Post Match Brighton 2 Leicester 1

[Micky]

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.

Yes, and I can accept that. He was in the wrong place and gave the officials an opportunity to call offside. However, the second one was a clear, firm header that the keeper was never getting near. That surely should be the decisive factor.

 

[FOX Franks]

Just watching highlights now. That penalty is a ****ing shambles.

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.

Eh?
The ref originally gave a corner, not a handball, is what the motd commentators said.

 

[Brown Nose]

Just watching highlights now. That penalty is a ****ing shambles.

Eh?
The ref originally gave a corner, not a handball, is what the motd commentators said.

Correct. He only gave the penalty after speaking to the linesman. The same linesman that was 30 yards further away from the incident than the ref, who thought it was a corner. And then the VAR said nothing about any of it.

 

[sparky79]

on the upside. Vardy's goal was a thing of beauty. A great move and a blueprint for how we should be looking to play.
Vestegaard, Ricardo, Castagne, Lookman, second half tielemans, second half barnes and vardy all looking sharp.

 

[Brown Nose]

Yes, and I can accept that. He was in the wrong place and gave the officials an opportunity to call offside. However, the second one was a clear, firm header that the keeper was never getting near. That surely should be the decisive factor.

It isn't though. There is no way Schmeichel would have got to the Norwich one, but it was correctly disallowed. The subjective decision on interfering is purely on the basis of whether the keeper could have been affected by the player being in the offside position.

From his position, the linesman put his flag up for both incidents. The ref could have overturned either one but chose to go with the linesman decision. The VAR could have intervened but decided not to.

 

[popillius]

The two disallowances were correct though.

So, just to be clear. You ask a poster to 'check the laws'. They do. They post said laws which clearly outline why the second goal should have stood (because it didn't contravene the laws of the game). You then ignore the laws that you asked said poster to look at and decide, arbitrarily, that regardless of these, the decision to disallow the second goal was correct. Even though it wasn't.

I mean, that's what has happened here isn't it.

 

[popillius]

The subjective decision on interfering is purely on the basis of whether the keeper could have been affected by the player being in the offside position.

Or, we could base it on the actual, real, non-made up laws of the game:

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

In which case it shouldn't have been chalked off considering Barnes was very, very clearly doing neither of these things.

 

[homer]

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.

But that’s just not true, as exemplified by the decisions in our game and the second offside compared to the Lingard decision

Apart from the glaring error in missing the foul on Vestergard, the second disallowed goal clearly shows that Barnes is nowhere near the line of sight of the keeper, so it is not offside in any way - again compare it to the Lingard goal

So glaringly wrong application of the rules, and totally inconsistent application of the rules

It’s an unmitigated disaster

 

[alex]

Typically bummed by Brighton.

 

[Matt_B]

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.

Not according to Mark Halsey, which counters the video you posted. He said the penalty and second goal were nonsense decisions. He didn't agree with the first goal but conceded he could see why they might have made that decision.

 

[SimonW]

In my opinion the second dissalowed goal should have stood, Harvey Barnes was not interfering with the goalkeeper.

But ... having been pinged by the official for the first dissalowed goal he or someone else should have made sure the same mistake was not replicated.

 

[Matt_B]

In my opinion the second dissalowed goal should have stood, Harvey Barnes was not interfering with the goalkeeper.

But ... having been pinged by the official for the first dissalowed goal he or someone else should have made sure the same mistake was not replicated.

It wasn't, he wasn't interfering the second time around.

 

[fitz]

Facebook memories helpfully reminded me that a ref needed VAR to see this was dangerous. So there's one argument for VAR being not entirely pointless shit.

 

[parafox]

Facebook memories helpfully reminded me that a ref needed VAR to see this was dangerous. So there's one argument for VAR being not entirely pointless shit.

View attachment 16371

There's also the memory of the cup final and Chelsea's equaliser being correctly ruled out...

 

[Brown Nose]

But that’s just not true, as exemplified by the decisions in our game and the second offside compared to the Lingard decision

Apart from the glaring error in missing the foul on Vestergard, the second disallowed goal clearly shows that Barnes is nowhere near the line of sight of the keeper, so it is not offside in any way - again compare it to the Lingard goal

So glaringly wrong application of the rules, and totally inconsistent application of the rules

It’s an unmitigated disaster

https://www.premierleague.com/news/...of 2019,overturned decision every 3.5 matches.

 

[Blue Maniac]

Facebook memories helpfully reminded me that a ref needed VAR to see this was dangerous. So there's one argument for VAR being not entirely pointless shit.

View attachment 16371

Is that Shawn Michaels and Marty Jannetty

 

[Graz]

Is that Shawn Michaels and Marty Jannetty

BAH GAWD!! SWEET CHIN MUSIC RIGHT THROUGH THE SPORTS DIRECT WINDOW! BAH GAWD BAH GAWD

 

[Blue Maniac]

BAH GAWD!! SWEET CHIN MUSIC RIGHT THROUGH THE SPORTS DIRECT WINDOW! BAH GAWD BAH GAWD

Weird how many people remember it like that, but he actually threw him through the window after the kick

 

[fitz]

There's also the memory of the cup final and Chelsea's equaliser being correctly ruled out...

Yup. Var has definitely benefited us in the past. It's something that in theory should be good for the game and the fairness applied. Unfortunately the inconsistency of rules and referees who can't see someone booting someone's chops off from close distance are those using the tech....

Oh....and diving. That's something that should've disappeared with var but remains.

 

[give_us_a_wave]

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

Lingard plays for Man Utd. Therefore it's a goal.

There's 60 years of consistency right there.