Lord Duckhunter

I don’t think the decision was right, but that was down to the referee & Howard Webb. Not the VAR.

He did. He raised his flag when the ball was in the net. Delaying the flag isn’t to wait for VAR decision, it’s to allow a disallowed goal to be allowed. People are getting confused because he flagged AA. We know this because if he was flagging Archer, then VAR would have sent the ref to the monitor as he didn’t touch the ball. The only way AA action could have had the goal disallowed was if Ref went to monitor or initial on field decision was against him and VAR didn’t consider it a clear and obvious error.

I’d love to read more about this, please keep us updated Soggy 👍

Of course that should happen, what’s the other option, leave it to VAR? It wasn’t a factual decision, it was a subjective one. Was AA interfering? The on field officials make subjective decision, not VAR.

It wasn’t VAR.

The below is why there’s so much confusion & pony, VAR didn’t decide whether AA was interfering, they were checking whether the decision he was, cleared the clear and obvious error bar. The on field officials ruled he was interfering. VAR decided it wasn’t a clear and obvious error. Had the referee decided he wasn’t interfering, I doubt that would have been over ruled either, and the goal would have stood.

The goal was disallowed when the ball was dead, so VAR could get involved. Line decisions are down to VAR, but this wasn’t one of those. The referee makes a decision & VAR checks whether that decision is a clear and obvious error. What you’re suggesting is the referee doesn’t make a decision until VAR reviews it, in other words VAR referees the game.

Fucking hell, that’s interesting….

That’s a coincidence because I won a pair as well.

I can think of one reason.

FFS What is so hard to understand. Stokes’ offside is factual, AA was subjective, it’s a totally different situation. VAR would have ruled Stokes onside or off. The referee/lino decides whether AA is interfering & the VAR reviews that. If VAR thinks a clear and obvious error has been made, the referee is sent to the monitor, if he doesn’t the goal is disallowed without him needing to visit the monitor(which is what happened).. In this instance VAR process is actually working in Saints favour, because without it there’s zero chance the goal stands. They’re reviewing whether a disallowed goal should be allowed, not finding a reason to disallow a goal.

Then it would have been no goal as the on field decision was offside. The VAR was deciding whether a clear and obvious error was made, and deciding it wasn’t. You are basically arguing for something that did happen.

So no goal then. And Everton’s goal at St Mary’s would have stood as well.

That is the process. VAR can not over rule the on field subjective decision without recommending a review. If the on field decision was Archer offside, no interference for AA, once Archer was deemed onside, the only way the goal could be ruled out was via ref visiting monitor to see if that was a clear and obvious error.

Wrong I’m afraid. Had they done that the referee would have been sent to the monitor to review whether AA affected play. The fact he didn’t means that was what the flag was for.

And Everton’s one would have stood. im amazed at the number of people who haven’t understood what happened, including the sky pundits. The only bloke on TV that seem to understood what happened was Lego. There were 2 decisions to be made. 1 factual and one subjective. Factual one, was Archer offside. Subjective, was AA affecting play. Because the referee didn’t go to the monitor the goal must have been disallowed for AA affecting play. Therefore the only complaint Saints can have is whether the decision to punish AA was a clear and obvious error. The process confused some by taking so long, when it didn’t need to. VAR only needed to check whether the AA decision was a clear and obvious error. Once it decided it wasn’t, Archer decision became irrelevant. They spent about 4 mins on an irrelevant decision.

Don’t be so ridiculous, he’s also got to also be interfering with play. Therefore a subjective decision has to be made regarding players who don’t touch the ball.

You are correct, and VAR agreed with you. You do realise that the on field decision was that AA’s movement affected the Brighton players don’t you? Therefore the VAR had to determine whether THAT was a clear and obvious error. 🤡🤡

I’ve had a decent drop tonight. My mate has a similar machine to me and has been recommending it for ages. The strength has always put me off, but a Black Friday deal led me to give it a try. Bloody wonderful, but I’m feeling a bit tipsy.

I don’t often agree with Lego, but he’s 100% right about this decision. The obsession with the on field decision is hampering the usefulness of VAR. the VAR doesn’t decide whether AA affected the Brighton players, just whether it was clear and obvious that he didn’t. You end up with the on field officials making an error, with VAR backing up that error on the basis that it wasn’t too bad an error. Ridiculous

Exactly. The time was taken deciding an irrelevant aspect of the goal.

Is Lego deluded? Thought we played well first half.

And Downes

This is the point a lot seem to be missing. Without VAR, it would have been offside as that was the on field decision. The issue for me is the length of time. Ridiculous. The Lino must have flagged for AA (because if he hadn’t the ref would have been sent to monitor if VAR deemed interference), so therefore that was the only check required. If they think it’s not interfering then they need to draw the lines to check Archer. They did it arse about face, with the irrelevant decision taking the time.