[Football] VAR West Ham disallowed goal

[blockhseagull]

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....).

What the replies on that tweet tell me is there is a lot of people who don’t know the offside rule.

 

[Mackenzie]

I thought it was a goal, that they’d get the benefit of the doubt. I was surprised and very happy when it was chalked off. It’s nice to have the odd one in our favour.

 

[nwgull]

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

The TV graphics showed that Lamptey was clearly played onside (by about a foot) by the defender on the far side of the box.

 

[A1X]

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.

I think their tactic of getting it into the danger area where their threatening players are was very good and one we should definitely look to introduce to our own tactics.

 

[Bozza]

Fair enough. Guess it was the right call then.

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

Oh, I absolutely agree with that!

We got out of jail, for sure - we weren't going to come back from two down.

 

[Si Gull]

The TV graphics showed that Lamptey was clearly played onside (by about a foot) by the defender on the far side of the box.

Great awareness from Lamptey to get himself onside, many others would have misjudged that and we'd have had a superb goal chalked off. Double assist points!

 

[Commander]

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.

Absolutely. He shouldn't be able to watch it 15 times in slow motion. The VAR ref should watch every goal in full speed no more than once or twice, while the players are celebrating, and if there is an obvious error then tell the ref to disallow it. It would take 30 seconds, and be not much different to how it used to be with a late flag going up, but they'd get 98% of the decisions right. I think most people would be happy with 98% if it meant the game flowed as it used to.

The problem is though, 'most people' refers to people who actually bother to go to watch live games. The TV audience around the world may well think differently, and we all know who is more important to the Premier League.

 

[chaileyjem]

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 "offside" was closer than i thought...

 

[Bold Seagull]

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.

I thought it was a lot more subtle than that, rather than surround the keeper, they surrounded the front post for the goal and a few of their corners. Even for the chalked off goal, no West Ham player impeded Sanchez.

 

[Bozza]

Lamptey's "offside" was closer than i thought...

For our goal?

I was watching it with [MENTION=236]Papa Lazarou[/MENTION] and even before the first replay I'd said "...as long as Lamptey was onside..."

There wasn't much in it with the defender on the far side.

 

[rogersix]

What the replies on that tweet tell me is there is a lot of people who don’t know the offside rule.

i didn't know it either. watching motd, i thought cos the ball brushes duffy first, antonio can't be offside, but duffy didn't intend it, so he's off!, who knew?

as an aside, when did we start putting a man on the post at corners? coocs chesting one of the line at the end, hooray!

 

[Papa Lazarou]

For our goal?

I was watching it with [MENTION=236]Papa Lazarou[/MENTION] and even before the first replay I'd said "...as long as Lamptey was onside..."

There wasn't much in it with the defender on the far side.

Visually I thought he was way onside, but his leg was extended as he was running, so it was closer. There was still a clear gap between the guidelines.

 

[Stat Brother]

The TV graphics showed that Lamptey was clearly played onside (by about a foot) by the defender on the far side of the box.

That's the point.
This season's graphics show that.

Last season's wouldn't have done.
Sure they may well have still showed TL to be onside, but we'd have had the same levels of scrutiny as the West Ham disallowed goal.

At that point anything can happen, much like the West Ham disallowed goal.

 

[BadFish]

If it takes that long to decide it probably isn't clear and obvious.

I know that this doesn't actually count of offside goals but perhaps it should.

As someone said earlier in the thread it doesn't add anything to game. It all seems a bit ridiculous to me.

I'll take the point though.

 

[Originunknown]

Offside is offside. Antonio shouldn't have been in there if he didn't want to be adjudged to be offside.

Very simple, stand offside, get ruled offside if you touch the ball.

Also thought Dawson fouled Lallana but there we go, that one is up for interpretation and they have been letting more challenges go this season.

 

[Bozza]

Visually I thought he was way onside, but his leg was extended as he was running, so it was closer. There was still a clear gap between the guidelines.

I was talking about before that replay.

I think when we saw the goal live, we didn't have visibility of the defender on the far side of the pitch.

The replay and freeze frame illustrated he was onside, just, when the lines briefly appeared.

 

[Simster]

Absolutely. He shouldn't be able to watch it 15 times in slow motion. The VAR ref should watch every goal in full speed no more than once or twice, while the players are celebrating, and if there is an obvious error then tell the ref to disallow it. It would take 30 seconds, and be not much different to how it used to be with a late flag going up, but they'd get 98% of the decisions right. I think most people would be happy with 98% if it meant the game flowed as it used to.

The problem is though, 'most people' refers to people who actually bother to go to watch live games. The TV audience around the world may well think differently, and we all know who is more important to the Premier League.

I wouldn't be surprised if use of VAR evolves so that we get to this point. It's already far better than it was and - last night notwithstanding - is far quicker than when it first started out. In your scenario, it doesn't really matter that the TV audience can spot the 2% of times they get it wrong - it's not like they'll stop watching because of it. Meanwhile, everyone prefers the game to flow as fast as possible.


As for this incident, well I'd have given it. It may have been a foul but I'm not sure. It may have been offside but a) if you need 15 slow-mos to decide that then don't bother and give the benefit of the doubt to the forward and b) anyone insisting on justifying the 15 repeats shows in order to get that particular offside call right has probably forgotten the whole point of the offside law. Clue; it wasn't to prevent goals like that.

 

[Icy Gull]

I was accepting that the WHU goal was a goal and think we got away with it

 

[Iggle Piggle]

The decision took too long last night - and I was at home where it is less of an issue than when you are in the ground - but in the defence of VAR, It is has been much much better this season. That was the first "Why are we waiting" review we've had all season unless i'm mistaken.

Regarding Lallana, it was the same as Maupay earlier in the season at Burnley. As an attacker, I feel like they are within their right to show a bit of physicality to someone just staniding in the way and making no effort to move towards the ball. I doubt that is what the law says - and that's all the matters really - but I don't like this rugbyesque blocking tactic at corners.

 

[Berty23]

If that goal had been allowed to stand and fall into the 2% then people would be fuming on here. There would be attacks against the team. Everyone is useless. Potter is done. Etc etc. It was obviously the correct decision because I have not seen anyone say it was not. Surely that is more important to spend another 30 seconds checking than to rush it and have days of criticism. “How can they get a binary decision wrong?”