Post Match Brighton 2 Leicester 1

[Miles Away]

Do people get shorter in old age?

Yes

 

[Brown Nose]

Why both "goals" we scored were disallowed.

 

[H T B]

Why both "goals" we scored were disallowed.

He couldn’t see why the penalty was given against us though

 

[Blue Maniac]

Why both "goals" we scored were disallowed.

What a load of shit, christ on shrooms

 

[bocadillo]

Do people get shorter in old age?

This one does.

 

[Brown Nose]

What a load of shit, christ on shrooms

Object to the law by all means. I would agree that it needs to be amended.

However the rule is that it is offside if a player is in the eye line of the keeper. He doesn't have to interfere or be in front. Barnes was in both instances.

That's why both were disallowed and why VAR had no reason to intervene.

 

[Jeff]

However the rule is that it is offside if a player is in the eye line of the keeper. He doesn't have to interfere or be in front. Barnes was in both instances.

This is what the law says:

"preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision"

There's no way Barnes should have been flagged for the second one. The goalkeeper had a clear view of the ball.

 

[Miles Away]

Object to the law by all means. I would agree that it needs to be amended.

However the rule is that it is offside if a player is in the eye line of the keeper. He doesn't have to interfere or be in front. Barnes was in both instances.

That's why both were disallowed and why VAR had no reason to intervene.

I posted the rules as you suggested I should. I didn't see Barnes violate any of them, particularly on the second.

I've found in life it's ok to admit you are wrong from time to time.

 

[Brown Nose]

I posted the rules as you suggested I should. I didn't see Barnes violate any of them, particularly on the second.

I've found in life it's ok to admit you are wrong from time to time.

It's not about me MA. The officials made the decisions. VAR saw no reason to review so agreed. Then the video above shows another official agreeing with both decisions. In short, there was no error.

I don't think either 'should' have been disallowed. However, under the rules as they are being applied, with several examples already this season, the officials did what we ought to have expected them to do.

 

[sparky79]

So 1-1 then. Given that the penalty was NEVER A PENALTY.

 

[homer]

The supposed purpose of VAR was for an independent assessment to take place to correct errors made by officials on the pitch

Put up with all the claptrap it brings, you ignorant dinosaurs, because all that matters is that the right decision is made

Well the penalty decision was clearly incorrect, as is the second disallowed goal, by the letter of the law

So what is the actual point of VAR again ?

 

[Brown Nose]

So 1-1 then. Given that the penalty was NEVER A PENALTY.

On reflection, I agree. At the time I thought that Vestergaard was too weak and the holding wasn't sufficient. However on repeated views, it was a foul.

VAR fecked up.

The two disallowances were correct though.

 

[Brown Nose]

The supposed purpose of VAR was for an independent assessment to take place to correct errors made by officials on the pitch

Put up with all the claptrap it brings, you ignorant dinosaurs, because all that matters is that the right decision is made

Well the penalty decision was clearly incorrect, as is the second disallowed goal, by the letter of the law

So what is the actual point of VAR again ?

Bit by bit, VAR will lead us to more precise rules and more consistent application of those rules.

There are already many fewer ridiculous decisions than there were before VAR. However there is still some way to go largely because the football rules were not fit for purpose.

It's worth remembering that VAR didn't intervene at all in our game yesterday so those exact same decisions would have happened before VAR.

VAR should have intervened once yesterday to overturn the penalty decision. It was an error not to.

 

[M17TT C]

Bollocks do we get more precise or consistent decisions otherwise we wouldn't get the bullshit notion that if the lino didn't flag, VAR wouldn't have overruled it being given.

It's either offside or it isn't, doesn't matter who flagged or blew for it, if it was missed and only picked up on VAR the decision should be the same whatever.

We don't really have VAR in the true sense though, it is a closed shop protectionist measure for officials.

If they wanted to be open, honest and get things right, replays would be shown to people in the ground to prove the decision and the conversion between the officials should broadcast to all.

 

[Brown Nose]

Bollocks do we get more precise or consistent decisions otherwise we wouldn't get the bullshit notion that if the lino didn't flag, VAR wouldn't have overruled it being given.

It's either offside or it isn't, doesn't matter who flagged or blew for it, if it was missed and only picked up on VAR the decision should be the same whatever.

We don't really have VAR in the true sense though, it is a closed shop protectionist measure for officials.

If they wanted to be open, honest and get things right, replays would be shown to people in the ground to prove the decision and the conversion between the officials should broadcast to all.

Inadvertently, you've made an interesting point. The decision about interfering with the keeper is a subjective one. Unlike with most offside calls, it is not simply about whether Barnes was offside or onside.

I think I'm correct in saying that VAR have never overruled a subjective offside decision. Maybe they should, but they currently don't.

 

[M17TT C]

Inadvertently, you've made an interesting point. The decision about interfering with the keeper is a subjective one. Unlike with most offside calls, it is not simply about whether Barnes was offside or onside.

I think I'm correct in saying that VAR have never overruled a subjective offside decision. Maybe they should, but they currently don't.

It's not subjective though, read the rules that have been posted in here numerous times which you ignore.

Barnes is not in breach of any of the rules listed. He's either in the keepers line or sight or not which he certainly isn't for the second.

 

[Graz]

The only solution is get eye-tracking technology installed in goalkeepers' retinas so we can see exactly what is and isn't in their field of vision.

 

[Robin127]

What pisses me off most is the inconsistency, look at Lingard's goal yesterday.

 

[camberwell fox]

It's not subjective though, read the rules that have been posted in here numerous times which you ignore.

Barnes is not in breach of any of the rules listed. He's either in the keepers line or sight or not which he certainly isn't for the second.

It’s not quite that simple though is it?

I saw both offside decisions again today and it was said that Barnes was interfering with play as he ‘appeared’ to move towards the ball, you can therefore argue that he is active in the goal.

 

[Micky]

This disallowed goals I can just about cope with but the penalty decision is the most ****ing ludicrous of all. An absolute lack of common sense. If you have a player protesting about being fouled why would you not even consider looking at it, in the VAR studio. These guys need to look at the process in Rugby Union.