a-k

2 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

Worried about Giroud

Always seem to score against us

According to the BBC, has scored in his last 7 appearances against us. Granted, we didn't have Emi in net for those...

WTF is this bollocks from Garth Crooks:

Quote

Grealish seems to be getting better with every game. This lad should be playing regular Champions League football and the first name on the England teamsheet. This in itself poses Aston Villa a problem. Do they build the team around Grealish with the ambition to become a top-four side or do they resign themselves to eventually letting the midfield star go?

HITC

This is so blasphemously outrageous that I am speechless.

57 minutes ago, bobzy said:

The whole situation is a bit bizarre.  They're definitely nowhere near the levels they hit last season, but the games I've seen them in this season, they've actually looked alright - just massively lacking firepower up top.  They aren't really getting hammered in games.  Should've beaten West Brom about 5-1, but ended up losing 1-0.  Were unlucky against West Ham.  Just all very odd.

As above, I like Wilder and the way that Sheffield United have taken to life in the Premier League.  I hope they manage to sort it out and stay up, somehow.

I agree, they don’t look like the worst PL side of all time, but they just can’t score. However, the 20 million pound man who they brought in to score is a 20 year old with 10 senior goals, and none at top level. They deserve what they’ve gotten. 

8 minutes ago, Tommo_b said:

It’s good to see our title rivals dropping points this weekend. 

Nice to see our local rivals doing us a favour for once.

Anyone else notice Martin Tyler's constant heavy breathing into the mic?

17 minutes ago, Nigel said:

This was the same as when Watkins goal was ruled out (against Burnley?) for offside.  He was being manhandled in the box for an obvious penalty but this bit was completely overlooked. 

If you are going to rule using the technology then the whole stage of play has to be looked over, not just the bit they are looking at. 

PGMOL said it was looked at and wasn't a clear and obvious error. Outrageous.

2 minutes ago, The_Steve said:

The fact that he blew for a foul before the goal means VAR couldn't even review it. What's the point of technology (and it's terrible implementation) if referees are getting such obvious decisions wrong.

VAR could and should have reviewed it and given a penalty for the foul by Meslier on Mee.

Just now, Davkaus said:

You can't completely wipe the man out after touching the ball. Rugby tackles don't become acceptable just because you touch the ball first.

But what Meslier just did to the word removed Mee is acceptable?

8 minutes ago, BG_Villa_Fan said:

How is this Leeds penalty given but Villa’s against Brighton not. There’s no consistency.

I'd like to see that again but sure looked like Pope got the ball before the man.

Just now, colhint said:

One thing I wonder. Just watched the Leeds pen. Not the incident but the pen. A leeds player was running to follow up, but he was just inside the box when the kick was taken. So if the kick is retaken if the keepers foot is over the line, why shouldn't it if a Leeds player was?

Apparently, the rule is that if the attacking player is in the box but doesn't score on the rebound or interfere somehow, then it's OK, which is bollocks because an attacking player standing in the box can definitely put the keeper off.

16 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I don't think that's the case at all. 

Where would you have liked Mings to have put his left foot down then? He puts it any more natural than this and he ends up right on McGinn. Even if he could put it behind the white line, he still goes through McGinn's foot on the follow through.

Grealish v. Palace. Second clip is actually AEG, but to be fair we the way he's done the defender I also thought it was Jack when seeing it live.

Pass to Watkins that sliced through half of Palace is the last clip.

10 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I have. Plenty of times. It's not a natural movement by Mings' left leg to go that high up at the knee and then down with that force. It's fine, he's seen the red mist, it happens. You don't need to defend his honour.

 

If Mings didn't change from a natural movement, McGinn would be on the treatment table for a nasty gash over his Achilles. Would you be happier with that?

1 hour ago, sne said:

Good news for Newcastle I guess. What are the rules exactly regarding disclosing Covid cases in the squad? 

 

Seeing that headline AFTER having already transferred KDB into my fantasy squad.

23 hours ago, blandy said:

He blew for a pen, so I believe so.

Yes, the on-field ref gave the pen. But, the point is VAR had him come to the monitor because they believed the on-field ref made a clear and obvious error by not sending the player off. IMO, VAR is just as much at fault because they could (and should) have told the on-field ref to look at the monitor because it is NOT even a pen. I could be wrong about this, but that's how I view it based on the available information.

