Brighton 1-1 Saints - Match Thread

[Bob60]

58 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

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.

I sort of agree that if you are offside in the box you are interfering, but the big issue for the fans is consistency. Arsenal's second against us was worse than this goal but is given, today arsenal get a pen when the keeper hits a player who had just headed the ball whereas against the dippers their keeper wiped Armstrong out without getting the ball and they even get the free kick.

They need consistency of these are rules of the game.

[derry]

16 minutes ago, Bob60 said:

I sort of agree that if you are offside in the box you are interfering, but the big issue for the fans is consistency. Arsenal's second against us was worse than this goal but is given, today arsenal get a pen when the keeper hits a player who had just headed the ball whereas against the dippers their keeper wiped Armstrong out without getting the ball and they even get the free kick.

They need consistency of these are rules of the game.

I'm afraid that there is complete consistency. Don't go against the interests of the top sides as the media will make a big deal of it. Easier to go against the sides at the bottom. God forbid being involved in a big team being knocked over. Take the easy way out.

 

[Oldandtired]

25 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

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”.

 

You don't seem to be allowing for that in your very black-and-white analysis of yesterday's decision.

[Dark Munster]

5 hours ago, OldNick said:

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

It's not about his view being impacted. The keeper was positioned in the centre in anticipation of an AA shot. If AA hadn't been there he would've focused 100% on Archer and moved to his left as the cross came in. So I don't blame the VAR for judging that AA interfered with play.

The Arsenal goal against us should've been chalked off for the same reason.

[sfc4prem]

26 minutes ago, Bob60 said:

I sort of agree that if you are offside in the box you are interfering, but the big issue for the fans is consistency. Arsenal's second against us was worse than this goal but is given, today arsenal get a pen when the keeper hits a player who had just headed the ball whereas against the dippers their keeper wiped Armstrong out without getting the ball and they even get the free kick.

They need consistency of these are rules of the game.

It's this inconsistency that can cost teams a place in the league itself.

[Saint Billy]

Well, we got a draw which is probably more than we deserved so not all bad.

[Killers Knee]

I'm still waiting for the day a Goalkeeper's flailing save is interpreted by a Referee as the Goalkeeper throwing the ball into his own net, I'm sure the PGMOL have a Man Utd fan just itching to use this much underused nuance.

[Football Special]

6 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

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

’flicked his foot back’

 

I got loads of texts from mates at other clubs saying the same thing. We were robbed Grandad, simple as that. 

[tdmickey3]

Quiet on here now, we should all be celebrating getting to 5 points.

 

[notnowcato]

2 hours ago, tdmickey3 said:

Quiet on here now, we should all be celebrating getting to 5 points.

 

Did you not get the invite? Fuck knows how that happened. 

[Whitey Grandad]

8 hours ago, Oldandtired said:

You don't seem to be allowing for that in your very black-and-white analysis of yesterday's decision.

That’s the point. It’s either offside or not offside. Somebody has to make a decision and it won’t always be clear cut.

[Whitey Grandad]

7 hours ago, Football Special said:

I got loads of texts from mates at other clubs saying the same thing. We were robbed Grandad, simple as that. 

Don’t be silly. There’s a perfectly valid case for concluding that Armstrong was interfering with play and an opponent. To say that he wasn’t is stretching the point more than somewhat.

[tdmickey3]

7 hours ago, notnowcato said:

Did you not get the invite? Fuck knows how that happened. 

It was only you, Gio and Fabrice who think it’s great having amassed so many points, the others are from the club

[austsaint]

3 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Don’t be silly. There’s a perfectly valid case for concluding that Armstrong was interfering with play and an opponent. To say that he wasn’t is stretching the point more than somewhat.

And in any case the linesman had flagged for offside meaning that without VAR’s intervention or existence the goal wouldn’t have stood anyway.  Under VAR, a technical, yet correct ruling was made.    Without the technology, the goal was chalked off immediately.  It was a gut wrenches, but not the big Club bias some are suggesting.

