| Never mind the (VAR) B0ll0x 12:12 - Nov 30 with 2110 views | MattFinish |
The official VAR decision was that Adam Armstrong was adjudged to be critically impacting on Verbruggen’s ability to play the ball.
Verbruggen was rooted to the spot at the near post when the cross came in. I watched the replay and timed the cross. It took 0.9 seconds for the cross to get from Fraser to Archer. It took 0.4 seconds from when the ball passed Armstrong to Archer putting it in the back of the net. For Verbruggen to have got from the position he was in into a position to save Archer’s shot he'd have had to have covered 7.32m in 0.9 seconds. When Usain Bolt set the 100m record he travelled at 12.33m per second from a sprint start. Verbruggen would have had to travel at 8.13m/sec from a standing start starting side on.
If this was the same VAR official as the Wolves game then the club should be asking for an investigation into possible Pompey connections, ie see if he has 6 fingers on each hand or webbed toes
| | | |  |
| Never mind the (VAR) B0ll0x on 12:25 - Nov 30 with 2065 views | MattFinish |
When you watch it again Verbruggen hardly even moved. The cross completely caught him out, it had absolutely nothing to do with Armstrong.
When the VAR official apparently refused to draw lines on the picture I suspected something was wrong. I reckon he drew lines on his screen, realised Archer was onside, which probably took 30 seconds then spent the remaining 4 minutes trying to come up with a reason to disallow the goal.
This decision is bent | | | |
| Never mind the (VAR) B0ll0x on 12:39 - Nov 30 with 2029 views | dirk_doone |
You are both right and if Armstrong hadn't made that ridiculous attempt to play the ball, VAR would have overturned the onfield decision and we'd have won.
[Post edited 30 Nov 13:19]
| |
| |
| Never mind the (VAR) B0ll0x on 13:27 - Nov 30 with 1913 views | MattFinish |
Watch the replay. If Verbruggen was put off by Armstrong why didn’t he appeal | | | |
| Never mind the (VAR) B0ll0x on 13:43 - Nov 30 with 1885 views | Flamingbankers |
They still would have found some excuse to disallow it. | | | |
| Never mind the (VAR) B0ll0x on 15:00 - Nov 30 with 1794 views | saint22 |
Same ref as wolves as I have said
Either incompetent or vendetta
After the Cootes chap I have no doubt they are all the same and on some massive ego trip looking for their 15 mins of fame
They have been given too much power
Ex players should be running VAR | | | |
| Never mind the (VAR) B0ll0x on 15:35 - Nov 30 with 1764 views | grumpy |
I see Wolves have had 2 Penalties given against them,bet their happy. | | | |
| Never mind the (VAR) B0ll0x on 17:18 - Nov 30 with 1707 views | kentsouthampton |
They didn't need to spend any time coming up with a reason to disallow it, it had already been disallowed on field, if Armstrong had not attempted to play the ball while offside it would have been given, it had nothing to do with impeding the keeper, the rules quite clearly state if you attempt to play the ball while offside then the decision is offside, I don't know why this is so hard to grasp. | | | |
| Never mind the (VAR) B0ll0x on 18:40 - Nov 30 with 1615 views | sledger |
it wasnt disallowed on the pitch,the linesman stuck his flag up after he realised it had been referred to var at least 30 seconds after the goal. | | | |
| Never mind the (VAR) B0ll0x on 21:04 - Nov 30 with 1546 views | InTimeAddedOn |
Make that 3 pens! Boscombe got awarded a third Pen about 15 mins from the end of the game. Can’t wait to see the ex-Skate do his post match interview on MOTD! | | | |
| Never mind the (VAR) B0ll0x on 23:44 - Nov 30 with 1463 views | kentsouthampton |
So the linesman raising his flag isn't dissalowing the goal,what planet do you live on. | | | |
| Never mind the (VAR) B0ll0x on 01:31 - Dec 1 with 1419 views | saintpaz |
Just watched MOTM and Dion Dublin said that because of Armstrong being where he is (front to middle of goal), it impacts where the goalkeeper sets himself up for (thinking the ball will go to Armstrong). They didn't say anything about the 4.5 mins it took to make a decision which is also the elephant in the room tho! | | | |
| Never mind the (VAR) B0ll0x on 02:37 - Dec 1 with 1393 views | saint22 |
My son actually came up with a good plan
There should be a 2 minute clock. If they can’t reach a decision in that time it can’t be clear and obvious so the decision stands
I don’t think that’s a bad idea if we have to put up with it | | | |
| Never mind the (VAR) B0ll0x on 05:12 - Dec 1 with 1367 views | saintmark1976 |
For reasons best known only to yourself you are completely missing the point.
What the majority of those with an opinion are attempting to get across to you is that had our “ goal” been scored by one of the big six teams it would undoubtedly have stood.
