[Football] VAR West Ham disallowed goal

[Bold Seagull]

Interesting debate with 2 West Ham supporting mates last night, one at the ground, one at home watching. Obviously the one at the ground didn't really know why VAR took so long.

I guess we know it was divided into 3 parts: Dawson foul on Lallana, a foul on Sanchez, Antonio offside.

For me personally, I thought Dawson flattening Lallana was a foul, seems there is a debate that if you're watching your man you're fair game to be flattened, but unless Lallana makes a move to obstruct, I don't see how the rules of the game allow you to just flatten someone.

Didn't think there was a foul on Sanchez, he made a bit of a pigs ear of it.

Offside. Now interestingly the debate appeared to center around 'did he touch it' - however, you don't need to touch the ball to be offside, you just need to be affecting the play. Regardless of whether Antonio touches the ball or not, does his presence in an offside position impact the play? I think that is why the VAR person was watching various replays not just for any contact with the ball, but was Antonio doing enough that if influenced and affected the play...EDIT...watching the video angle posted below, I've got to change that, Antonio doesn't influence what Duffy does or the play where he is, so I take it back, he does have to have touched the ball to be offside, my recollection was he went for the ball causing Duffy to go for it, not sure that was the case on reflection.

So while I have some sympathy with the goal being disallowed, in truth it could have been for me on 2 separate aspects in my opinion.

 

[Springal]

In the ground as soon as it moved from 'foul' to 'offside' I thought that was it....

 

[Commander]

I just cannot fathom what anybody who watches football thought that added to the game last night. Obviously it was good for us, but it just ruins the whole spectacle. Nobody would have had a problem with that goal if it was given (without watching 15 replays in super slow motion).

 

[Bozza]

Like you, I think, I was amazed that it wasn't ruled out at the first part - the foul on Lallana - as it seemed so blatant, and surely passed the "clear and obvious" test.

 

[warmleyseagull]

There is a very easy test to apply in these cases:

If it had been the other way round, would NSC quietly accept that it takes time and the correct decision was made, or be in apoplexy that it took ages and was completely b****x decision.

Think I can guess….

 

[Official Old Man]

Watching it's interesting how the two Albion defenders leave the pitch, thus putting Antonio in an offside position.

 

[Stat Brother]

Like you, I think, I was amazed that it wasn't ruled out at the first part - the foul on Lallana - as it seemed so blatant, and surely passed the "clear and obvious" test.

It was Burnley away.

The team can't keep playing for the same foul and still being surprised when it's not given.

 

[amexer]

Clear foul on Lalana and surprised this was not taken into account I did think to rule out for off side was a joke

 

[Arthur]

Interesting debate with 2 West Ham supporting mates last night, one at the ground, one at home watching. Obviously the one at the ground didn't really know why VAR took so long.

I guess we know it was divided into 3 parts: Dawson foul on Lallana, a foul on Sanchez, Antonio offside.

For me personally, I thought Dawson flattening Lallana was a foul, seems there is a debate that if you're watching your man you're fair game to be flattened, but unless Lallana makes a move to obstruct, I don't see how the rules of the game allow you to just flatten someone.

Didn't think there was a foul on Sanchez, he made a bit of a pigs ear of it.

Offside. Now interestingly the debate appeared to center around 'did he touch it' - however, you don't need to touch the ball to be offside, you just need to be affecting the play. Regardless of whether Antonio touches the ball or not, does his presence in an offside position impact the play? I think that is why the VAR person was watching various replays not just for any contact with the ball, but was Antonio doing enough that if influenced and affected the play.

So while I have some sympathy with the goal being disallowed, in truth it could have been for me on 2 separate aspects in my opinion.

Agree with you on the foul on Lallana, it was a foul BUT if that was a foul then so was the one on Maupay against Burnley and the one by Maupay against Leicester. So in a way I'm glad there is some consistency there.

IF Sanchez was impeded it was by either Dunk or Duffy (can't remember which). Agree with you there his error.

