18/19 Race for Promotion

[jackbauer24]

11 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

He's leaning forward. This is clearer in the video. You can't see it on the still either but in the video you can also see that Elmo's leg is in line with the grass line, not towards goal. For clarity his arm cannot be playing him onside. 

'Benefit of the doubt' is not a rule. Weimann is offside. 

I know, I meant more in terms of the linesman should only raise the flag if he's sure it's offside. From that still picture I'd be amazed if he was 100% sure - it's incredibly tight. Maybe the video makes it clearer. But it's irrelevant, we won and there's no way we could say we didn't deserve to - O'Leary kept the score respectable.

[JamesBCFC]

2 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

I know, I meant more in terms of the linesman should only raise the flag if he's sure it's offside. From that still picture I'd be amazed if he was 100% sure - it's incredibly tight. Maybe the video makes it clearer. But it's irrelevant, we won and there's no way we could say we didn't deserve to - O'Leary kept the score respectable.

To be fair, has any fan from either club said that?

Edit- read it as couldn't say you didn't deserve to score.

Edited April 15, 2019 by JamesBCFC

[dont_do_it_doug.]

@JamesBCFC I think the penalty call was soft, but he was nudged and I'm sure you're aware that's the only reason he handled the ball. Ultimately we all know what the referees are like in this league, we've suffered ourselves. In fact, we had a spurious decision go against us midweek which cost us a goal and a man. We went on to win 2-1.

What I will say in your favour is that I can't remember the last time a goalkeeper pulled off that many world class saves. You should be very proud of that, he's clearly some talent. He prevented a cricket score.

[JamesBCFC]

7 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

@JamesBCFC I think the penalty call was soft, but he was nudged and I'm sure you're aware that's the only reason he handled the ball. Ultimately we all know what the referees are like in this league, we've suffered ourselves. In fact, we had a spurious decision go against us midweek which cost us a goal and a man. We went on to win 2-1.

What I will say in your favour is that I can't remember the last time a goalkeeper pulled off that many world class saves. You should be very proud of that, he's clearly some talent. He prevented a cricket score.

R.E the penalty. Hourihane backed into Hunt, then collapsed and handballed on his way down.

 

When Hunt asked the referee and linesman what it was given for they gave contradictory answers- one said for pushing Hourihane, one said for pulling him.

Going back a bit into the offside, one thing that's quite telling IMO is the reaction of players. Not sure who it was, but you can see one of the Villa defenders shaking his head when the goal is scored, rather than appealing for offside. Usually if a goal is offside (and even sometimes when it isn't) you get plenty of appeals that it was.

 

Don't want a bollocking for derailing the promotion thread, but appreciate yourself and a few others being able to have a reasonable debate on it.

The decisions still frustrate, and while I dislike VAR, it's becoming apparent that it's needed as the refereeing standards are declining. Regardless I'm now looking forward to Reading on Good Friday, hopefully I'm over this illness by then!

 

*Bolded bit is a bit subjective.

Edited April 15, 2019 by JamesBCFC

[dont_do_it_doug.]

Being fair it is a close decision. Although interestingly none of your lot complained either. 

The linesman won't have been able to see as he was the other side of Hourihane. The ref was looking straight at the incident and gave the penalty, so I would defer to the referee. 

I mean you said we weren't dominating before the penalty. On chances alone that can't be considered true. Adomah, who was onside, had missed a free header at an open goal from 4 yards out and O'Leary had already made two unbelievable stops from Hourihane. It could have legitimately been 3-0 already. 

I'm with you on VAR, so long as they implement it properly. I don't think it would have changed a thing on Saturday. 

 

[TRO]

29 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

R.E the penalty. Hourihane backed into Hunt, then collapsed and handballed on his way down.

 

When Hunt asked the referee and linesman what it was given for they gave contradictory answers- one said for pushing Hourihane, one said for pulling him.

Going back a bit into the offside, one thing that's quite telling IMO is the reaction of players. Not sure who it was, but you can see one of the Villa defenders shaking his head when the goal is scored, rather than appealing for offside. Usually if a goal is offside (and even sometimes when it isn't) you get plenty of appeals that it was.

 

Don't want a bollocking for derailing the promotion thread, but appreciate yourself and a few others being able to have a reasonable debate on it.

The decisions still frustrate, and while I dislike VAR, it's becoming apparent that it's needed as the refereeing standards are declining. Regardless I'm now looking forward to Reading on Good Friday, hopefully I'm over this illness by then!