[saintant]

13 minutes ago, austsaint said:

And in any case the linesman had flagged for offside meaning that without VAR’s intervention or existence the goal wouldn’t have stood anyway.  Under VAR, a technical, yet correct ruling was made.    Without the technology, the goal was chalked off immediately.  It was a gut wrenches, but not the big Club bias some are suggesting.

Many like me are angry that Arsenal score against us with an offside player clearly impacting on Ramsdale's decision making and it is given yet ours is ruled out for something similar. Different rules for different teams seems to be at play.

[austsaint]

4 minutes ago, saintant said:

Many like me are angry that Arsenal score against us with an offside player clearly impacting on Ramsdale's decision making and it is given yet ours is ruled out for something similar. Different rules for different teams seems to be at play.

Yes, hard to argue with that.

[badgerx16]

27 minutes ago, saintant said:

Many like me are angry that Arsenal score against us with an offside player clearly impacting on Ramsdale's decision making and it is given yet ours is ruled out for something similar. Different rules for different teams seems to be at play.

Was the Arsenal player flagged as offside as happened with Archer's goal ? ( I can't remember ).

[saintant]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

Was the Arsenal player flagged as offside as happened with Archer's goal ? ( I can't remember ).

Not sure it matters - VAR would have checked and should have made the same decision as we suffered on Friday. Webb really needs to be looking at these inconsistencies and doing something about them.

[Oldandtired]

Isn’t the whole point about VAR to do away with inconsistency in implementing rules. If it isn’t then what is the point of it? 

Edited December 1 by Oldandtired

[whelk]

2 hours ago, austsaint said:

And in any case the linesman had flagged for offside

There was no mention on the commentary but seen others saying that. Why did they celebrate then if the flag went up?

[Weston Super Saint]

2 minutes ago, whelk said:

There was no mention on the commentary but seen others saying that. Why did they celebrate then if the flag went up?

We don't get many opportunities, so take every chance we can to celebrate?

[austsaint]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

There was no mention on the commentary but seen others saying that. Why did they celebrate then if the flag went up?

I’m not sure whether the Lino put up his flag late, (which does happen).    When the VAR came into play I was just hoping that the inches fell in Archer’s favour - which they did.   I don’t think anyone watching the game live even considered the possibility that AA had attempted a back heel invoking that technical ruling of off side.   

[whelk]

7 minutes ago, austsaint said:

I’m not sure whether the Lino put up his flag late, (which does happen).    When the VAR came into play I was just hoping that the inches fell in Archer’s favour - which they did.   I don’t think anyone watching the game live even considered the possibility that AA had attempted a back heel invoking that technical ruling of off side.   

Shocking coverage from Sky to not show any visuals or any commentator reference - can’t believe it myself as Sky;know what they are doing. Production manager would want camera on the lino with flag up.. Regarding late flags that is to let the chance play out in case they may be wrong and player incorrectly pulls up - not applicable in this case.

BS decision as Lineker said

[davefizzy14]

I'm still angry about that decision on Friday night when it should have stood. The last three games now we have been robbed. No doubt we will get a bloody apology from the PGMOL about it but what good is that. Absolute joke.

Onto the game itself first half we weren't aggressive enough as RM said. And we didn't create too much. Second half we were so good. A joy to watch. Dibling is just phenomenal 😊 Fernandes class 😊 I thought Jack was outstanding in the second half, blocking shots, making last ditch tackles, proper captains performance alongside THB 😊 also big credit to Lumley who I thought was very solid, deserves to keep his place for Weds evening 😊 Flynn too was great and a lovely finish 😊 KWP excellent too 😊

Edited December 1 by davefizzy14

[rallyboy]

The bar was set on those decisions by the Arsenal game, and that's fine - but on Friday it was moved significantly.

Massive inconsistency.

Have the refs ever thought about getting together occasionally and discussing how they do things rather than putting their own individual spins on every incident?

Just a thought.

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Was the Arsenal player flagged as offside as happened with Archer's goal ? ( I can't remember ).

No. I don’t think so. 
 

I don’t remember the refreee visiting the screen so there was consistency with VAR in both goals. The VAR decided that neither decision was a clear and obvious error, so stayed with the onfield decision. 
 