There probably wouldn’t have been a referral to V A R and even if there had been those in charge of the system would have quickly formed the option that the goal was a good one. Most certainly they wouldn’t have wasted four and a half minutes looking for reasons to chalk it off. | |
| |
| Never mind the (VAR) B0ll0x on 10:38 - Dec 1 with 1230 views | kentsouthampton |
Give me strength, if it doesn't go to VAR then it doesn't get given anyway because the linesman has put his flag up, are you for real? | | | |
| Never mind the (VAR) B0ll0x on 14:26 - Dec 1 with 1125 views | saintpaz |
I just say 3 replays and that's it... even faster then and that's enough to make up anyone's mind.
Just have the banner above the VAR TV's saying "IS IT CLEAR AND OBVIOUS?!" | | | |
| Never mind the (VAR) B0ll0x on 18:55 - Dec 1 with 987 views | Butty101 |
It’s because the tool is a skate. | |
| |
| Never mind the (VAR) B0ll0x on 19:34 - Dec 1 with 951 views | kentsouthampton |
Still stalking me then Noddy, you know absolutely nothing about me weirdo. | | | |
| Never mind the (VAR) B0ll0x on 23:21 - Dec 1 with 838 views | MattFinish |
If as you say it’s so clear cut how come it took the officials 4 1/2 minutes to make a decision
Clearly it’s not easy to grasp | | | |
| Never mind the (VAR) B0ll0x on 23:39 - Dec 1 with 827 views | sledger |
all goals scored are reviewed by var flag or no flag you do realise this dont you,it doesant matter if its flagged or not. | | | |
| Never mind the (VAR) B0ll0x on 08:50 - Dec 2 with 702 views | kentsouthampton |
It's the point I'm trying to make, that goal was never going to be given, didn't matter whether it was us Macclesfield or Man city, the second Armstrong flicked his foot at the ball while offside the linesman's decision was always going to be confirmed. | | | |
| Never mind the (VAR) B0ll0x on 08:52 - Dec 2 with 695 views | kentsouthampton |
Because the first phase offside review was so tight, they took what, twenty seconds to confirm Armstrong tried to play the ball while offside. | | | |
| Never mind the (VAR) B0ll0x on 09:40 - Dec 2 with 663 views | Butty101 |
You wish halibut breathe. I can spot a skate from a mile off.
You must have a pretty sad life if you have to keep up a this pretense for years.
Top Tip : try mixing up your posts once In a while, by saying something positive about saints. That way it won’t be so obvious  | |
| |
| Never mind the (VAR) B0ll0x on 12:49 - Dec 3 with 464 views | MattFinish |
So your argument is the decision is offside because Armstrong kicked his heel backwards even though he missed the ball and did not impact on any of the opposition players. You say that would take the VAR officials approx 20 seconds to decide, which I'd agree with. So why did it take four and a half minutes to come up with a decision?
As you seem to be implying that everyone who disagrees with your point of view is an idiot perhaps you ought to check the rules of the game instead of just recycling the garbage Dion Dublin spouts out on match of the day.
You said that if Armstrong had not attempted to play the ball while offside it would have been given and stated that this is the rules but I'm afraid you're wrong.
Law 11: Offside states that a player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by interfering with an opponent by
• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
• challenging an opponent for the ball or
• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
none of which applied to Armstrong.
In addition Law 11 states
The following criteria should be used, as appropriate, as indicators that a player was in control of the ball and, as a result, can be considered to have ‘deliberately played’ the ball:
• The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it
• The ball was not moving quickly
• The direction of the ball was not unexpected
• The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control
• A ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air
Clearly in Armstrong’s situation none of the above criteria were met so Armstrong was not interfering with play.
I rest my case M’Lud [Post edited 3 Dec 12:50]
| | | |
| Never mind the (VAR) B0ll0x on 13:59 - Dec 3 with 426 views | MattFinish |
And just to back up what I've said, PGMOL chief Howard Webb has admitted that the goal should have stood | | | |
| Never mind the (VAR) B0ll0x on 15:37 - Dec 3 with 360 views | andoverpedro |
if you watch the highlights on the SFC website they actually award the goal as originally they thought archer was off, and then when its proved he is not they then desperatly look for another reason to dissallow it then come across some crock rule that the first player it past was offside so lets rule it out for that now .
But when Arsenal scored against us ( at 1-1) earlier in the season and the player ( martinelli) jumped for the ball in front of our keeper but missed it and he was clearly off side when it was played it then dropped to saka at the far post he put in it was awarded the goal the player who jumped was classified as not interferring because it was arsenal .
AKA shirt pulling against Leicester would have put us 3-1 up , penalty against liverpool would have puts us 3-1 up , equalizer against wolves all crucial points in the game
https://solentsportsnews.com/the-var-decisions-that-have-gone-against-southampto
This finally proves one rule for big clubs and one rule for the Saints , the premiership is crooked through and through watch the videos in the link i feel so sorry for Russell Martin as these could have made all the difference and it wouldnt look as bad . [Post edited 3 Dec 15:44]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
