Brighton 1-1 Saints - Match Thread

[kitch]

Realise I'm going to get pelters for this, but fuck it...

I'm not angry at VAR. I think there's a reasonable case to argue that Arma did interfere with the play. Initially Archer looked to be close but onside, but Arma allowed himself to run ahead of the ball before it was played, and then half-heartedly swung a leg at it. If you watch the keeper, he (albeit very, very briefly) hesitates and waits for the ball to cross Arma before thinking about dealing with Archer.
If Arma isn't there, the keeper would have been more central. Or, if Arma was there but made no effort to connect with the ball in any way and blatantly let it go past him, the keeper's in the same position and we get the goal, and all Arma did was draw a defender out with him. VAR couldn't have argued as easily with that one.

It's unfortunate, and I know I'll get hate for it, but if that happened at Brighton's end I'd be arguing that their equivilent of Arma interferred with play. The fault lies with Arma; He was offside for half of that play, and when it came to making the decision in a split second, he made the wrong one.

Gutted, but my enthusiasm for this season died a month or so ago so I'm not raging that we only got the draw. I did think we played well in the 2nd half though, much better to watch.

[Bob60]

48 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

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. 
 

In that case they are not rules or laws just guidelines. 

The problem is if it's subjective then it's unfair. The arsenal one had to be interfering as he was right in front of our keeper, that gets allowed. 

If you are in the box you are interfering as the defenders and keeper are aware of you and you have taken some of their attention?

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Football Special said:

Corruption , once again. 

That's vital goals at Wolves and Brighton ruled out now, I won't miss this league, genuinely they're welcome to.it , let's get back to the Championship away from all this nonsense. 

Fuck VAR 

Without VAR the 'goal' would not have stood as the lino flagged offside.

[OldNick]

I thought Manning played well and did well for our goal.

Our support superb throughout

[The Kraken]

I struggle to see how on earth it could be argued that Armstrong is doing anything other than interfering with play. Hes right in the centre of goal and in the goalkeepers eye line. Absolutely no question it was the right call.

[OldNick]

1 minute ago, The Kraken said:

I struggle to see how on earth it could be argued that Armstrong is doing anything other than interfering with play. Hes right in the centre of goal and in the goalkeepers eye line. Absolutely no question it was the right call.

were you on VAR last night ? Centre of the goal lol

[gio1saints]

On the offside - agree with many on here. As a HantsFA qualified ref I would have given that offside without a seconds hesitation. Lino flagged its offside carry on. 
 

That VAR took so long to faff about before ultimately confirming the onfield decision was shitty and pisses everyone off. Russell’s explanation from a pro footballers perspective is exactly what he should say - the goalie was not impeded - But the on-field decision was offside and if it was for Brighton I’d have been aggrieved if it had been not been disallowed.

Just annoys me the VAR interpretation on “interfering with play for an offside goal”  ends up being just as subjective and liable to human error as if there was no var and it’s back down to the ref and his assistants. No difference really just we lost 4 minutes waiting and all got angry. 

[OldNick]

Just now, gio1saints said:

On the offside - agree with many on here. As a HantsFA qualified ref I would have given that offside without a seconds hesitation. Lino flagged its offside carry on. 
 

That VAR took so long to faff about before ultimately confirming the onfield decision was shitty and pisses everyone off. Russell’s explanation from a pro footballers perspective is exactly what he should say - the goalie was not impeded - But the on-field decision was offside and if it was for Brighton I’d have been aggrieved if it had been not been disallowed.

Just annoys me the VAR interpretation on “interfering with play for an offside goal”  ends up being just as subjective and liable to human error as if there was no var and it’s back down to the ref and his assistants. No difference really just we lost 4 minutes waiting and all got angry. 

But they cleared it as onside re Archer, and I suspect the lino gave Archer offside and so wrong. 

[OldNick]

ANother thig, if the ref knew he was going to disallow it for interfering why did he let it go to VAR?

[The Kraken]

4 minutes ago, OldNick said:

were you on VAR last night ? Centre of the goal lol

where was he then? In the image below he’s about 3 yards from the penalty spot.
 

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, OldNick said:

But they cleared it as onside re Archer, and I suspect the lino gave Archer offside and so wrong. 

Without VAR that is moot. Unfortunately VAR have to look at every aspect, every player possibly involved, and even the notorious 'phases of play bollox. They are not simply asked "I flagged Archer off - was he ?"

[Lord Duckhunter]

13 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Without VAR the 'goal' would not have stood as the lino flagged offside.

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. 

 

[OldNick]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

Without VAR that is moot. Unfortunately VAR have to look at every aspect, every player possibly involved, and even the notorious 'phases of play bollox. They are not simply asked "I flagged Archer off - was he ?"

