Brighton 1-1 Saints - Match Thread

[OldNick]

2 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

You have changed the subject here. We were talking about Armstrong’s position.

and how the hell can you tell where the keeper is looking?

No we were both talking about his run and if the keeper was affected. Watch the video and you will see their keeper (rightly so) is watching Frazer

[Viking Saint]

16 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

How can the cross going through the legs of a player five yards from goal NOT be interfering? The keeper has to position himself to cover the threat of Armstrong, thereby leaving the ar post exposed.

If that goal gets given against Saints I guarantee this entire forum would be fuming.

It did get given against us, Arsenal's second if memory serves. Where is the consistency?

[OldNick]

I have now watched their keepers interview on X and he clearly says he doesn't know why it was disallowed. So I believe its QED, Armstrong had no input into the goalkeepers view

[warsash saint]

11 minutes ago, warsash saint said:

Agree that the fans last night were in top form ... part from 10 mins at start of second half, near constant positive singing

Scenes when we equalised (& the disallowed 'goal')will live long in the memory - absolute carnage!  Thank Christ they has padded seats otherwise my shins would be on an even worse state today 😛

Credit to the 5 lads that started the Matty Fernandez song in the concourse before the game - managed to get the whole 3k Saints fans singing it whole game 🤩

 

Also no issues getting home - train to Lewis & then drove home.  Back on the A27 in 40 mins!

 

[Football Special]

7 minutes ago, derry said:

I thought that the officials weren't suppose to make a decision if a goal goes in but wait for confirmation from VAR. If that's the case the officials jumped the gun and left VAR looking at overturning the onfield offside decision. In which case why didn't VAR ignore the premature onfield decision and adjudicate on the video.

Thank you! 

[OldNick]

pic.x.com/jQU4OHv84d

[davefizzy14]

30 minutes ago, OldNick said:

2 things. Their goalkeeper after the goal made no complaint and apparently has said in an interview he didnt know why the goal was given as offside, and they got away with one

That says it all. We were robbed pure and simple. Angry with VAR to be honest.

[StrangelyBrown]

Just now, davefizzy14 said:

That says it all. We were robbed pure and simple. Angry with VAR to be honest.

But we should have been 5-0 down at half time, only for some luck that fell our way.

Easy to be angry with VAR, but we didn't really deserve to win.

[OldNick]

4 minutes ago, StrangelyBrown said:

But we should have been 5-0 down at half time, only for some luck that fell our way.

Easy to be angry with VAR, but we didn't really deserve to win.

and how many times has the boot been on the other foot over the years? and to a degree this season 

[Tommy Mulgrew]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

All I can think of is that Archer didn’t expect the ball to come to him as the defender was skidding in to block it. He had milli seconds to react and couldn’t adjust himself quickly enough. Or perhaps I am being overly charitable and it was a Che Adams moment?

I thought that the defender just brushed the ball enough to make it deviate slightly so that it struck Archer an inch or two from where he was expecting it to.  Hence Archer put the ball where he did not intend it to go.  Definitely not a Che Adams moment.

Whether Archer would have scored if the defender had not touched it or been there is another matter entirely.
 

 

[OldNick]

25 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

You have changed the subject here. We were talking about Armstrong’s position.

and how the hell can you tell where the keeper is looking?

pic.x.com/jQU4OHv84d

[the colonel]

8 minutes ago, StrangelyBrown said:

But we should have been 5-0 down at half time, only for some luck that fell our way.

Easy to be angry with VAR, but we didn't really deserve to win.

yeah but that's football and will never change, if you don't score the chances you don't win. VAR messing around for 5+minutes and getting it wrong, and not for the first time against us this season, is simply not right and feels like we are being cheated. But for why there's no logical answer.

[tdmickey3]

34 minutes ago, OldNick said:

 

Well at the moment the ball is kicked the keeper is looking at Frazer. You can go around in circles trying to make your point but IMO he is not impaired by Armstrong. The keeper even has reportedly said so in an interview 

Perhaps Var and the ref should have asked him at the time, do you think he would have said it then🙄

[Thereisonlyonemickychannon]

 watching saints on TV is like having a ten year old in the same room with a loaded pistol. I wince a lot.

[OldNick]

... 

 

Edited November 30 by OldNick

[Football Special]

[Whitey Grandad]

36 minutes ago, OldNick said:

pic.x.com/jQU4OHv84d

That says nothing about where he was looking.

How did you know that he had tunnel vision?

[Whitey Grandad]

50 minutes ago, davefizzy14 said:

That says it all. We were robbed pure and simple. Angry with VAR to be honest.

Angry? Why?

The onfield decision was offside. Which it was.

[Whitey Grandad]

14 minutes ago, Football Special said:

Whoever this is knows nothing about the Laws of the Game.

’flicked his foot back’

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, derry said:

I thought that the officials weren't suppose to make a decision if a goal goes in but wait for confirmation from VAR.

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. 

Edited November 30 by Lord Duckhunter

[Lord Duckhunter]

8 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Whoever this is knows nothing about the Laws of the Game.

’flicked his foot back’

 

 

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. 