This has always been my issue with the current set up. The referee could make an error, the VAR agrees it’s an error, but because it’s not an horrendous error, it’s not corrected. If a Lino flags for something the referee has missed, the referee goes with that decision, the Lino doesn’t evaluate how bad the error was. VAR has the added protection of sending the referee over to the screen. Why on Earth can’t  VAR just say “I think you made an error, have a look at it”, rather than having to decide how bad the error was first? 

Edited December 1 by Lord Duckhunter

[Lord Duckhunter]

10 minutes ago, rallyboy said:

 

Have the refs ever thought about getting together occasionally and discussing how they do things rather than putting their own individual spins on every incident?

 

They meet regularly and have done for years, weird that anyone would think they don’t. 

[WALK DMC]

30 minutes ago, davefizzy14 said:

I'm still angry about that decision on Friday night when it should have stood. The last three games now we have been robbed. No doubt we will get a bloody apology from the PGMOL about it but what good is that. Absolute joke.

Onto the game itself first half we weren't aggressive enough as RM said. And we didn't create too much. Second half we were so good. A joy to watch. Dibling is just phenomenal 😊 Fernandes class 😊 I thought Jack was outstanding in the second half, blocking shots, making last ditch tackles, proper captains performance alongside THB 😊 also big credit to Lumley who I thought was very solid, deserves to keep his place for Weds evening 😊 Flynn too was great and a lovely finish 😊 KWP excellent too 😊

I agree with pretty much everything that you have written, but thought that Downes had an awful 1st half. Plus a special mention to Ryan Frazer who hasn't had a positive impact on a game this season but I thought he played well when he came on. 

[davefizzy14]

Yep Ryan Fraser was good when came on too 😊

[Oldandtired]

40 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

They meet regularly and have done for years, weird that anyone would think they don’t. 

……unless they watch PL football on a regular basis. It’s like the officials all have a different rule book to each other.

Edited December 1 by Oldandtired

[rallyboy]

51 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

They meet regularly and have done for years, weird that anyone would think they don’t. 

Weird that anyone doesn't get humour.

How's that apology coming on?

[gecko]

On 01/12/2024 at 09:49, saintant said:

Not sure it matters - VAR would have checked and should have made the same decision as we suffered on Friday. Webb really needs to be looking at these inconsistencies and doing something about them.

This is the point Russell was trying to make. That the on-field decision carries weight... and that because the on field decision was that he was interfering, that the VAR has to consider whether it is a clear and obvious error. When everyone in the world can see that that this was pretty much a carbon copy of the Arsenal one, and many others, that was given the other way.

So because of all this "Clear and Obvious" bullcrap, we end up in a situation where two identical issues get opposite results. And all because of the on-field ref's decision.

So it stands to reason that, IF the on field decision is more important than simply getting the correct outcome, then we may as well pack all of VAR's subjective powers in, and go back to simply having the ref and linesman officiate the game.

A year in the championship has shown me that the game is much better for not having VAR at all, we still argue over the same stupid refereeing decisions, only it takes longer for it to happen, and they still don't get it correct.

FWIW, I totally understand why he was given as interfering. I think the arsenal one should have been called off too. However, at the same time, I also think it's reasonable to say that Verbruggen won't have positioned himself any differently had ArmA been onside, or even not there at all. We can't simply assume that if Arma wasn't there, that he will have positioned himself at the far post - no way a prem keeper leaves his near post open to defend a possible shot from the far side. So in that respect, Arma's presence doesn't really impact anything. If we're now saying that the ball passing near anyone who's offside in the box, because he's affecting the keeper, then there should be a lot more stuff being ruled out for this.

VAR just needs to get in the bin; or they need to fix it fast. And until then, I'll hope that the Champ don't adopt it.

[Football Special]

On 01/12/2024 at 11:38, austsaint said:

I’m not sure whether the Lino put up his flag late, (which does happen).    When the VAR came into play I was just hoping that the inches fell in Archer’s favour - which they did.   I don’t think anyone watching the game live even considered the possibility that AA had attempted a back heel invoking that technical ruling of off side.   