 

*Bolded bit is a bit subjective.

Not sure on the Penalty....But Weiman was offside in the play back I have seen......but with so many clear cut chances to score, I think we deserved it .....not to mention hitting the post and having our own goal called for offside....I think we earn't any luck we mustered.

I seem to recall a hand ball in the dying minutes of the Albion game when Rodriguez knocked the ball over the line with 2 touches of his hand.....It can't all be " heads you lose tails you lose"

 

Edited April 15, 2019 by TRO

[Tomaszk]

Why the hell are we talking about Bristol? They've just escaped with a 2-1 defeat that should have been a thrashing. I hope they get into the playoffs and I hope we play them in the final. With our full team back we'll murder them, it'll be a horror show.

The real threats are above us. I wonder if Smith will consider bringing McGinn off earlier if games are safe. I'd imagine he will with the likes of Lansbury and Hourihane available from the bench.

[TRO]

I have just done a tot up of the points gained from the top 8 in the league table.

We are looking quite strong in view of the poor start.

Sitting in 4th place with 2 games left against Leeds and Norwich.....We could actually finish top if we win both games and the others above us Norwich,Leeds fail to add....Sheff Utd are all done, its just our 2 games left.....We are one point behind Leeds and 4 behind Norwich.

I know in real terms it means nothing....but just an indicator of our strength.

[JamesBCFC]

34 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Being fair it is a close decision. Although interestingly none of your lot complained either. 

The linesman won't have been able to see as he was the other side of Hourihane. The ref was looking straight at the incident and gave the penalty, so I would defer to the referee. 

I mean you said we weren't dominating before the penalty. On chances alone that can't be considered true. Adomah, who was onside, had missed a free header at an open goal from 4 yards out and O'Leary had already made two unbelievable stops from Hourihane. It could have legitimately been 3-0 already. 

I'm with you on VAR, so long as they implement it properly. I don't think it would have changed a thing on Saturday. 

 

Before Adomah's miss Matty Taylor also missed a free header with the goal gaping (though not as open as Adomah's miss). In about the second minute Eliasson pinched the ball off of a defender and should have put Matty Taylor 1 on 1 but instead dragged his shot wide.

We could have easily scored a couple from those chances. 

I'm not disputing that Villa created more chances, but I don't think simply looking at the stats shows a fair reflection of the first half. We moved the ball around well ourselves and looked good on the counter until that final pass, so our moves broke down before the shot. And playing the counter attacking style you are naturally going to have less possession. 

However, I'm not suggesting that we were on top, just that the first half was evenly matched in terms of quality.

 

Abrahams offside wasn't even close, whereas the Weimann one was a tight call. So think that's a bit of a moot point to mention. 

An aside on the "but for O'Leary it would have been a hammering"  type comment I think that's a bit of an odd one. The fact that he made lots of saves on its own doesn't mean Villa deserved to win- after all O'Leary is being paid to stop shots from going in, he wasn't doing anything beyond what he is paid for. This also applies to our home match where we lost to Stoke, but Butland pulled off 3 or 4 worldies and we hit the post twice. Butland making those saves is what he is paid incredibly well to do. 

 

However, post penalty, Villa were well on top. And based on performance from that point an argument that Villa deserved the win is entirely valid.

 

On VAR, I don't think you get the penalty if it was there Saturday, and it would have cleared up the Weimann onside/offside once and for all. That's potentially a 2 goal swing right there. Still don't like VAR mind.

Edited April 15, 2019 by JamesBCFC

[terrytini]

I hadn’t realised this row/ debate was going on !

Ive not gone right back to the beginning but how on Earth has it become a bone of contention about Wiemans offside ? It’s no more contentious an offside decision than is seen a hundred times a week.

I thought he was Off at the time, nobody near me said we’d got away with one, the video as much as it shows anything shows he was Off if anything....what are they beefing about ? Other than the fact they probably think they’ve blown what was a good position a few weeks back... it happens.

As for the Penalty, we’ve been given, and Conceded, penalties that at the time have looked nailed on, possible, and definitely not. This was one we all thought was a Pen.....but of the sort that are often given, often not.

In other words two very normal football incidents.

Both of which shouldn’t overshadow we created far more clear chances than Bristol, and that’s with them having had an extra rest, us playing an hour with 10 men a couple of days before, and having key players out.

