[Albion] VAR v Southampton

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

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

No, only if the player is interfering with play.

Shankley talked a load of bollocks.

 

[TugWilson]

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

No of course not ,we don`t want to go backwards , but if a player is making any motion to influence either the ball or play he must be considered to have an affect on the actions of the oppositions keeper and defenders - so must be given offside . Armstrong flicked his heel out to make contact with the ball (very nearly did) in a split second the keeper would have adjusted his stance to try and anticipate where the ball is going next . So that flick effected the end result whether they score or not .

 

[Uh_huh_him]

MotD punditry:
Lineker: I agree with Martin. I don't understand this decision.
Dublin points out that Armstrong is interfering with play, as it affects Verbruggen's position.
Murphy agrees.
But they all come down on the side of "We don't want to see goals chalked off for that"

TLDR
It was a correct decision, but we don't want it to be.

Great punditry guys..

 

[Han Solo]

MotD punditry:
Lineker: I agree with Martin. I don't understand this decision.
Dublin points out that Armstrong is interfering with play, as it affects Verbruggen's position.
Murphy agrees.
But they all come down on the side of "We don't want to see goals chalked off for that"

TLDR
It was a correct decision, but we don't want it to be.

Great punditry guys..

Do they have to like it just because its the right decision? Maybe they think the offside law should be changed, and I don't necessarily disagree with that.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

No of course not ,we don`t want to go backwards , but if a player is making any motion to influence either the ball or play he must be considered to have an affect on the actions of the oppositions keeper and defenders - so must be given offside . Armstrong flicked his heel out to make contact with the ball (very nearly did) in a split second the keeper would have adjusted his stance to try and anticipate where the ball is going next . So that flick effected the end result whether they score or not .

Thiis!

Often when a player knows he is in an offside position , he will raise his hands and jog back into an onside position.
Demonstrating to everyone that he should not be considered to be "active".

In this case Armstrong is busting a gut to be involved in the attacking movement.
The idea, that he should not be considered an active participant in the move, is ridiculous.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

From a gk point of view the player is interfering with play regardless of if he makes an attempt to play the ball or not.

I couldn't say with any confidence whether that would have any effect on the outcome. It probably still ends in a goal but he's definitely interfering with play so if that's the rule, he's offside.

 

[amexer]

I thought decision was a joke. Decision on if interfering with play made in some warehouse.

 

[ROSM]

I thought decision was a joke. Decision on if interfering with play made in some warehouse.

Decision was made by ref on the pitch. The warehouse confirmed the decision.

The difference I believe with the mwepu one was the ref gave it but var overturned it. So under the russell martin book of 'wah was wah I'm hard done by' we win

 

[hans kraay fan club]

From a gk point of view the player is interfering with play regardless of if he makes an attempt to play the ball or not.

I couldn't say with any confidence whether that would have any effect on the outcome. It probably still ends in a goal but he's definitely interfering with play so if that's the rule, he's offside.

i just cannot understand why everyone can’t see this.

You are Bart V in that situation, stood in the centre of your goal, as the guy out on the left shapes to cross. IF Armstrong is not there, the ball can ONLY reach Archer at the far post. The split second the cross is hit, you are flying across your goal toward the back post to cover as much of the goal from Archer‘s angle as possible.

This gives you a chance of saving Archer’s effort.

With Armstrong where he is, you cannot begin to consider Archer until the ball has passed the striker in the centre of the goal - delaying your movement toward the far post, and reducing your hopes of making a save.

Arguing about HOW MUCH impact his presence makes is irrelevant. If it makes ANY impact - he’s offside.

 

[One Love]

What most people are missing is that the line drawn for Archer was not in the right place.

You can see from the stills, I know you have to take perspective into account. It didn't look right at the time on the box and it doesn't look right when I've looked at it afterwards.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

From a gk point of view the player is interfering with play regardless of if he makes an attempt to play the ball or not.

I couldn't say with any confidence whether that would have any effect on the outcome. It probably still ends in a goal but he's definitely interfering with play so if that's the rule, he's offside.

Does it matter whether it impacts the outcome?

I doubt that level of subjectivity is a factor.
i.e. "the keeper would have saved it if he wasn't there."

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

i just cannot understand why everyone can’t see this.

You are Bart V in that situation, stood in the centre of your goal, as the guy out on the left shapes to cross. IF Armstrong is not there, the ball can ONLY reach Archer at the far post. The split second the cross is hit, you are flying across your goal toward the back post to cover as much of the goal from Archer‘s angle as possible.

This gives you a chance of saving Archer’s effort.

With Armstrong where he is, you cannot begin to consider Archer until the ball has passed the striker in the centre of the goal - delaying your movement toward the far post, and reducing your hopes of making a save.

Arguing about HOW MUCH impact his presence makes is irrelevant. If it makes ANY impact - he’s offside.

I dunno. It seems obvious but maybe you need to have played in goal to realise?

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Does it matter whether it impacts the outcome?

I doubt that level of subjectivity is a factor.
i.e. "the keeper would have saved it if he wasn't there."

No, I don't think so, hence it's offside.

 

[Deadly Danson]

i just cannot understand why everyone can’t see this.

You are Bart V in that situation, stood in the centre of your goal, as the guy out on the left shapes to cross. IF Armstrong is not there, the ball can ONLY reach Archer at the far post. The split second the cross is hit, you are flying across your goal toward the back post to cover as much of the goal from Archer‘s angle as possible.

This gives you a chance of saving Archer’s effort.

With Armstrong where he is, you cannot begin to consider Archer until the ball has passed the striker in the centre of the goal - delaying your movement toward the far post, and reducing your hopes of making a save.

Arguing about HOW MUCH impact his presence makes is irrelevant. If it makes ANY impact - he’s offside.

This. It's REALLY straightforward.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I dunno. It seems obvious but maybe you need to have played in goal to realise?

Maybe. I really don’t think the concept is difficult though!

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

Listening to talksport on the way home after the game.

Caller "H" from Southampton : *rant* "This is ridiculous the Championship is much better without this VAR nonsense" *rant*
Jason Cunty : "If this was the Championship, the linesman flagged off side so no goal"
"H" "Yeah, but"
The sound of a violin was then played in the backgrounf

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Listening to talksport on the way home after the game.

Caller "H" from Southampton : *rant* "This is ridiculous the Championship is much better without this VAR nonsense" *rant*
Jason Cunty : "If this was the Championship, the linesman flagged off side so no goal"
"H" "Yeah, but"
The sound of a violin was then played in the backgrounf

Russel Martin was making the same mistakes in his BBC interview.
Saying that "offside isn't subjective", "well sometimes it is" because obviously he's looking for a subjective call to overrule the offside flag.

 

[Triggaaar]

i just cannot understand why everyone can’t see this.

A lot of people are stupid.

I'm not saying that's awful, there are other human characteristics we value above intelligence.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

A fair few online comments calling it "the worst VAR decision ever".

The decision was harsh but correct.
Not as Harsh as the Ali Mac/Mwepu offside , and nowhere near as bad as the long list of actually incorrect VAR decisions
For example Saints being awarded a penalty at the Amex from a challenge outside the box.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Maybe. I really don’t think the concept is difficult though!

No it seems glaringly obvious to me too.