play the ball and thus this was the correct decision.
For those at the ground, did the linesman 'belatedly raise his flag' to give it offside before the VAR check, as I heard the commentator say?
For those at the ground, did the linesman 'belatedly raise his flag' to give it offside before the VAR check, as I heard the commentator say?
Exactly. If he was not there then Bart would have sprinted across goal and put in a full length dive and might have saved it. Ridiculous it took so long.
You wouldn't have seen much - didn't see much on the screen either, just waffling from the commentators - then a line, and 'onside' flashed up.
At least we had a commentator to explain that they were then looking at the other guy. If they just had a silent scree at the ground showing 'onside' it would all have been even more baffling!
- Oct 17, 2008
- 14,664
- Oct 17, 2008
- 14,664
*could* have. It’s all hypothetical which is why it’s a judgement call for VAR and every week we see similar situations not given as offside.
............and that is the main point - it should have taken ten seconds. OK, maybe thirty; if you can't make up your mind then, go with the on-field decision. Incidentally, didn't the linesman (sorry, but that's still what they are to me) flag it offside - in which case the on-field decision would surely have been offside, so just agree with it.
If it was a VAR call against us though, I'd be fuming!
Think they score if he's there or not. Quite happy about the decision and not sure it would always would go in our favor.
Yes he could have saved it. Which changes it from “could not have” so therefore interfering with play.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 14,664
You’re absolutely right, and this is why it was given.
Yet dozens aren’t each week.
It’s like foul throws, you might see a couple a season given watching every Albion game, but in reality there’s a couple a match minimum the referee doesn’t give.
We got lucky tonight in that the application of the laws of the game were upheld (albeit on a judgement call).