[Football] VAR West Ham disallowed goal

[Stat Brother]

'deemed' to have hand balled it.

Otherwise known as:-

Punched the ball into the net.

 

[Arthur]

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.

I said the EXACT same thing on another thread a couple of weeks back:

https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/show...-foot-more&p=10064056&viewfull=1#post10064056

I don't think we've been better at all.....we've been luckier which appears to be the secret to winning in the premier league. Don't be good, be lucky.

Burnley 1 - 2 Albion - shite first half, bit unlucky with their goal. Nicked the win
Albion 2 - 0 Watford - Watford were terrible
Albion 0 - 2 Everton - good for 20 then played off the park
Brentford 0 - 1 Albion - second best all game but defended well. Nicked the win.
Albion 2 - 1 Leicester - good first half terrible second. Lucky with the pen, but made up for the exact same thing happening against us at Burnley. VERY lucky with both the disallowed goals
Palace 1 - 1 Albion - crap, nicked a point.
Albion 0 - 0 Arsenal - best we've played all season. Was like last year all over. Got ZERO luck!
Norwich 0 - 0 Albion - didn't see so can't comment, obviously unlucky with the pen but very lucky after Sanchez howler.
Albion 1 - 4 Man City - they were unplayable first half, can draw a line through that.
Liverpool 2 - 2 Albion - Sanchez howler and it would have been game over. Lucky (although right decision with the current daft laws) call, then unlucky not to grab the win second.
Albion 1 - 1 Newcastle - Poor from start to finish. Newcastle were dreadful first half and we should have put the game to bed.

 

[Berty23]

Otherwise known as:-

Punched the ball into the net.

Quite. Mane knew. He hardly celebrated. I am staggered he didn’t just tell the ref and take the honesty points.

Until we get VAR decisions as bad as
1) connelly stone wall pen getting overturned vs Man U last season when everyone said clear pen. It was awarded then overturned. Shearer was beside himself “that is the run I was coached to make across a defender”
2) the worst I have seen - the pen awarded to saints when solly fouled someone a yard outside the box. It was a staggering decision. I can’t remember the pundit in the studio but he was just laughing. “It is not a debatable decision. It is just wrong. Clearly outside the box. Shocking” and no one could disagree.

The mane hand ball was correct.

The offside was correct.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

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

So? I was blooming annoyed when Trossard's goal was disallowed at Anfield. Didn't stop him being offside by about the same amount as Antonio was yesterday though

 

[Super Steve Earle]

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.

Good to know but, of course, we don't give a monkey's now

 

[Bold Seagull]

Good to know but, of course, we don't give a monkey's now

Indeed!!

 

[Hugo Rune]

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

It was Dawson after Sanchez had flapped the ball to him. I’m convinced I saw one angle where it clearly touched his arm but this was never replayed because they concentrated on the foul and offside. I saw this incident from other angles too, all of which were inconclusive but I swear that they showed the clear handball only once. I’ll go over the replay tonight and attempt to find it.

 

[Seagull58]

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?

The rule was brought in by Alan Shearer during the Burnley game. Any attacking player is allowed to run through and over a defensive player if he is not looking at the ball and jumping for it. He has a similar rule for penalties where, once the attacker "feels contact", he is entitled to go down like a sack of shit.

 

[Hamilton]

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.

As Bill Shankly once said When explaining the off-side rule - 'If a player is not interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage, then he should be.'

That said, I didn’t think there were any fouls and I didn’t think Antonio affected Duffy’s missed clearance. I think it did brush Antonio’s foot after Duffy, but the ball was headed in.

It was a goal for me. Thank god it wasn’t though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

As Bill Shankly once said When explaining the off-side rule - 'If a player is not interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage, then he should be.'

That said, I didn’t think there were any fouls and I didn’t think Antonio affected Duffy’s missed clearance. I think it did brush Antonio’s foot after Duffy, but the ball was headed in.

It was a goal for me. Thank god it wasn’t though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank God you're not an official and don't know the laws of the game.

 

[El Presidente]

Thank God you're not an official and don't know the laws of the game.

It was shite goalkeeping for me and the offside was a huge let off following the error.

 

[jcdenton08]

It was shite goalkeeping for me and the offside was a huge let off following the error.

I just don't get it. How is it a let off when the officials are simply, correctly, enforcing the laws of the game? A let off would be an opposition player missing an open goal, for example. Or a fart.

 

[El Presidente]

I just don't get it. How is it a let off when the officials are simply, correctly, enforcing the laws of the game? A let off would be an opposition player missing an open goal, for example. Or a fart.

The disallowed goal was as a result of Sanchez flapping at the corner and gifting the ball to the West Ham player. If he had cleared it initially there would have been nothing for VAR to deal with.

 

[Yoda]

If I were the VAR official, I would've been more focused on finding a camera angle to see whether the ball hit Dawson's hand/arm before bouncing into his face and back towards goal first. That would've been the clearest and cleanest thing to disallow the goal for.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I just don't get it. How is it a let off when the officials are simply, correctly, enforcing the laws of the game? A let off would be an opposition player missing an open goal, for example. Or a fart.

It was surely a let off in that we flapped at the corner and had the ball been 5mm more away from Antonio, it would have been a goal. The ball minutely brushing Antonio prevented our error being punished all be it with the correct application of the rules.

 

[hoveboyslim]

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.

Sanchez catches more crosses than any other Premier League goalie. Teams know that and are targeting him

 

[Bry Nylon]

I just don't get it. How is it a let off when the officials are simply, correctly, enforcing the laws of the game?

Fully agree that the goal was disallowed as the player was offside by the laws of football.

But then the offside law was introduced to prevent players willfully goal-hanging. To make the law enforceable, you obviously need criteria to apply it by and for a few fractions of a second Antonio was outside of these criteria by a few inches, so yes - offside. That is indisputable. But in any game without VAR the goal would have stood, so for me, yes it was a bit of a let off.

I know those who say he was offside are 100% technically correct, because he was. But decisions like that still feel a bit like getting done for doing 30.01mph in a 30mph limit. For our equaliser, Lamptey could easily have been 'offside' had the last WH defender stepped up six inches or the ball been played fractionally sooner. Obviously, TL wasn't goal-hanging - but a spectacular last minute equaliser and a vital point would have been chalked off for a technical infringement of the OS law that offered no meaningful advantage.

Sometimes, laws can be applied in a way that, yes, is technically correct - but out of step with the spirit of the game.