Flag seemed to go up very very late,  someone must have told the lino to do it as it wasn't initial reaction 

Edited December 2 by Football Special

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, gecko said:

This is the point Russell was trying to make. That the on-field decision carries weight... and that because the on field decision was that he was interfering, that the VAR has to consider whether it is a clear and obvious error. When everyone in the world can see that that this was pretty much a carbon copy of the Arsenal one, and many others, that was given the other way.

So because of all this "Clear and Obvious" bullcrap, we end up in a situation where two identical issues get opposite results. And all because of the on-field ref's decision.

So it stands to reason that, IF the on field decision is more important than simply getting the correct outcome, then we may as well pack all of VAR's subjective powers in, and go back to simply having the ref and linesman officiate the game.

A year in the championship has shown me that the game is much better for not having VAR at all, we still argue over the same stupid refereeing decisions, only it takes longer for it to happen, and they still don't get it correct.

FWIW, I totally understand why he was given as interfering. I think the arsenal one should have been called off too. However, at the same time, I also think it's reasonable to say that Verbruggen won't have positioned himself any differently had ArmA been onside, or even not there at all. We can't simply assume that if Arma wasn't there, that he will have positioned himself at the far post - no way a prem keeper leaves his near post open to defend a possible shot from the far side. So in that respect, Arma's presence doesn't really impact anything. If we're now saying that the ball passing near anyone who's offside in the box, because he's affecting the keeper, then there should be a lot more stuff being ruled out for this.

VAR just needs to get in the bin; or they need to fix it fast. And until then, I'll hope that the Champ don't adopt it.

It was a correct outcome. Or by ‘correct outcome’ do you mean a decision in favour of Saints?

Please note that I said a correct outcome and not the

[saintant]

8 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

It was a correct outcome. Or by ‘correct outcome’ do you mean a decision in favour of Saints?

Please note that I said a correct outcome and not the

So there were multiple correct outcomes then?

[notnowcato]

1 hour ago, Football Special said:

Flag seemed to go up very very late,  someone must have told the lino to do it as it was initial reaction 

I’ve a hazy memory of the flag going up late rather than immediately after the ball was in the net.
 

The sooner they open up access to the communications between ref, lino, 4th and Stockley Park the better. 

[VectisSaint]

2 hours ago, gecko said:

This is the point Russell was trying to make. That the on-field decision carries weight... and that because the on field decision was that he was interfering, that the VAR has to consider whether it is a clear and obvious error. When everyone in the world can see that that this was pretty much a carbon copy of the Arsenal one, and many others, that was given the other way.

So because of all this "Clear and Obvious" bullcrap, we end up in a situation where two identical issues get opposite results. And all because of the on-field ref's decision.

So it stands to reason that, IF the on field decision is more important than simply getting the correct outcome, then we may as well pack all of VAR's subjective powers in, and go back to simply having the ref and linesman officiate the game.

A year in the championship has shown me that the game is much better for not having VAR at all, we still argue over the same stupid refereeing decisions, only it takes longer for it to happen, and they still don't get it correct.

FWIW, I totally understand why he was given as interfering. I think the arsenal one should have been called off too. However, at the same time, I also think it's reasonable to say that Verbruggen won't have positioned himself any differently had ArmA been onside, or even not there at all. We can't simply assume that if Arma wasn't there, that he will have positioned himself at the far post - no way a prem keeper leaves his near post open to defend a possible shot from the far side. So in that respect, Arma's presence doesn't really impact anything. If we're now saying that the ball passing near anyone who's offside in the box, because he's affecting the keeper, then there should be a lot more stuff being ruled out for this.

VAR just needs to get in the bin; or they need to fix it fast. And until then, I'll hope that the Champ don't adopt it.

Was the on-field decision (the lino) for Armstrong interfering, or was it because he thought Archer was offside. I think it was the latter.

What no one seems to have mentioned is that the view from behind the goal which was shown just one showed the keeper was at least a yard to the left of Armstrong when he did his little back flick, so from that angle I don't think Armstrong was interfering. I think it was very harsh to give offside once Archer had been declared onside (which was difficult to call live).

