[Albion] VAR v Southampton

[martin tyler]

Gosh the twisting of what I said. Please read what I said and watch the Bart interview. He didn't claim that he was put off he actually said nothing!

Honestly we have the nerve to get wound up about Arsenal whining about the Veltman incident but we have fans who are also blinded by bias. It's so frustrating.

It’s open to interpretation to a point. Bart doesn’t have to be put off. It’s really down to if the player is interfering with play and if he tries plays the ball he’s interfering. If Armstrong hadn’t made an attempt to play I assume the goal would stand.
Would I be frustrated if it was ruled against us I would most likely be yes. Under the current rules I think it should be ruled out.

In terms of how in unfolded it seemed to be the linesman flag went up when the referee said something to him I assume about Armstrong as it was a late flag. I think the linesman was right about Archer so the flag wasn’t initially raised. Convo quickly takes place on Armstrong as I think referee thinks he is interfering. Linesman believes he is off side and flag goes up. VAR then step in and look at it.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Football focus showed the highlights with Pat Nevin & the other pundit both saying Armstrong was interfering with play. BV did alter his shape very slightly. Correct decision in their view.

 

[willalbion]

“If he’s not interfering with play, what’s he doing on the pitch?”

Brian Clough

BIN VAR

Bring in better referees from abroad.

The refs abroad get just as much grief as ours do. At least it seems that way to me.

 

[Han Solo]

I know all of that but I don't care. Flag going up so late means the crowd have no idea what is going on. Forensic checking of 3 different actions is not what football is about. I worry about every goal we score now. Watching back how onsite Mitoma was shows how ridiculous that is. But I am not paid to watch the line so who knows what VAR is going to decide. Spontaneity of celebrations has gone in pursuit of "perfection" - and gets nowhere near. If the officials thought Armstrong was offside then put the flag straight up. Don't spent 20 seconds jabbering away on headsets no-one else can hear and then do it. And then 5 minutes doing things only the TV watchers might know what is happening - and that is if the commentator relays it. Friday night kick off with 5 minutes where 30000 have no idea what is happening. If that is a sport designed to benefit the live audience then I despair. The pandering to TV is killing it as a live spectacle.

When the Swedish fans (and thus the clubs as they're member owned) decided to say 'no' to VAR, I thought that decision would be reversed in five minutes after a couple of incorrect red cards and penalties. But nope. Instead Allsvenskan has gone more popular than ever in viewership compared to Swedes watching foreign leagues.

Honestly, while there are quite a few millimeter-justice-people around, the majority of people have more fun without it. A lot of people who don't like VAR have convinced themselves to like it given the unlikeliness of its removal. But if it was scrapped tomorrow I think 90% of all European football fans would quickly realise "ok, this better".

VAR was a fun experiment, but now after a few years I think it can be firmly established that its not possible to have both millimeter justice and flow/spontaneity, and in football we should go for the latter.

Not that fun for TV fans either tbh:

Most times we score a goal, my roomie is jumping up and down while I cross my arms and shake my head and repeat "offside.. its offside. Surely offside."
A minute of celebration later I still sit and stroke my beard saying "maybe maybe its a golazo here... but its probably offside. Or a foul in the build up or a poorly wiped arse in childhood. Something."

Then the kickoff comes and I watch the graphic in the corner indeed saying we've scored a goal. 10-15 seconds after play restarts I can finally chill.

"Seems we got it! Nice."

Its a monstrosity really. Watching Blackburn vs Leeds right now rather than the big leagues simply because I don't have a forensic interest in the potential offside positioning of the left backs arse hair.

 

[beorhthelm]

It’s open to interpretation to a point. Bart doesn’t have to be put off. It’s really down to if the player is interfering with play and if he tries plays the ball he’s interfering. If Armstrong hadn’t made an attempt to play I assume the goal would stand.
Would I be frustrated if it was ruled against us I would most likely be yes. Under the current rules I think it should be ruled out.

In terms of how in unfolded it seemed to be the linesman flag went up when the referee said something to him I assume about Armstrong as it was a late flag. I think the linesman was right about Archer so the flag wasn’t initially raised. Convo quickly takes place on Armstrong as I think referee thinks he is interfering. Linesman believes he is off side and flag goes up. VAR then step in and look at it.

players running in to the box with a cross coming in... how are they not interfering with play! it beggers belief that, apart from the stupid concept in the first place, there is any debate.

 

[martin tyler]

players running in to the box with a cross coming in... how are they not interfering with play! it beggers belief that, apart from the stupid concept in the first place, there is any debate.

They made a rod for their own back whoever made the rules tbh I didn’t make them. Tbh when is a forward not interfering with play. It’s same as when the CF goes behind the defence and ends up 2/3 yards off side , the ball is played to the winger in behind who cuts it back to the CF who had a 2/3 yard start on the CB. He’s gained an advantage by having a 2/3 yard head start.
Every player on the pitch affects what other players do. Offside should be very simple tbh but like everything else it’s been made over complicated

 

[South Stand Bonfire]

Once the decision was made that the Southampton player at the near post ( who didn’t score) was in an offside position and then the only decision left was whether he was interfering with play, shouldn’t Jones go and look at the VAR screen as I thought that part of the decision was subjective and down to the referee? Or was it because the Lino flagged ( ten minutes later) that the goal was offside and therefore VAR was just confirming the original decision?