But if the ref has he was interfering and so that doesnt matter about Archer off or on

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, The Kraken said:

where was he then? In the image below he’s about 3 yards from the penalty spot.
 

And running through the GK's peripheral vision.

[Lord Duckhunter]

7 minutes ago, OldNick said:

But they cleared it as onside re Archer, and I suspect the lino gave Archer offside and so wrong. 

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. 

[OldNick]

4 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

where was he then? In the image below he’s about 3 yards from the penalty spot.
 

He was looking at Fraser , his defender was more in his vision. 

[Oldandtired]

Saints in the first half was exactly why I spend my time moaning about them.

Saints in the second half was a team, win, lose or draw, with which I could start enjoying my football again and have something to cheer about.

[OldNick]

1 minute ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

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. 

If os why spen 4 minutes checking whether Archer was offside

[The Kraken]

Just now, OldNick said:

He was looking at Fraser , his defender was more in his vision. 

🤣 that makes zero sense.

 Armstrong is the closest player to the keeper. Hes in a prime position, and in real time the keeper will surely think he at least might be able to get to the cross coming in. Ergo hes interfering with play.

[OldNick]

1 minute ago, The Kraken said:

🤣 that makes zero sense.

 Armstrong is the closest player to the keeper. Hes in a prime position, and in real time the keeper will surely think he at least might be able to get to the cross coming in. Ergo hes interfering with play.

well he is a useless keeper if he is looking at Armstrong instead of Fraser who is crossing the ball, it is all subjective I believe it was a bad error by the officials that has cost us. 

[gio1saints]

11 minutes ago, OldNick said:

But they cleared it as onside re Archer, and I suspect the lino gave Archer offside and so wrong. 

Yes I think that’s what happened. But in real life football not with a hundred replays and var that goal looks offside to me as a ref Lino flagged it or not. And I would have chalked it off. Human error I know - wrong reason apparently - but I prefer  that to the explanation ultimately given. 

[Lighthouse]

1 minute ago, OldNick said:

If os why spen 4 minutes checking whether Archer was offside

They basically check everything if there's a goal. Archer was marginal, Armstrong clearly off. Why it took so long I've no idea, I took one look at it and knew the latter was clearly offside and interfering. You didn't need lines for that.

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, OldNick said:

If os why spen 4 minutes checking whether Archer was offside

Did they ? The replays shown on TV as the decision was being reviewed constantly focussed on Arma. At the time I wondered why, as I thought they would be checking Archer, but it makes sense if it was whether Arma was interfering.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Just now, OldNick said:

If os why spen 4 minutes checking whether Archer was offside

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. 

[OldNick]

Just now, gio1saints said:

Yes I think that’s what happened. But in real life football not with a hundred replays and var that goal looks offside to me as a ref Lino flagged it or not. And I would have chalked it off. Human error I know - wrong reason apparently - but I prefer  that to the explanation ultimately given. 

Yes without VAR but once it was proved Archer was onside the decision to then penalise Armstrong was wrong. It seems the majority of non Saints fans feel we were done

[James G]

I think you give var a limited amount of time, like 45 seconds, then it goes with the decision of the referee. 

[OldNick]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

Did they ? The replays shown on TV as the decision was being reviewed constantly focussed on Arma. At the time I wondered why, as I thought they would be checking Archer, but it makes sense if it was whether Arma was interfering.

It is a nonsense, and a waste of time. If the ref said he thought it was Armstrong interfering then they only had agree that not whether Archer was. 

[Saint Billy]

That performance and others from Dibling will mean we won't see him next season in the championship that's for sure 

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 minutes ago, James G said:

I think you give var a limited amount of time, like 45 seconds, then it goes with the decision of the referee. 

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

[The Kraken]

4 minutes ago, OldNick said:

Yes without VAR but once it was proved Archer was onside the decision to then penalise Armstrong was wrong. It seems the majority of non Saints fans feel we were done

A poll went up in a national football forum I use about half an hour ago. Therefore a majority of non saints fans voting.

[trousers]

53 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Just seen the highlights.

I have to say I agree with the offside call. Arma being where he was clearly would have influenced the keeper's position, because he had to assume that the ball in was meant for him so he could set himself to try and save any resulting shot. It was absolutely the right call.

Why did it take them 5 minutes to come to the same decision if it was as clear cut as you say...? #rhetoricalquestion

[SWLondon Saint]

51 minutes ago, gio1saints said:

 Decapitate the boss, install a new regime and unsettle this now near 18months in the baking evolving team with some breakout young stars now flourishing and leading it - like TD and MF - at your peril SR! Each match they look better and better. And that’s been versus the best in the league. Credit where it’s due. 