[gecko]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

It was a correct outcome. Or by ‘correct outcome’ do you mean a decision in favour of Saints?

Please note that I said a correct outcome and not the

As @saintant has already pointed out, why is there more than one correct outcome? He's either interfering or he's not.

If the Arsenal one is adjudged to have been "correct enough" to say he wasn't interfering, then it should also be fair to say that Arma's wasn't also isn't interfering.

Irrespective of what thresholds need to be met according the current set of VAR rules, we seem to be in a scenario where we can see two almost identical scenarios and have the laws applied differently. And that, imo, is not the correct result.

[gecko]

19 minutes ago, VectisSaint said:

Was the on-field decision (the lino) for Armstrong interfering, or was it because he thought Archer was offside. I think it was the latter.

What no one seems to have mentioned is that the view from behind the goal which was shown just one showed the keeper was at least a yard to the left of Armstrong when he did his little back flick, so from that angle I don't think Armstrong was interfering. I think it was very harsh to give offside once Archer had been declared onside (which was difficult to call live).

According to SKY, the on-field decision was that Armstrong was interfering (20s in)
https://www.skysports.com/football/video/30998/13265286/ref-watch-im-50-50-with-this-was-southamptons-goal-vs-brighton-rightly-ruled-out

my opinion, according to the rules, is that Arma was offside for trying to play the ball; therefore offside. But I do agree that there are good arguments for him not actually interfering. My biggest frustration is that we've now been on both sides of the same thing, and been shafted both times. Just like the shirt pulling against Leicester; same thing, different result.

[VectisSaint]

1 hour ago, gecko said:

According to SKY, the on-field decision was that Armstrong was interfering (20s in)
https://www.skysports.com/football/video/30998/13265286/ref-watch-im-50-50-with-this-was-southamptons-goal-vs-brighton-rightly-ruled-out

 

But where did they get that information that the on-field decision was Armstrong interfering, the linesman simply put his flag up (I think), how can it be told for which player he put his flag up? Or was it the ref that made this call, nothing to do with the linesman? If the on-field decision was Armstrong interfering why did VAR the proceed by looking whether Archer was offside? Surely if the ref said, Armstrong, VAR would have looked first at that incident. It just doesn't make any sense what happened.

To be honest its all a complete load of bollocks. Offside was always about whether a forward player was gaining an unfair advantage, and should never have come under the minute scrutiny of VAR. VAR is killing football, not least when it takes 4 or 5 minutes to make a decision. I'm pretty sure that if I were new to football today I would not have fallen in love with the game like I did 60+ years ago.

[notnowcato]

1 hour ago, VectisSaint said:

But where did they get that information that the on-field decision was Armstrong interfering, the linesman simply put his flag up (I think), how can it be told for which player he put his flag up? Or was it the ref that made this call, nothing to do with the linesman? If the on-field decision was Armstrong interfering why did VAR the proceed by looking whether Archer was offside? Surely if the ref said, Armstrong, VAR would have looked first at that incident. It just doesn't make any sense what happened.

To be honest its all a complete load of bollocks. Offside was always about whether a forward player was gaining an unfair advantage, and should never have come under the minute scrutiny of VAR. VAR is killing football, not least when it takes 4 or 5 minutes to make a decision. I'm pretty sure that if I were new to football today I would not have fallen in love with the game like I did 60+ years ago.

I don’t agree with the decision either but I have some sympathy for checking the Archer offside first as that would’ve been objective rather than the subjective world of pain they had to go to with the Armstrong decision. 

[Whitey Grandad]

4 hours ago, saintant said:

So there were multiple correct outcomes then?

In offside only two possibles.

3 hours ago, gecko said:

As @saintant has already pointed out, why is there more than one correct outcome? He's either interfering or he's not.

If the Arsenal one is adjudged to have been "correct enough" to say he wasn't interfering, then it should also be fair to say that Arma's wasn't also isn't interfering.

Irrespective of what thresholds need to be met according the current set of VAR rules, we seem to be in a scenario where we can see two almost identical scenarios and have the laws applied differently. And that, imo, is not the correct result.

