The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)

[May-Z]

I thought Salah's was a penalty at the time, and still do now...even if he has been a rocket polisher and bought it.

But, Ings was a penalty as well. The keeper has gone for the ball, missed, then hit both of Ings' legs and prevented him chasing it down. Not a lot of contact, but enough for a foul....a fairly easy one.

[OutByEaster?]

The Wolves one today is one that really needs looking at.

It was clear at the first viewing of it from just about any angle that it wasn't handball - that's where the referee needs help, he didn't have the best angle and it looks like he's had a guess - it's what VAR is for, it's why it was brought into the game; so that obvious errors can be corrected.

Instead, because we have the same officials refereeing as we do manning the VAR, we get this unwavering support for each other that means the mistakes are supported rather than corrected in the false expectation that they're helping each other by supporting each other. 

I think it's time we took VAR and had it operated by a different group of people - take the active referees away from VAR and put someone independent in, someone that doesn't know them, doesn't work with them and doesn't take them into account when reviewing decisions.

At the moment, we have the right system in place and it's not working because the people using it aren't neutral - they're on the side of the man in the middle.

 

 

[a m ole]

Allison got a fingertip to the ball so leaping into Ings’ legs doesn’t matter, according to MoTD.

Whats the point getting annoyed? They’ll interpret any decision to suit the narrative.

[Ingram85]

It’s all a joke. Even if we didn’t have the penalty  the one given to them was never one either. The one against Wolves is just a complete joke and big club bias. The refs need looking at for match fixing. 

[Mantis]

3 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

It is massively suspicious that 4 of the biggest teams won penalties today that won the game for them. Technology isn't making reffing better.

Yep. It's actively being abused to swing the outcomes of games.

[Keyblade]

4 hours ago, a m ole said:

Allison got a fingertip to the ball so leaping into Ings’ legs doesn’t matter, according to MoTD.

Whats the point getting annoyed? They’ll interpret any decision to suit the narrative.

I can understand that if that fingertip led to the ball changing trajectory, either into Alison's control, or out of Ings'. Instead, Ings still has the ball completely under control and if he doesn't sweep his legs with the follow through, Ings has easily rounds him and is through on goal.

Edited December 12, 2021 by Keyblade

[sne]

The "he touched the ball so no foul" has never been a thing, ever. And it certainly isn't now. You can't just clatter a player even if you manage to nudge the ball.

[villa4europe]

41 minutes ago, sne said:

The "he touched the ball so no foul" has never been a thing, ever. And it certainly isn't now. You can't just clatter a player even if you manage to nudge the ball.

Yep, touched the ball and played the ball or won the ball whatever the wording is are completely different things 

[bobzy]

I don’t think the Ings one is a penalty tbh. Keeper does get the ball, contact on Ings is minimal. Would not like to see that given against us. 

[AJ]

Just now, bobzy said:

I don’t think the Ings one is a penalty tbh. Keeper does get the ball, contact on Ings is minimal. Would not like to see that given against us. 

But you say the  Salah flop was a stonewall penalty. 

 

Right.

 

 

 

 

[bobzy]

2 minutes ago, AJ said:

But you say the  Salah flop was a stonewall penalty. 

 

Right.

Did I? Where?

[AJ]

13 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Did I? Where?

 

Here you go.

14 hours ago, bobzy said:

It’s a soft pen, but where are you seeing a dive there? Bizarre. 

 

Firstly I apologise for misquoting you, as you did say soft penalty and not stonewall, but, come on. Whenever there is a dubious call for a penalty in our games, you always side with the opposition, regardless of the evidence. Every. Time.

I am guessing you don't want to be accused of being a wearer of the claret and blue speccies, but it is becoming so predictable that you will without fail uphold the officials' verdict whenever their decision goes against Villa. What's with that?

And for the record, Salah has form, he was always going to dive at some time, and that was a dive all day long.

[Delphouneso]

13 hours ago, Wainy316 said:

Tbh I'd like to see penalties scrapped except for denial of a goal scoring opportunity.  Too many games are decided by a team more or less being given a goal as a reward for a trivial foul.

Completely agree with this but where do you draw the line? I think penalties like the Harry Kane one against us should never be given, I'm sure we also had a handball given against us from a shot that was going off target last season, and those ones where a player gets a toe on the ball then gets taken out by the keeper when they're never getting to the ball anyway, I think those ones are easy. But then beyond that there's a massive grey area where you could argue a case either way in a lot of situations over what is and isn't a goal scoring opportunity. I think ultimately referees need to just start applying common sense rather than blindly following the rule book to the letter, if a shot that's going out of play hits a hand it's not a **** penalty.

[bobzy]

9 minutes ago, AJ said:

 

Here you go.

 

Firstly I apologise for misquoting you, as you did say soft penalty and not stonewall, but, come on. Whenever there is a dubious call for a penalty in our games, you always side with the opposition, regardless of the evidence. Every. Time.

I am guessing you don't want to be accused of being a wearer of the claret and blue speccies, but it is becoming so predictable that you will without fail uphold the officials' verdict whenever their decision goes against Villa. What's with that?

And for the record, Salah has form, he was always going to dive at some time, and that was a dive all day long.