 

The problem with your theory is that when we go down (which is certain), the breakout young stars will leave (also certain). And while we have looked better the last 2 games - fewer insane risks, a bit more pragmatism with sometimes going longer with passes - RM's biggest flaw is still organising the defence and that has not changed at all. You can try and put all the blame on Suga for an individual error, which it was, but with 3 CBs that ball should never, ever have got there.

[Saint NL]

After watching it again this morning, it's pretty clear Armstrong was interfering. It's stupid though that VAR goes through the whole rigamarole of checking Archer when something else could overrule it. 

But, a promising second half performance. At least a tiny glimmer of hope.

[Saint Matty 76]

Horrible decision, horrible stadium and the most embarrassing set of fans in football.

Went 2nd last night and you wouldn’t have known they were there for all but 3 minutes.

 

[Lee On Solent Saint]

1 hour ago, gio1saints said:

Thought the away support was brilliant all match. Yet again.

Bad first half epitomised by Archer shinning a chance someone like Vardy (or insert 90% of forwards in this league - ) would score in their sleep. Second half competitive but not dominant. VAR has not been our friend this season but neither have our set pieces or general defending - which is bottom of the league standard rubbish. 

Noticeably our main goal threat last bunch of games appears to be mostly from fast breaks on the transition - and it’s planned - and seemingly effective - Archers goal v Arsenal, his contentious disallowed goal and the Fernandes goal v Liverpool all last few weeks examples. Kind of disappointing if you are one of the many who like to go on about how boring and slow we are as a team.  Kind of ruins the narrative. 
 

The team is evolving. The style is evolving. Arguably, progressively in recent matches there’s signs. Probably way too slowly to avoid relegation.
 

None of Liverpool, Arsenal, Brighton or Man City have made us look “out of our depth”. The top four in this league. Decapitate the boss, install a new regime and unsettle this now near 18months in the baking evolving team with some breakout young stars now flourishing and leading it - like TD and MF - at your peril SR! Each match they look better and better. And that’s been versus the best in the league. Credit where it’s due. 

 

Trouble is, with relegation, go the likes of Dibling and Fernandes. So, not much point in "baking" a team.

[obelisk]

A bit dumb of ArmA to let himself get so obviously offside in the first place. Had he held back half a second he'd have been in prime position to score (or miss) himself. As it is he gives the ref a decision to make.

[whelk]

lol at all the plums agreeing with the decision 

[whelk]

4 minutes ago, obelisk said:

so obviously

Yeah right. You wouldn’t  have a clue without Sky slowing it down for you

Edited November 30 by whelk

[S-Clarke]

The first half was much of the same, totally out of our depth and fortunate it was just 1-0. To our credit, we got better in the 2nd half, probably due to Brighton getting much worse, but we did actually get a foothold into it. I thought overall we were unlucky not to win that, but if you go back to the first half that's why we didn't win it.

Completely hopeless use of the ball from the back, atrocious defending on numerous occasions - one of which lead to the goal - and that still is our achiclies heal and will always be so. We don't score enough goes to continue to be as vulnerable as we are at the back.

The VAR bollocks though summed up everything that is wrong with top level football these days, it's just a depressing watch. A goal being disallowed has to be black and white, it simply has to be. You're either on side or offside, touching the ball or not touching the ball. That's as simple as it needs to be. When you add these daft nuances into the equation regarding interfering, without touching, or being too close to an opposition player, but not touching the ball etc - it just opens up too much inconsistency and goals become based on 'opinion' rather than factual 'on or off' - that's where it becomes very, very dangerous.

If you look at the investment they put into VAR over the summer, it was all based around the 'VAR' brand - graphics, social media presence etc. How is that relevant? It shouldn't matter where they sit or what their logo looks like, but they seem to want to make a name for themselves and ensure they are in the spotlight. Corrupt is one word for it.

Obviously finishing above 20th was a lost cause many weeks ago, but it's decisions like last nights which actually make me somewhat happy that we won't have to put up with it next year.

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, Bob60 said:

In that case they are not rules or laws just guidelines. 

The problem is if it's subjective then it's unfair. The arsenal one had to be interfering as he was right in front of our keeper, that gets allowed. 

If you are in the box you are interfering as the defenders and keeper are aware of you and you have taken some of their attention?

As Brian Clough once famously said, if you aren’t interring with play, what are you doing on the pitch! You are quit right of course, if you are standing in front of the goal anywhere near the ball, you can’t help but be interfering. Which is precisely why the Arsenal goal should have been ruled out too.

[sadoldgit]

9 minutes ago, whelk said:

Yeah right. You wouldn’t  have a clue without Sky slowing it down for you

In real time I thought Armstrong was offside. I think that the linesman flagged too.