25 minutes ago, Football Special said:

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.  

Edited November 30 by Lord Duckhunter

[derry]

6 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

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. 

From reports it seems the linesman flagged and the ref gave it. VAR then reviewed it. I'm querying if that should have happened.

[Lord Duckhunter]

9 minutes ago, derry said:

From reports it seems the linesman flagged and the ref gave it. VAR then reviewed it. I'm querying if that should have happened.

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. 

Edited November 30 by Lord Duckhunter

[OldNick]

24 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

That says nothing about where he was looking.

How did you know that he had tunnel vision?

Whitey you are getting ridiculous now trying to protect your obvious incorrect position. Had his vision been interfered with he wouldn't be saying he didnt know why it was disallowed. He would say, the Southampton played impeded my view. Get over it, their goalkeepers own words are telling. I assume you will keep harping on for the next 4 hours trying to make yourself correct. The only thing is as a Saints fan is we have had a goal chalked off for our player allegedly impeding the keeper when in his own words he tells us he wasnt. Saints have been wronged and Im sure you will carry on with this boring position. The goal was cancelled, we  lost a goal that to most will seem an injustice. 

[derry]

2 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

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. 

I thought the instruction to linesmen was to delay flagging offsides if there was a chance a goal might result. Sometimes the flag is raised when for offside immediately if it's early in a move. A reference to football rules / instructions to refereees would help, however everybody has an opinion. I'm not looking for opinions but would welcome precise rules.

[notnowcato]

8 hours ago, tdmickey3 said:

You should stick to soft drinks, the strong ones make you act like a bit of a twat

What’s your excuse then? 
 

I’m so funny, it hurts 😂 Awaits predictable response / emoji  

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

8 minutes ago, derry said:

I thought the instruction to linesmen was to delay flagging offsides if there was a chance a goal might result. Sometimes the flag is raised when for offside immediately if it's early in a move. 

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. 
 

 

Edited November 30 by Lord Duckhunter

[derry]

1 minute ago, OldNick said:

Whitey you are getting ridiculous now trying to protect your obvious incorrect position. Had his vision been interfered with he wouldn't be saying he didnt know why it was disallowed. He would say, the Southampton played impeded my view. Get over it, their goalkeepers own words are telling. I assume you will keep harping on for the next 4 hours trying to make yourself correct. The only thing is as a Saints fan is we have had a goal chalked off for our player allegedly impeding the keeper when in his own words he tells us he wasnt. Saints have been wronged and Im sure you will carry on with this boring position. The goal was cancelled, we  lost a goal that to most will seem an injustice. 

I don't think the Keeper changed his foot position until after Archer's shot. Leads me to think Archer blindsided him and his whole focus was on the cross so wasn't distracted by Armstrong otherwise he may have moved to his left to cover Archer.

[Dr Who?]

1 hour ago, StrangelyBrown said:

But we should have been 5-0 down at half time, only for some luck that fell our way.

Easy to be angry with VAR, but we didn't really deserve to win.

But there have been plenty of games where the shoe has been on the other foot with this. That’s all part of football. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

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

[Dr Who?]

21 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

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. 

yep. They check every goal or in this case a goal that was not. 

[davefizzy14]

55 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Angry? Why?

The onfield decision was offside. Which it was.

Not for me. Our second goal should have stood.

[StrangelyBrown]

21 minutes ago, Dr Who? said:

But there have been plenty of games where the shoe has been on the other foot with this. That’s all part of football. 

I'm not sure that's true though. We've not really deserved to win any games this year - even the one we did win Everton did their best not to take chances they should have taken.

Blaming refs and VAR is papering over the cracks.

[Dr Who?]

7 minutes ago, davefizzy14 said:

Not for me. Our second goal should have stood.

I’m a qualified referee and it was nonsense, the goal should have stood, but if my assistant put his flag up I would have gone with that on the county league, but that’s not the point. We have VAR! 😡 

[Dr Who?]

3 minutes ago, StrangelyBrown said:

I'm not sure that's true though. We've not really deserved to win any games this year - even the one we did win Everton did their best not to take chances they should have taken.

Blaming refs and VAR is papering over the cracks.

Yeah maybe not this season so much, but you get my point. It’s all part and parcel of a game of footy. And we are not good enough over 90 minutes this season for sure. 

Edited November 30 by Dr Who?

[derry]

I'm not a referee but I think this flexible maybe/maybe not offside rule is a clusterfuck. I think the original rule was much more clearcut especially now there is VAR around. With the old rule Armstrong was a yard offside. None of this interpretation whether interfering rubbish.

[Farmer Saint]

2 hours ago, StrangelyBrown said:

But we should have been 5-0 down at half time, only for some luck that fell our way.

Easy to be angry with VAR, but we didn't really deserve to win.

TBF Brighton had an expected goals of 1.67 for the whole game, so not sure we should have been  5 down is quite right. We could have been, but that would have been quite an anomaly.

Edited November 30 by Farmer Saint

[StrangelyBrown]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

TBF Brighton had an expected goals of 1.67 for the whole game, so not sure we should have been  5 down is quite right. We could have been, but that would have been quite an anomaly.