The Arsenal one is a separate incident in a separate game with different officials. With something as subjective as interfering with play or an opponent then there will always be differences of opinion. That’s the way that it is.

[Whitey Grandad]

15 minutes ago, notnowcato said:

I don’t agree with the decision either but I have some sympathy for checking the Archer offside first as that would’ve been objective rather than the subjective world of pain they had to go to with the Armstrong decision. 

That’s understandable but couldn’t they have one official checking the Armstrong situation whilst the other is checking Archer. To take more than four minutes is a nonsense.

[Whitey Grandad]

4 hours ago, VectisSaint said:

Was the on-field decision (the lino) for Armstrong interfering, or was it because he thought Archer was offside. I think it was the latter.

What no one seems to have mentioned is that the view from behind the goal which was shown just one showed the keeper was at least a yard to the left of Armstrong when he did his little back flick, so from that angle I don't think Armstrong was interfering. I think it was very harsh to give offside once Archer had been declared onside (which was difficult to call live).

Armstrong ran across the line of the cross and very nearly touched it. He clearly attempted to play the ball but how much that affected any opponent is a topic for endless discussion.

[notnowcato]

1 minute ago, Whitey Grandad said:

That’s understandable but couldn’t they have one official checking the Armstrong situation whilst the other is checking Archer. To take more than four minutes is a nonsense.

Completely. Offside should be at least semi-automated by now. 

[OldNick]

On 02/12/2024 at 10:18, gecko said:

This is the point Russell was trying to make. That the on-field decision carries weight... and that because the on field decision was that he was interfering, that the VAR has to consider whether it is a clear and obvious error. When everyone in the world can see that that this was pretty much a carbon copy of the Arsenal one, and many others, that was given the other way.

So because of all this "Clear and Obvious" bullcrap, we end up in a situation where two identical issues get opposite results. And all because of the on-field ref's decision.

So it stands to reason that, IF the on field decision is more important than simply getting the correct outcome, then we may as well pack all of VAR's subjective powers in, and go back to simply having the ref and linesman officiate the game.

A year in the championship has shown me that the game is much better for not having VAR at all, we still argue over the same stupid refereeing decisions, only it takes longer for it to happen, and they still don't get it correct.

FWIW, I totally understand why he was given as interfering. I think the arsenal one should have been called off too. However, at the same time, I also think it's reasonable to say that Verbruggen won't have positioned himself any differently had ArmA been onside, or even not there at all. We can't simply assume that if Arma wasn't there, that he will have positioned himself at the far post - no way a prem keeper leaves his near post open to defend a possible shot from the far side. So in that respect, Arma's presence doesn't really impact anything. If we're now saying that the ball passing near anyone who's offside in the box, because he's affecting the keeper, then there should be a lot more stuff being ruled out for this.

VAR just needs to get in the bin; or they need to fix it fast. And until then, I'll hope that the Champ don't adopt it.

If the linesman did flag I'm sure it wasnt for Arma, I dont blame him if he got the Archer one wrong as he was marginal. 

[Midfield_General]

Martin saying that he's spoken to PGMOL and Webb has apologised and said that the disallowed goal against Brighton should have stood. 

Is that two apologies we've had now - didn't we also get one for the penalty not given against Leicester? 

If so, then that's PGMOL admitting that they've cost us between 3-6 points so far, depending on how you think the Leicester game would have panned out if we'd been given (and scored) the penalty.

Absolute jokers. 

Edited December 3 by Midfield_General

[sfc4prem]

5 hours ago, Midfield_General said:

Martin saying that he's spoken to PGMOL and Webb has apologised and said that the disallowed goal against Brighton should have stood. 

Is that two apologies we've had now - didn't we also get one for the penalty not given against Leicester? 

If so, then that's PGMOL admitting that they've cost us between 3-6 points so far, depending on how you think the Leicester game would have panned out if we'd been given (and scored) the penalty.

Absolute jokers. 

Fuxking tinpot excuse for a professional body. 

 

"Oh, sorry our autonomous ineptitude has lead to a colossal loss of revenue and status for your club, hope you can forgive little old us"