Edited November 30 by sadoldgit

[S-Clarke]

14 minutes ago, obelisk said:

A bit dumb of ArmA to let himself get so obviously offside in the first place. Had he held back half a second he'd have been in prime position to score (or miss) himself. As it is he gives the ref a decision to make.

He didn't touch the ball or impact the course of the ball, that simply has to be the criteria in any situation being questioned. Sure, he was offside, but you cannot rule a goal out because someone was offside who didn't touch the ball. It then becomes the opinion of neutrals as to if the player, without touching, will have impacted the ball to the guy who was on side. It's absolute nonsense of the highest level and there's no sticking up for it.

Edited November 30 by S-Clarke

[SWLondon Saint]

2 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

So, re-watching the game from last night.

Looks like we're playing a back 4 with shoehorn shoehorned in as a defensive mid in front of the back 4. Then when we have the ball we transition into a back 3 with him falling back into defence and Suga and Manning pushing up.

BTW, considering how shit he is defensively, Manning's ball's in can be brilliant.

Quite funny that we'd prefer to have KWP at CB than Stephens.

I don't think Cap'n Jack was meant to be in Def mid when we didn't have the ball, it's just that he wandered up pitch so much when we had it he was always level or ahead of the ball when we were in defensive transition! When we were in a low block, he was definitely one of 3 CBs, usually the free man.

If you look at when we were playing our goal kicks, KWP and THB were doing the split CBs thing and most of the time Cap'n Jack was ahead roughly in a DM / pivot position. Bloody daft thing is, he is not good enough to receive the ball with anyone near and I think everyone else in the team knows that he will play you into trouble if he gets it. I actually agree that Manning has been better defensively this season, weirdly.

Lowlights

- getting ball from Manning with enough space to make a decision, he plays the worst possible pass trapping Manning in the corner

- getting ball in a DM kind of area as we're going forward he plays an absolute horror pass across midfield left to right straight to them which luckily ended as a corner

- standing in midfield congesting play waving his arms directing play while everyone tries to pass round him

- marking space and realising it with a feeble jump for the goal then pulling Suga up and keeping a low profile. A good captain should know if a player needs encouragement or a rocket but he knew he was out of position too. Should have held his hand up then got Suga going again.

[badgerx16]

20 minutes ago, whelk said:

lol at all the plums agreeing with the decision 

Lol at those who didn't understand the rules. Whether the rules are bollox is another matter.

Edited November 30 by badgerx16

[RedArmy]

25 minutes ago, Saint NL said:

After watching it again this morning, it's pretty clear Armstrong was interfering. 

With who? 

[LoyalSaintSO50]

Armstrong is probably still getting over the first recipient of foul given against during stone wall penalty situation from last weekend.

Would love our players to be more on officials backs, far too nice. We get routinely shafted, fkin call em out, cheating bastards. Only Lallana seems to ever do so 

[gio1saints]

24 minutes ago, SWLondon Saint said:

The problem with your theory is that when we go down (which is certain), the breakout young stars will leave (also certain). And while we have looked better the last 2 games - fewer insane risks, a bit more pragmatism with sometimes going longer with passes - RM's biggest flaw is still organising the defence and that has not changed at all. You can try and put all the blame on Suga for an individual error, which it was, but with 3 CBs that ball should never, ever have got there.

Yes I think you are right. The defence is bad. Our attackers do t score as much as they should. The goal (s) we conceded many was rubbish. Our best young players will get stolen/ sold. 
 

That scenario has happened on and off the last fifty years. Whether it’s under SR and RM or any other ownership leadership. I just have a small flickering flame of belief that there is something going on that could really be different this time at SFC. If and when it restarts from the Championship next season I’m sanguine. We kept KWP last time but I  doubt we can keep both TD and MF if we go down which would be a great shame as they give me value for my ST. BUT : we got two perhaps under this regime we will get more. 

[whelk]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

Lol at those who didn't understand the rules.

lol at those that view football as some an academic study to debate

[badgerx16]

4 hours ago, whelk said:

lol at those that view football as some an academic study to debate

It's far more serious than that...........

Edited November 30 by badgerx16

[obelisk]

10 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

He didn't touch the ball or impact the course of the ball, that simply has to be the criteria in any situation being questioned. Sure, he was offside, but you cannot rule a goal out because someone was offside who didn't touch the ball. It then becomes the opinion of neutrals as to if the player, without touching, will have impacted the ball to the guy who was on side. It's absolute nonsense of the highest level and there's no sticking up for it.

Not sticking up for it. ArmA gave the ref a chance to rule the goal out. Many times an "offside" player gets ignored but not this time. It's the inconsistency with VAR decisions that bugs me.