Yeah, it’s soft - I don’t think it’s a foul but it’s also not a dive. Salah has engineered the contact and the ref has fallen for it.

The rest of your post is just absolute bollocks .  Whenever there’s a dubious call I always side with the opposition? What the actual ****? I call things as I see them - why would I be actively against my own team?

And, again, provide the proof please. 

Edited December 12, 2021 by bobzy

[Davkaus]

1 hour ago, sne said:

The "he touched the ball so no foul" has never been a thing, ever. And it certainly isn't now. You can't just clatter a player even if you manage to nudge the ball.

Yes and no. It's not officially a thin gin the laws of the game anymore, but it was until very recently

Touching the ball doesn't mean it's a free for all and you can get away with anything, but it does justify a level of contact as part of a successful tackle. It was actually removed from the rules in the last few years but remains a consideration when judging a foul, the old wording was 'tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball'

Excessive/reckless/dangerous force? Doesn't matter, it's a foul

Less severe force? Well, that could be absolutely fine if they win the ball, but if they don't, or they get the man first, it's a foul.

Edited December 12, 2021 by Davkaus

[AJ]

2 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Yeah, it’s soft - I don’t think it’s a foul but it’s also not a dive. Salah has engineered the contact and the ref has fallen for it.

The rest of your post is just absolute bollocks .  Whenever there’s a dubious call I always side with the opposition? What the actual ****? I call things as I see them - why would I be actively against my own team?

And, again, provide the proof please. 

Its 0-0, Salah has been beaten off the ball, he engineers contact with Mings, then the dastardly Anfield sniper takes his mark out with surgical efficiency, but, not a dive?

As for the rest, you are quite consistent, but I am not going to go trawling through old post match threads for "proof". Whenever there is a dubious call, I always expect you to pipe up. Once or twice, meh, but the same posters with the same themes tend to stick in your head. 

I know you love the Villa, and I appreciate your opinions elsewhere, but this is just something I don't get. 

[AJ]

It has been a smorgasbord of dodgy calls and suss VAR decisions this round, but the winner for this round so far has to be Rudiger's " My knees stopped working" flop for Chelsea's first against Leeds.

Watching the highlights and putting it on stop frame, from the side it shows there is zero contact whatsoever. It shows the Leeds player's outstretched leg, ball, about 10 inches of empty space, then Rudiger's poor fragile legs. This wasn't the angle used though, as if it mattered.

The angle VAR chose was from directly behind Rudiger, and even that angle wouldn't have provided any doubt. On frame, it clearly shows the ball between the Leeds player's and Rudiger. 

I know its Leeds, and this is some kind of justice, but that decision was just ridiculous.

[bobzy]

15 minutes ago, AJ said:

Its 0-0, Salah has been beaten off the ball, he engineers contact with Mings, then the dastardly Anfield sniper takes his mark out with surgical efficiency, but, not a dive?

As for the rest, you are quite consistent, but I am not going to go trawling through old post match threads for "proof". Whenever there is a dubious call, I always expect you to pipe up. Once or twice, meh, but the same posters with the same themes tend to stick in your head. 

Correct - not a dive as there’s contact, undoubtedly enough for them to both fall over. But it’s all started by Salah and shouldn’t have been a penalty.  With the Ings penalty claim, the keeper intends to play the ball and plays the ball whilst contact on Ings is minimal. If he absolutely clatters him, I’d probably think it should’ve been a pen - but he didn’t. Neither should’ve been pens.

With the Ramsay goal against Leicester, the ball doesn’t stop moving at any point despite Schmeichel getting a hand on the ball. I’m not sure on the rule interpretation, but I thought it should’ve been a goal. I think I even posted as such in the match thread, possibly elsewhere too.

I don’t think any of my thoughts on the most recent “tight” calls are controversial or anti-Villa.  With any close calls in games, I always think (to avoid bias) “would I want that for/against Villa?”.  Maybe this rational thinking is what annoys you, I don’t know.

To call me out and then not even give one example is poor form, though - if entirely unsurprising. 

[Phil Silvers]

6 minutes ago, AJ said:

It has been a smorgasbord of dodgy calls and suss VAR decisions this round, but the winner for this round so far has to be Rudiger's " My knees stopped working" flop for Chelsea's first against Leeds.

Watching the highlights and putting it on stop frame, from the side it shows there is zero contact whatsoever. It shows the Leeds player's outstretched leg, ball, about 10 inches of empty space, then Rudiger's poor fragile legs. This wasn't the angle used though, as if it mattered.

The angle VAR chose was from directly behind Rudiger, and even that angle wouldn't have provided any doubt. On frame, it clearly shows the ball between the Leeds player's and Rudiger. 

I know its Leeds, and this is some kind of justice, but that decision was just ridiculous.

I've said it before VAR is not there to eliminate mistakes and make it fair for everyone, where in all walks of life anywhere is there a fair status quo between the rich and the poor. VAR = make it vague, make it inconsistent and you have the tools to manipulate results, all the scum6 need is a 10% decision swing in their favour over a season to stay where they are. It's corrupt and there are too many naive people rationalising it, accepting it and not speaking out because they just look bias towards their own cause.

Games gone.

[sne]

Just for context I think it can be called a dive even if there is contact but fair enough if people use a different interpretation. It's semantics.