 

[Keyblade]

Don't know why Bristol fans are whining about decisions as if they were ever in that game. You know you lost when you have to grasp onto micro-incidents in a game where the opposition team should have scored at least 5 goals. We're not arrogant, you just have an inferiority complex

[brommy]

3 hours ago, jackbauer24 said:

Surely that image suggests he's onside, if only for the 'benefit of doubt' rule?!

Looking at the line in the grass, it seems to follow Elmo perfectly to Weimann and then Axel and then the planted foot of Jedi is arguably just beyond. I'd say we were very lucky to get away with that one!

 I believe the rule applies to any part of the player that can legally score a goal. Weimann's body is slighly offside and his head is noticeably offside. 

[brommy]

On the day, apart from goals scored and conceded, Bristol City were not quite as good as Villa. I think that sums it up. 

[brommy]

2 hours ago, JamesBCFC said:

R.E the penalty. Hourihane backed into Hunt, then collapsed and handballed on his way down.

 

When Hunt asked the referee and linesman what it was given for they gave contradictory answers- one said for pushing Hourihane, one said for pulling him.

Going back a bit into the offside, one thing that's quite telling IMO is the reaction of players. Not sure who it was, but you can see one of the Villa defenders shaking his head when the goal is scored, rather than appealing for offside. Usually if a goal is offside (and even sometimes when it isn't) you get plenty of appeals that it was.

 

Don't want a bollocking for derailing the promotion thread, but appreciate yourself and a few others being able to have a reasonable debate on it.

The decisions still frustrate, and while I dislike VAR, it's becoming apparent that it's needed as the refereeing standards are declining. Regardless I'm now looking forward to Reading on Good Friday, hopefully I'm over this illness by then!

 

*Bolded bit is a bit subjective.

Sat immediately behind the end with an unobstructed view it was an obvious penalty. The referee also had a close and unobstructed view. Both views were much better than the rear diagonal camera view.

Both the offside and penalty decisions were correct and this really is a 'nothing to see here, move along please' moment.

[villan-scott]

If my aunt had a co*k she’d be my uncle and all that. 

The game is done. We won, deservedly. It could and should have been more comfortable. Not sure how our visitor friend can argue against it. Must be fearful of dropping out the top 6 now. 

[The Moustache of Teale]

7 hours ago, JamesBCFC said:

R.E the penalty. Hourihane backed into Hunt, then collapsed and handballed on his way down.

 

When Hunt asked the referee and linesman what it was given for they gave contradictory answers- one said for pushing Hourihane, one said for pulling him.

Going back a bit into the offside, one thing that's quite telling IMO is the reaction of players. Not sure who it was, but you can see one of the Villa defenders shaking his head when the goal is scored, rather than appealing for offside. Usually if a goal is offside (and even sometimes when it isn't) you get plenty of appeals that it was.

 

Don't want a bollocking for derailing the promotion thread, but appreciate yourself and a few others being able to have a reasonable debate on it.

The decisions still frustrate, and while I dislike VAR, it's becoming apparent that it's needed as the refereeing standards are declining. Regardless I'm now looking forward to Reading on Good Friday, hopefully I'm over this illness by then!

 

*Bolded bit is a bit subjective.

For me the initial offence, compounded by the use of “ would of” instead of “would have” and the failure to use an apostrophe in “official’s”, all add up to a clear cut penalty.

[sidcow]

5 hours ago, brommy said:

Sat immediately behind the end with an unobstructed view it was an obvious penalty. The referee also had a close and unobstructed view. Both views were much better than the rear diagonal camera view.

Both the offside and penalty decisions were correct and this really is a 'nothing to see here, move along please' moment.

Yes, I will always admit if we got away with one but from where I was sat at 90° to the camera angle it was stonewall penalty.  There is no doubt in my mind and the ref had the same view from the other side.  He gave him a very strong 2 handed shove.  Definite penalty.  Camera angle wasn't great. 

[OutByEaster?]

Edit - moved reply to the match reaction thread and had strong words with myself.

JamesBCFC and co if we're looking to go over the decisions in the game, can we do it there please.

[Demitri_C]

The only decision wrong on sat was a pen that was soft. But how many towns have we need been giving blatent pens and had bad decsions given against us? About time one went in our favour. 

[Sam3773]

Sorry chaps, can someone point me in the direction of the 'Aston Villa Promotion Party' thread? I seem to have got lost and stumbled into Bristol City Ratings and Reaction by mistake..