I tend to use my eyes rather than worry about xG (which statistically is proven to be a flawed way of looking at football). There were 5 very good chances that they should have taken and somehow despite us defending like an u10s team they didn't take. 

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, StrangelyBrown said:

I tend to use my eyes rather than worry about xG (which statistically is proven to be a flawed way of looking at football). There were 5 very good chances that they should have taken and somehow despite us defending like an u10s team they didn't take. 

None were as good as Archers in the first half though. They had a number of half chances, but that was it. I'd have expected them to be a couple up, maybe 2-1 or 3-1 at half time.

Edited November 30 by Farmer Saint

[tdmickey3]

1 hour ago, notnowcato said:

What’s your excuse then? 
 

I’m so funny, it hurts 😂 Awaits predictable response / emoji  

 

To be fair you are the expert in the being a twat area and you excel

Edited November 30 by tdmickey3

[BERMUDASAINT]

Anyone remember this

[Gingeletiss]

18 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

I’ve just managed to see the highlights through Remote Desktop since the videos aren’t supported in my location.

In my opinion Armstrong is clearly in an offside position and interfering with play by making a movement towards the goal. You could almost describe him as making a decoy run.

Did you know, that Koi swim around the pond in groups of four, when threatened, the A Koi B Koi and C Koi all swim away, leaving the D Koi.

 

 

Sorry 😜

[Sunglasses Ron]

VAR is just so mad.

The one thing I wish they’d do is simply thicken the offside lines to give a very minor advantage to attackers, so we can stop these ridiculously close calls (that are often based on the wrong frame / angle).

If they were nice and chunky and you see the attacker first then call offside in seconds (rather than minutes) and crack on with the game.

I also think there should be a maximum 60 seconds for a review. No decision = No change.

 

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, derry said:

I don't think the Keeper changed his foot position until after Archer's shot. Leads me to think Archer blindsided him and his whole focus was on the cross so wasn't distracted by Armstrong otherwise he may have moved to his left to cover Archer.

What you are saying here is that his focus was on Armstrong so he didn’t see Archer.

2 hours ago, derry said:

From reports it seems the linesman flagged and the ref gave it. VAR then reviewed it. I'm querying if that should have happened.

Yes it should. In most cases if there is any doubt then the flag should not be raised until after the ‘goal’.

2 hours ago, derry said:

I thought the instruction to linesmen was to delay flagging offsides if there was a chance a goal might result. Sometimes the flag is raised when for offside immediately if it's early in a move. A reference to football rules / instructions to refereees would help, however everybody has an opinion. I'm not looking for opinions but would welcome precise rules.

You are correct. That is the instruction. The idea is to prevent goals being ruled out by an incorrect flag.

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, davefizzy14 said:

Not for me. Our second goal should have stood.

But you weren’t refereeing this game.

[derry]

2 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

What you are saying here is that his focus was on Armstrong so he didn’t see Archer.

Yes it should. In most cases if there is any doubt then the flag should not be raised until after the ‘goal’.

You are correct. That is the instruction. The idea is to prevent goals being ruled out by an incorrect flag.

I actually think he was ball watching.

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, OldNick said:

Whitey you are getting ridiculous now trying to protect your obvious incorrect position. Had his vision been interfered with he wouldn't be saying he didnt know why it was disallowed. He would say, the Southampton played impeded my view. Get over it, their goalkeepers own words are telling. I assume you will keep harping on for the next 4 hours trying to make yourself correct. The only thing is as a Saints fan is we have had a goal chalked off for our player allegedly impeding the keeper when in his own words he tells us he wasnt. Saints have been wronged and Im sure you will carry on with this boring position. The goal was cancelled, we  lost a goal that to most will seem an injustice. 

Now don’t take that attitude with me. I’ve listened to it again and I hear the same things. He doesn’t say what you think he said. 

The decision wasn’t up to him. It wasn’t his to make.

Take off your red and white striped glasses and accept the truth. Armstrong was comfortably offside and in the goalkeeper’s face.

[Whitey Grandad]

16 minutes ago, derry said:

I actually think he was ball watching.

Of course he was watching the ball and he would have seen Armstrong coming from his left and making a run for the cross. He actually overruns the cross so he must have seen him?

OldNick argues that Verbruggen says that he doesn’t know why the goal was disallowed but it’s not up to him. Whatever next? Shall we have referees asking the players what the application of the Laws should be?

[Oldandtired]

45 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Whatever next? Shall we have referees asking the players what the application of the Laws should be?

They might as well as from what I've seen this season especially no two of them seem to have the same interpretation of the laws.

[Whitey Grandad]

Just now, Oldandtired said:

They might as well as from what I've seen this season especially no two of them seem to have the same interpretation of the laws.

They won’t necessarily be the same where a subjective decision is involved. There are plenty of circumstances where a decision could go one way or the other. There are a lot of Laws which state “in the opinion of the referee”.

We were told that you can one necessary expect consistency from one game to another but you should aim for consistency within one match. The PGMOL try to achieve wider consistency by regular training seminars but still have a long way to go.

Internationally there are probably more variations from one country to another than there are within a nation.