[Football] VAR West Ham disallowed goal

[Arthritic Toe]

I cant see any touch by Antonio - he didnt make a play for the ball either so don't see why he would be active - maybe by virtue of being so close to it?

No foul on Lallana for me - there's always pushing and shoving as the corner is taken, and if the shoved player decides to throw himself to the floor and gets rewarded for it, every corner would end up being a foul.

 

[jcdenton08]

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!

Me, for one?

 

[jcdenton08]

I cant see any touch by Antonio - he didnt make a play for the ball either so don't see why he would be active - maybe by virtue of being so close to it?

No foul on Lallana for me - there's always pushing and shoving as the corner is taken, and if the shoved player decides to throw himself to the floor and gets rewarded for it, every corner would end up being a foul.

I don't know what to tell you. It does touch Antonio. He is in an offside position. Therefore he is offside. Correct decision.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

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

That can't be correct, if you leave the field pf play you are considered to be on the touchline.

 

[Bozza]

Didn't it only take as long as it did as it was 2, 3 or 4 different reviews happening sequentially?

Had it just been the offside, it would have been a significantly quicker decision.

 

[jcdenton08]

That can't be correct, if you leave the field pf play you are considered to be on the touchline.

Absolutely.

It can be really eye-opening when people who watch us every week still don't understand the laws of the game. I know I'm sounding like a **** but some people here offer opinions on things, without any sort of foundation or knowledge on the subject at hand. It brings credibility issues to their every football-related post.

I know the changes to the interpretation of the laws can be confusing - and the application of VAR is still open to a lot of interpretation by the officials - but the decision last night was factually, objectively, 100% correct. It isn't open for debate. It is a fact that he was offside per the laws of the game. "Clear and obvious" doesn't apply to offsides. You're either offside or you're not. Antonio was offside.

By all means, the wider discussion about the application of VAR still stands, but whether or not this goal factually should or shouldn't have stood is moot.

I don't know how else to explain this.

 

[Arthritic Toe]

I don't know what to tell you. It does touch Antonio. He is in an offside position. Therefore he is offside. Correct decision.

Well your blue and white tinted glasses must work better than mine. I cant tell whether it touches or bounces over his foot. It doesn't seem to alter the direction of the ball.

 

[jcdenton08]

Well your blue and white tinted glasses must work better than mine. I cant tell whether it touches or bounces over his foot. It doesn't seem to alter the direction of the ball.

I normally get stick for being too dispassionate. In the last VAR debate I was accused of being a Palace fan (despite being here since 2008 and posting on every Albion thread).

It hits him. Watch the video on the first page on full screen and get back to me.

 

[Swansman]

Haven't seen the disallowed goal since the game but as I remembered (and I could be wrong) it I didnt think it was a foul on Lallana - merely the case of Dawson (?) being strong and Lallana weak. Not like in that other game where the opponent pushed Maupay with both hands.

I do think the ball might have touched someones arm in there but could be wrong about that as well.

It is offside however and just like against Burnley, Brighton is not "lucky" that the offside rule was invented 100+ years ago. Its just a rule. No luck to it.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I cant see any touch by Antonio - he didnt make a play for the ball either so don't see why he would be active - maybe by virtue of being so close to it?

No foul on Lallana for me - there's always pushing and shoving as the corner is taken, and if the shoved player decides to throw himself to the floor and gets rewarded for it, every corner would end up being a foul.

In the opposite scenario, a defender pushes an attacker in exactly the same way Dawson pushes Lallana and I suspect more often than not a penalty would be given.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

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….

It's not easy or clear cut at all. Lots of Brighton fans think that the goal should have stood on the basis of offside. Perhaps not so many with the blatant foul on Lallana.

 

[m@goo]

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.

Same. I assumed it was a push. If it had happened anywhere else on the pitch in normal play it would have been a foul

 

[pb21]

Well your blue and white tinted glasses must work better than mine. I cant tell whether it touches or bounces over his foot. It doesn't seem to alter the direction of the ball.

Does the ball have to have touched him? He was, with the benefit of replays, clearly in an offside position and, by being directly around the ball and behind Duffy, interfering with play. That's enough isn't it?

Regardless, I'm confident he did have the last touch.

 

[Berty23]

He sure as heck ran away celebrating like he had touched it! If he touches Duffy at all then by definition also interfering with play. It was obviously the right decision.

 

[blockhseagull]

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!

Yes the ball does need to be deliberately played but I was referring to those who claimed Antonio was onside because he wasn’t beyond the last Albion player. Seems not many know it’s two players but because often one is the keeper they just assume it’s the ‘last man’.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

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.

Live I didn't even consider he was offside. But, as you mentioned at the time, you were concerned.

 

[Lankyseagull]

On Match of the Day, they said it was offside and due to Sanchez's position as goalkeeper, meaning that the first Albion player behind him is the reference for the offside line, not the last player. From the Amazon clip, you could argue that there are actually two West Ham players in offside positions as the ball runs past Shane Duffy.

good explanation here: https://footballhandbook.com/offside-rule-when-goalkeeper-is-out/

 

[Originunknown]

On Match of the Day, they said it was offside and due to Sanchez's position as goalkeeper, meaning that the first Albion player behind him is the reference for the offside line, not the last player.

Correct

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

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….

It is a very easy test of how one-eyed football fans can be.

Anyone who would prefer the goal be given (by VAR being removed) is wrong headed to say the least, in my opinion

 

[hans kraay fan club]

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?”

There’s plenty of scope to get it wrong, because (some) offside decisions are actually far from binary.

Whether the player is in an offside position, compared to the defenders IS binary, and the technology takes care of that part quickly.

Beyond that though:
- at what exact moment was the ball played?
- did an attacking player get the final (deliberate) touch?
- is the offending player definitely affecting the outcome? ( in last night’s case, did Antonio touch the ball?)
- etc.