23 hours ago, Mjvilla said:

Exactly, and what I was getting at. @blandy was spot on and I was wrong in that VAR never made the actual decision. But the VAR is not blameless in this at all. And if they are getting it wrong using the technology, then there's huge problems somewhere.

23 hours ago, blandy said:

Yeah, as @a-ksays as well, when they mess up they need some "additional training". In this particular instance, the on field Ref made the error "live" which is understandable, but compounding it by not correcting his mistake when he had the chance is cause for action. The VAR ref was faultless in that instance.

 

Is that correct? As I mentioned earlier, on commentary they mentioned as the ref was going to the monitor that they understood the penalty decision would stand and that the ref was being asked to check for a red card offense. Apparently the commentators get to listen directly to the conversations between VAR and the on-field ref, so I would guess they are correct. I haven't read anything official saying otherwise.

This is where the transparency of fans also being able to listen to these conversations is needed. What did VAR actually tell the on-field ref to send him to the monitor? Why did the ref reach for his pocket, then stop and go back to the monitor to watch it again? 

35 minutes ago, Mjvilla said:

I see this red card has now been overturned. Shows how shocking the decision was, and it was made by VAR. This shows that the system is wrong and flawed in so many ways.

Surely then the refs involved (on-pitch and VAR) have to be reprimanded in some way for using video and STILL getting the decision wrong??

You can even see when there is 63:00 on the clock that he has quick look directly at the ref to see if he needs to start rolling around

19 minutes ago, sne said:

Best team in Europe according to Whoscored  

Should also put to rest the idea our team is too short and that we are useless in the air.

Rubbish pass accuracy though. Let's get Westwood back.

So, after 14 league games this season they have the most impressive 4-3 loss, the most impressive 6-2 loss, contender for dive of the season (Ayling vs Leicester), and contender for cheat of the season (Bamford trying to get Mings sent off even though he stamped on Mings). Oh, and they are averaging 3.6 goals against with one point vs last season's top 6.

Fabulous start to the season and everything that future promoted clubs should strive to match.

2 hours ago, sne said:

Everyone watching would be wrong then as it's actually 6 in 12 

I meant “in 5 of 12”

18 minutes ago, sne said:

The offside rule should always benefit the attacker in 50/50 situations. Obviously not to a silly degree but these too close to call offsides needs to go.

As for Watkins I really hope for his and our sake that he gets the rub of the green soon as scoring in just 3 out of 12 games is maybe not as good as hoped considering he's played almost every minute. 6 goals is OK mind and it could/should easily have been 3 more.

Also fully onboard with improving the coaching set up even more, can only be a good thing. I've wanted Luc Nilis back for years and I think he's unemployed atm after working as a forward coach in Turkey.

That's what the almanacs will say, but to anyone watching it's 5 in 12 games with an average of 2 goals per 3 games.

I don't recall which manager said it, but the problem is that now the games are being refereed twice and it has become a vicious circle. They're so worried about getting every little decision right that they start looking for the smallest of details so that they can back their decision of not being "wrong".

Pre-VAR, if Ollie was flagged offside by the linesman vs West Ham or Baggies, the response would be "ooooh, not sure, that's really close", but we can live with those tight decisions being made split-second at full speed. As said many times by many people, if you have to get out the lines then it is not a clear and obvious mistake; nor is it even a factual a mistake because of the subjectivity and technical limitations (choosing where to "place" the line, which frame, etc.). The other thing is that VAR apparently doesn't consider there to be any sources of error in judging offside from lines on the screen. No measurement method is foolproof---all come with some sort of error and variation. This is well-known in science and therefore you generally have to show that your findings are larger than the error associated with whatever measurement scale you are using. So, is VAR better than science?

They need to look at the footage in question and say to themselves, "is there conclusive evidence that the on-field decision was incorrect?" That is how it is done in other sports and how it should be done in football, but they've dug themselves into such a big hole already (that some refs have plausibly filled with cash) that I doubt they will listen to the fans or the pundits.

6 minutes ago, penguin said:

The day of the on the shoulder striker is dead with this current system.

What happened to level is on? 

Without trying to sound too tinfoil hat donning the lines look all kind of **** on that image to me. Does strike me they were drawn to support the conclusion rather than vice versa.

It did to me too, but it's deceptive...just used an image analysis tool and they match...the lines intersect the outside of the box at roughly 33% the white line's length in the image, if that makes sense.

Doesn't matter thought, because it's absolute bollocks decision.