As for the offside I guess given the letter of the law it was the correct decision but was that a clear an obvious error? No of course not. I would have felt very hard done by if the other way round.

VAR has been much better this season but that was the sort of decision last night that made me hate it. The time it took, the players surrounding the ref, the fact no one in the ground knew what was going on and that is has ruled out a goal very dubiously. Last night it went for us, next time I'm sure it'll be against us.

 

[Bozza]

Watching it's interesting how the two Albion defenders leave the pitch, thus putting Antonio in an offside position.

Only after the ball was over the line...

[tweet]1466146280963551237[/tweet]

He was in an offside position before that.

 

[Bozza]

As for the offside I guess given the letter of the law it was the correct decision but was that a clear an obvious error? No of course not. I would have felt very hard done by if the other way round.

Offside isn't subject to "clear and obvious" since it's binary: on or off.

They are allowing attacking players a bit more leeway now. Thin lines and "offside by a toe" seems to have been consigned to history, thankfully.

 

[Stat Brother]

Offside isn't subject to "clear and obvious" since it's binary: on or off.

They are allowing attacking players a bit more leeway now. Thin lines and "offside by a toe" seems to have been consigned to history, thankfully.

Lamptey's position for his assist could have come under serious scrutiny, last season.

 

[hopper_182]

I think there was a subtle, but effective, nudge on Sanchez by Antonio. Just enough to prevent him getting the ball. Whether or not the laws say that is a foul I don't know.

Sent from my J8110 using Tapatalk

 

[giveusfalmerplease]

On a related note, just curious what fans think of the Hammers corner tactics anyway. Completely surrounding the goalie, bordering on impedance seems to be stretching the rules of the game. Maybe we need a rule where only a certain number of players (home and away) are allowed within 6 feet of the goalie when the ball is kicked otherwise incidents like the disallowed goal will be commonplace in a few years.

 

[Si Gull]

Only after the ball was over the line...

[tweet]1466146280963551237[/tweet]

He was in an offside position before that.

That was such marginal contact with Antonio who, if anything, looked like he was trying to get out of the way. It would have gone in regardless of his 'touch'. Letter of the law, maybe, spirit of the law? No way. Luck on our side, there (ignoring the foul on Lallana....).

 

[amexer]

Lamptey's position for his assist could have come under serious scrutiny, last season.

Yes I thought Lamptey showed good awareness to get back before he received ball from Duffy

 

[zeemeeuw]

I suppose once the VAR dismissed the 2 possible fouls and started looking at the offside then they couldn't apply the "clear and obvious" guideline anymore. They get a little leeway with new thicker lines, otherwise, it is a absolute decision, based on the laws of the game, he was offside or he wasn't. This was a tricky one, so it took a while, surely as long as VAR continues to be used for offside then there will be occasions that take a closer examination.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

I just cannot fathom what anybody who watches football thought that added to the game last night. Obviously it was good for us, but it just ruins the whole spectacle. Nobody would have had a problem with that goal if it was given (without watching 15 replays in super slow motion).

It adds nothing to the game. I don't think this sacrosanct, you're either off or your not helps the game at all.

Rule should be that in the event of a melee like that, the ref gets another look in real time, if he can't see an obvious error has been made, stick with whatever was decided.

 

[Berty23]

I would love to see the bit in the rule book where it says you can shove a player over if he is not looking at the ball. No idea where that has come from.

We were lucky with the offside but it is an objective decision so has to be made. It would have been controversial to disallow it because it felt the right thing to do.

Gary Lineker tweets a vid about motd running order and said “VAR controversy in West Ham Brighton game” but then in the analysis they all agreed. Unlucky but it has to be offside. How is that controversial?

 

[Arthur]

Offside isn't subject to "clear and obvious" since it's binary: on or off.

They are allowing attacking players a bit more leeway now. Thin lines and "offside by a toe" seems to have been consigned to history, thankfully.

Fair enough. Guess it was the right call then.

Still would have been miffed if it had gone against us though.