il_serpente Posted November 29 VT Supporter Posted November 29 It shouldn't take that long to decide whether Archer is offside. If it's not clear within a minute it should be considered even and on side. The interference by Armstrong is another matter.
Avfc96 Posted November 29 Posted November 29 VAR was a beyond a joke a few weeks after it as brought in however many years ago that was. Now it's an absolute disgrace. 5 mins plus for an offside decision. What happened to automated offsides being brought in after one of the pre-Christmas international breaks. 1
StefanAVFC Posted November 29 VT Supporter Posted November 29 Regardless of whether he tried to flick it or not, he’s not had any impact on the play. 1
WallisFrizz Posted November 29 Posted November 29 Just now, StefanAVFC said: Regardless of whether he tried to flick it or not, he’s not had any impact on the play. Agreed.
imavillan Posted November 29 Posted November 29 yet again VAR sucking the life out of the game It seems they try their hardest to rule out goals It's the pits 1
StefanAVFC Posted November 29 VT Supporter Posted November 29 To be fair the linesman flagged offside there so without VAR it’s still disallowed but that’s very much a subjective offside that’s ridiculous imo 1
lainux Posted November 29 Posted November 29 Once again a goal disallowed down to the refs interpretation who have actually never played the game before... how realistic of a interpretation would they have?..
StefanAVFC Posted November 29 VT Supporter Posted November 29 What’s really confusing is that subjective offside to supposed to go to the monitor. No idea what happened there.
jacketspuds Posted November 29 Posted November 29 They just make it up every week. The lack of consistency is shocking. 3 1
duke313 Posted November 29 Posted November 29 Bad result for Brighton. You won’t get top 4 if you’re dropping points to teams like Southampton, or so I’m told. 1 2
bobzy Posted November 29 Posted November 29 (edited) 47 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: Regardless of whether he tried to flick it or not, he’s not had any impact on the play. I reckon he has an impact on where the goalkeeper is positioned tbh. Edit; or, really, basically any of that defensive play Edited November 29 by bobzy 2
Tomaszk Posted November 29 Posted November 29 It's absolute horseshit. They make these subjective as they can so when it's a goal for Chelsea against Brentford they can give it. Fine if you think the first guy was interferring, what the piss is the 4-5 min wait around for then? Let's get going. Jesus. The refs are beyond shit. And make no mistake they are making any VAR look bad. But also...shielding it. They've seen a job opportunity pop-up that means they can be refs until their 60s now. They want no one else allowed to use it so they can have full careers on their very nice salaries.
imavillan Posted November 29 Posted November 29 10 minutes ago, Tomaszk said: It's absolute horseshit. They make these subjective as they can so when it's a goal for Chelsea against Brentford they can give it. Fine if you think the first guy was interferring, what the piss is the 4-5 min wait around for then? Let's get going. Jesus. The refs are beyond shit. And make no mistake they are making any VAR look bad. But also...shielding it. They've seen a job opportunity pop-up that means they can be refs until their 60s now. They want no one else allowed to use it so they can have full careers on their very nice salaries. definitely a nice little cottage industry for the old boys club
villa4europe Posted November 30 Posted November 30 (edited) 7 hours ago, bobzy said: I reckon he has an impact on where the goalkeeper is positioned tbh. Edit; or, really, basically any of that defensive play He's about 8 yards out in the centre of the goal, he's interfering and he's offside They can't deem him not interfering because he miskicks the ball The defender who would play archer onside plays him onside because he's tracking a guy who is offside Not a clue why they've made it so difficult Edited November 30 by villa4europe 4
villa4europe Posted November 30 Posted November 30 7 hours ago, StefanAVFC said: Regardless of whether he tried to flick it or not, he’s not had any impact on the play. As I said the CB who maybe plays archer onside is where he is because of the offside player How is that no impact?
KentVillan Posted November 30 Posted November 30 I thought it was a clear offside tbh (interfering with play), but can’t understand why it took VAR so long. They didn’t need to draw the lines.
bobzy Posted November 30 Posted November 30 9 hours ago, Tomaszk said: It's absolute horseshit. They make these subjective as they can so when it's a goal for Chelsea against Brentford they can give it. Fine if you think the first guy was interferring, what the piss is the 4-5 min wait around for then? Let's get going. Jesus. The refs are beyond shit. And make no mistake they are making any VAR look bad. But also...shielding it. They've seen a job opportunity pop-up that means they can be refs until their 60s now. They want no one else allowed to use it so they can have full careers on their very nice salaries. I don't know why it took so long, but they've obviously checked Archer being offside (which was tight) before then realising that, actually, Armstrong is offside too. Refs will be on wank salaries for the abuse they receive, to be honest. Needs to be way higher. 2 hours ago, villa4europe said: He's about 8 yards out in the centre of the goal, he's interfering and he's offside They can't deem him not interfering because he miskicks the ball The defender who would play archer onside plays him onside because he's tracking a guy who is offside Not a clue why they've made it so difficult It's quite a clear offside to me the more I watch it. No idea why there was such fuss - let alone being "absurd" or "ridiculous" 1
Recommended Posts