[Football] VAR West Ham disallowed goal

[METALMICKY]

If it was our goal ruled out we'd have gone into meltdown. For me the only clear issue is that it's a foul on Lallana.

 

[El Presidente]

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.

Agree with you totally on the fouls, in terms of offside the clear and obvious error rule does not apply though, it is down to Hawkeye as the decision maker.

 

[amexer]

If it takes that long to make a decision its a goal. I know all goals are looked at by VAR but did ref give the goal or just hand over to VAR

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

He was a yard offside when the ball was played to him. Not really anything to doubt there.

It's hard to see if it touches him - but the angle shown on MOTD clearly shows that it does.

So it's really a very simple offside decision when broken down. It just took a long time because its weird, part of a goalmouth scrabble, player ahead of the keeper. But it certainly shouldn't be allowed to stand just because its a 'weird' offside.

Well done VAR, earned its corn last night

 

[Wardy's twin]

I would be disappointed if our goal was chalked off like but rules are rules. personally i would prefer VAR actually monitored throws and corners (especially) to make sure they are awarded properly than spending 4 minutes on one incident.

 

[Audax]

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?

Speaking of MotD - how poor was their edit of the match highlights? Nothing on Sarmiento or Webster going off injured in first half, nothing about Lallana going off injured and leaving us with just 10 men before we got the equaliser.

 

[Arthritic Toe]

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.

Yeah it is possible - possibly just nics his shin pad a moment before Duffy got the final touch, but blimey its close.

 

[GT49er]

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.

If they're offering a bit more leeway, then by definition surely it's not binary, on or off, any more. Somebody is making a descision about how much leeway to give.
FWIW, I don't think VAR should be used for marginal off-side decisions

 

[Arthur]

Agree with you totally on the fouls, in terms of offside the clear and obvious error rule does not apply though, it is down to Hawkeye as the decision maker.

Yep [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] corrected me earlier. And as I commented it was the right decision then as even if he didn't touch it he is clearly interfering.

On that then it does just go to show how lucky we were against Leicester. Both of their disallowed goals were very dubious......one was just plain wrong!

 

[Javeaseagull]

Dermot Gallagher said on Sky Sports that it was a correct decision, Antonio was offside when the ball touched him so it was correctly given off-side. So that's alright then.

 

[Berty23]

Speaking of MotD - how poor was their edit of the match highlights? Nothing on Sarmiento or Webster going off injured in first half, nothing about Lallana going off injured and leaving us with just 10 men before we got the equaliser.

I daren’t think how hard it is to pull together Motd that quickly for midweek matches. Some of them finished only about half an hour before the programme started. I agree it could have been better but it must be tricky to pull it all together.

 

[Taybha]

If that's ruled as offside then the games gone to pot, I'd be well hacked off it was us, yup the goal shouldn't of stood for the blatant foul on Lallana which was a clear and obvious miss by the ref so VAR could of saved 2 minutes faffing around and disallowed the goal in seconds, If the foul on Lallana had been in a attacking position for us then the bloke doing VAR presumably wouldn't of given a penalty because he didn't disallow the goal for a foul! But preferred the 2 minutes of dissecting the footage. Mental stuff.

 

[Berty23]

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.

Antonio did touch the ball and he also touched Duffy. Either way he is affecting play. As soon as he touched Duffy whether he touched the ball it was interfering with play. Two very big clues he touched it other than being able to see it.

1. He ran off clearly claiming the goal
2. Zero complaints from West Ham when it was disallowed. If he had not touched it they would have kicked off.

 

[Mike Small]

Dermot Gallagher said on Sky Sports that it was a correct decision, Antonio was offside when the ball touched him so it was correctly given off-side. So that's alright then.

Exactly. All this debate about Lalanna is irrelevant. It touched Antonio when he was in an offside position so it's offside even if it also touched Duffy. Interesting how the commentator (who I thought was good) didn't understand the rule in that you need two people to be playing you onside, one being the keeper, which Upson had to point out to her live on air. Antonio fell for the classic Bobby Sanchez Offside trap/flap.

 

[Audax]

I daren’t think how hard it is to pull together Motd that quickly for midweek matches. Some of them finished only about half an hour before the programme started. I agree it could have been better but it must be tricky to pull it all together.

Can forgive them the first half injuries, but going down to 10 men with Lallana off is unforgivable omission IMO - it's a key event in the game that gives context to the Maupay goal.

 

[schmunk]

Agree with you totally on the fouls, in terms of offside the clear and obvious error rule does not apply though, it is down to Hawkeye as the decision maker.

 

[El Presidente]

Yep [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] corrected me earlier. And as I commented it was the right decision then as even if he didn't touch it he is clearly interfering.

On that then it does just go to show how lucky we were against Leicester. Both of their disallowed goals were very dubious......one was just plain wrong!

We've had more than a fair share of luck this season, Liverpool's third goal at Anfield when Mane was deemed to have hand balled when Sanchez made a cluster **** of a clearance was another one.

 

[Bold Seagull]

We've had more than a fair share of luck this season, Liverpool's third goal at Anfield when Mane was deemed to have hand balled when Sanchez made a cluster **** of a clearance was another one.

'deemed' to have hand balled it.

 

[Arthritic Toe]

Antonio did touch the ball and he also touched Duffy. Either way he is affecting play. As soon as he touched Duffy whether he touched the ball it was interfering with play. Two very big clues he touched it other than being able to see it.

1. He ran off clearly claiming the goal
2. Zero complaints from West Ham when it was disallowed. If he had not touched it they would have kicked off.

No clues there...
1. His mind was on his scoring stats and his goal bonus (if such a thing exists)
2. No player on the pitch could possibly know the full details - var decisions tend to get begrudgingly accepted on the pitch.

If you're going to have var, it has to be forensic for an offside or theres no point in having it. (I'd still get rid).

 

[Mellotron]

I’d have been fuming as a West Ham fan to see that disallowed.