Post Match Brighton 2 Leicester 1

[fitz]

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

There's 60 years of consistency right there.

Aye. Didn't have to wait long to see the answer to "would that have been given against man Utd?"

 

[Brown Nose]

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.

Nope.

The only bit of a law I've seen reproduced here doesn't really help. You need to read law 11 and law 12 in full to understand what Gallagher is talking about. Nobody appears interested in doing this because it's much easier to decide what you want the law to be and argue for that instead.

As I keep saying, it really doesn't matter what you or I think about whether or not Barnes was impeding the Brighton keeper. It is a subjective interpretation and Gallagher explains what his subjective interpretation is, which is useful because it clearly matched what the referee decided. That's why I thought it was useful to post here. You can debate this forever but it's a completely pointless exercise.

Also, as I've said, VAR has never to my knowledge overturned a subjective offside decision by a referee such as this. Do I think that's good? No. But all I'm trying to do is explain why I think that VAR didn't intervene in either situation.

Meanwhile, this is what you posted in the match thread following the first incident with Barnes offside said:

"As soon as he is in an offside position anywhere in front of the keeper, that was going to be given offside. The precedent has been set".

And following the second one said:

"It was off."

That suggests to me that you do understand the rules and their interpretation but have now completely changed your mind for reasons unknown. That's what appears to have happened here.

 

[Joe_Fox]

This was nothing less than blatant match fixing. Some people did very well out of this result, you can bet you eye teeth on that.

 

[pork pie fox]

This was nothing less than blatant match fixing. Some people did very well out of this result, you can bet you eye teeth on that.

Did your bet win on this Joe_?

 

[Matt_B]

Did your bet win on this Joe_?

It wasn't a draw so it's unlikely

 

[alex]

It’s not going unnoticed how some on here are already changing their tune re. Lookman

 

[Graz]

It’s not going unnoticed how some on here are already changing their tune re. Lookman

From the glimpses I've seen, I'll admit I am changing my tune. He looks like a good addition so far. But he still hasn't started a game. I'm excited to see more of him from the glimpses so far but there's still a lot to do to prove he's the answer to that right sided problem.

Also the point I, and I think others, made was that we needed to add top quality to that right wing position as a priority - the fact Lookman hasn't started so far suggests he's not the standout 'guaranteed' first choice player that we should've been targeting for that position.

He looks like he will make an impact and provide something different, which is an improvement on Under and hopefully Perez - but there's not much to suggest so far that he's of the calibre we should've been bringing in for that position.

 

[fitz]

From the glimpses I've seen, I'll admit I am changing my tune. He looks like a good addition so far. But he still hasn't started a game. I'm excited to see more of him from the glimpses so far but there's still a lot to do to prove he's the answer to that right sided problem.

Also the point I, and I think others, made was that we needed to add top quality to that right wing position as a priority - the fact Lookman hasn't started so far suggests he's not the standout 'guaranteed' first choice player that we should've been targeting for that position.

He looks like he will make an impact and provide something different, which is an improvement on Under and hopefully Perez - but there's not much to suggest so far that he's of the calibre we should've been bringing in for that position.

Very much this. He's definitely an upgrade on Madders at this moment too. Not that this is very high praise. He's never really had any end product but at least the opposition will notice he's playing.

 

[parafox]

Very much this. He's definitely an upgrade on Madders at this moment too. Not that this is very high praise. He's never really had any end product but at least the opposition will notice he's playing.

Not much end product but at least he usually passes the ball to someone when he can't make something happen instead of blasting the ball over the bar like Under.

 

[big_mac4824]

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.

I believe one of the refs will be live this week during the game, that will be far better, imo hearing the referee talk his way through his decision not only helps the fans but ensures the referee is methodical in his process. this has been done your years in Rugby and done well.
The only conclusion as to why referees are not live is either the Prem league are worried about foul and abusive language to the ref or it is hubris.

 

[TornadoShaunUK]

Wasn't keen on Lookman but I'll give him a chance. He has ability but his figures have always been poor. It's early days and there have been some positive showings from him so far but at the same time, still no goals or assists. I think his substitute appearances have shown enough promise that he deserves a crack from the start.