 

[Triggaaar]

It’s open to interpretation to a point. Bart doesn’t have to be put off. It’s really down to if the player is interfering with play and if he tries plays the ball he’s interfering. If Armstrong hadn’t made an attempt to play I assume the goal would stand.

A player shouldn't need to make an attempt. We'll regularly see a ball over the top chased by an offside striker and a defender. When the defender gets there first and does something like kick it into touch, the flag goes up as they were forced into it by an offside player.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

It’s open to interpretation to a point. Bart doesn’t have to be put off. It’s really down to if the player is interfering with play and if he tries plays the ball he’s interfering. If Armstrong hadn’t made an attempt to play I assume the goal would stand.
Would I be frustrated if it was ruled against us I would most likely be yes. Under the current rules I think it should be ruled out.

Alexis Mac Allister had a wonder strike disallowed against Leicester because Enoch Mwepu was in an offside position when a free kick was taken and he attempted to play the ball, so we've been caught out by the same rule.

 

[martin tyler]

Alexis Mac Allister had a wonder strike disallowed against Leicester because Enoch Mwepu was in an offside position when a free kick was taken and he attempted to play the ball, so we've been caught out by the same rule.

lol and I was frustrated by this especially as it was a wonderful strike. But it was technically the right call

 

[TugWilson]

As Bill Shankly said "If he`s not interfering with play , what`s he doing on the pitch" . Their bloke was offside because he was there , if not to interfere then what

 

[Jeremiah]

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.

Did they check me having a meltdown in the West Stand as I was convinced the scorer was onside and we had just gone 2-1 down at home to a side rooted at the bottom and who had previously lost 6 out of 6 away ?

 

[zefarelly]

VAR can do one

I thought the goal was offside, the ref called ofside, it was accepted . . . You move on.

some self promoting twats watching a warped screen whilst high on mushrooms in a distant office whilst also reviewing various cash offers to offshore bank accounts is whats ruining it all.

 

[zefarelly]

As Bill Shankly said "If he`s not interfering with play , what`s he doing on the pitch" . Their bloke was offside because he was there , if not to interfere then what

Well . . . We've had a few players who don't interfere on occasion, but that's another discussion!

 

[Stato]

Just seen on MotD the offside line drawn on Archer and Lamptey and it was wrong anyway. Tariq's foot is off the ground, but the line is not drawn from the point on the ground it is above, but from where his toe appears to be on a 2D picture. Had Gillet drawn this correctly, it would have shown that the goal scorer was offside anyway making the argument about Armstrong irrelevant.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Alexis Mac Allister had a wonder strike disallowed against Leicester because Enoch Mwepu was in an offside position when a free kick was taken and he attempted to play the ball, so we've been caught out by the same rule.

And we all said "yes that's a great decision" when it happened.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

As Bill Shankly said "If he`s not interfering with play , what`s he doing on the pitch" . Their bloke was offside because he was there , if not to interfere then what

I've watched quite a few goals on the last day or so, off the back of people saying "anyone offside is interfering in play and should be offside"

Actually WATCH goals and actively look at how often a player who doesn't score is offside as it's kicked. It's SO SO many. Are we honestly saying all those should be disallowed? It would be carnage

 

[SkirlieWirlie]

Nice of Bart, but if Armstrong wasn't there, he'd have barely needed to cover that side of the goal at all. Plus we'd have had a spare defender to help stop a cross to what would have been their only player in the box.

In the slow motion replay, you can see Verbruggen square up to Armstrong and as it passes behind him, he then shifts focus onto the the 'scorer'.

I didn't understand the argument on MOTD suggesting because the ball passed behind Armstrong, he wasn't interfering. Bart couldn't tell at that point which side of the player it would pass.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Football focus showed the highlights with Pat Nevin & the other pundit both saying Armstrong was interfering with play. BV did alter his shape very slightly. Correct decision in their view.

Precisely. This was reiterated on MOTD.

When I looked at it initially my 'gut' instinct was 'perfectly good goal'.

The interesting thing is that Bart wouldn't have realized he had been put off by an offside player unless someone explained it to him. He may not have even thought about the player being offside. That's neither here nor there and the facts are the facts.

It would be interesting to know what I would have thought had the boot been on the other foot. Alas, we shall never know.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

In the slow motion replay, you can see Verbruggen square up to Armstrong and as it passes behind him, he then shifts focus onto the the 'scorer'.

I didn't understand the argument on MOTD suggesting because the ball passed behind Armstrong, he wasn't interfering. Bart couldn't tell at that point which side of the player it would pass.

That argument was defeated by a better argument though.

You assessment is correct.