 

[Payne74]

It’s not going unnoticed how some on here are already changing their tune re. Lookman

Maybe it's because they have realised since the transfer window closed its either Lookman or....... Perez

 

[Lako42]

He looks more skilful and technically good on the ball than anyone else in the entire squad.

 

[Miles Away]

He looks more skilful and technically good on the ball than anyone else in the entire squad.

Definitely has something about him and should be heavily involved. Suspect he might be a bit inconsistent, but we have to find out.

 

[City Fan]

He still won’t start against Burnley. Neither will Iheanacho.

 

[Brown Nose]

I suspect that Lookman appears to be a more exciting creative recruit because we're being force fed the alternatives of Maddison, Albrighton and Perez.

 

[H T B]

Some backhanded compliments being handed out by some for Lookman.

 

[The Old Fox]

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 ?

I suspect that checks are pretty cursory. This is how they have sped up the procedure from last season's long waits. I have always been in favour of VAR but, if it is just going to add an extra level of dispute, then I agree that it should be scrapped. I would have been annoyed were the referee to have made those decisions without VAR but, I could accept that one man cannot see everything. When there is a check and Sky TV can produce the evidence of an error, but not the officials that is far more than annoying.

The solution for the offside rule is surely to go back to the idea that if you are standing in an offside position, you are offside. Although this would have lead to both goals being disallowed, it may well have influenced Barnes' play. "Interfering" just adds human judgement and variable decisions. Barnes could do exactly the same, in the next game, and both goals be given. That is daft!

 

[popillius]

Nope.

The only bit of a law I've seen reproduced here doesn't really help. You need to read law 11 and law 12 in full to understand what Gallagher is talking about. Nobody appears interested in doing this because it's much easier to decide what you want the law to be and argue for that instead.

As I keep saying, it really doesn't matter what you or I think about whether or not Barnes was impeding the Brighton keeper. It is a subjective interpretation and Gallagher explains what his subjective interpretation is, which is useful because it clearly matched what the referee decided. That's why I thought it was useful to post here. You can debate this forever but it's a completely pointless exercise.

Also, as I've said, VAR has never to my knowledge overturned a subjective offside decision by a referee such as this. Do I think that's good? No. But all I'm trying to do is explain why I think that VAR didn't intervene in either situation.

Meanwhile, this is what you posted in the match thread following the first incident with Barnes offside said:

"As soon as he is in an offside position anywhere in front of the keeper, that was going to be given offside. The precedent has been set".

And following the second one said:

"It was off."

That suggests to me that you do understand the rules and their interpretation but have now completely changed your mind for reasons unknown. That's what appears to have happened here.

The first one was off. The precedent had been set. He was in front of the keeper. I did say the second one was off. Then I saw the replay later and realised he wasn't in front of the keeper. I was wrong...

See... it's really not that difficult to do. Have a go, you might find it cathartic.

 

[popillius]

Nope.

The only bit of a law I've seen reproduced here doesn't really help. You need to read law 11 and law 12 in full to understand what Gallagher is talking about. Nobody appears interested in doing this because it's much easier to decide what you want the law to be and argue for that instead.

As I keep saying, it really doesn't matter what you or I think about whether or not Barnes was impeding the Brighton keeper. It is a subjective interpretation and Gallagher explains what his subjective interpretation is, which is useful because it clearly matched what the referee decided. That's why I thought it was useful to post here. You can debate this forever but it's a completely pointless exercise.

Also, as I've said, VAR has never to my knowledge overturned a subjective offside decision by a referee such as this. Do I think that's good? No. But all I'm trying to do is explain why I think that VAR didn't intervene in either situation.

Meanwhile, this is what you posted in the match thread following the first incident with Barnes offside said:

"As soon as he is in an offside position anywhere in front of the keeper, that was going to be given offside. The precedent has been set".

And following the second one said:

"It was off."

That suggests to me that you do understand the rules and their interpretation but have now completely changed your mind for reasons unknown. That's what appears to have happened here.

Oh and there is nothing at all in Law 11 or 12 that would make the second one offside. Nothing at all.