Dean Smith

[Zatman]

38 minutes ago, av1 said:

That's not going to work on Saturday against Bruce mate. 

You can't position yourself behind the 10 man defensive line if they are all stationed in the 6 yard box. 

Watkins can sit in the Holte End when Newcastle have posseession

[Zatman]

4 minutes ago, MrBlack said:

 

Maybe they're taking retrospective action against us as a result of the Sheffield Utd debacle.

Joking aside, the number of incorrect decisions that went against us last season more than made up for the Sheff Utd incident, and there is a consistent theme that we're being hard done by.  What does the league have against us? It wouldn't even bloody exist if we hadn't formed it 133 years ago .

Thats it, they would prefer to rewrite history that it was a Liverpool/United idea

[tomav84]

6 minutes ago, MrBlack said:

 

Maybe they're taking retrospective action against us as a result of the Sheffield Utd debacle.

Joking aside, the number of incorrect decisions that went against us last season more than made up for the Sheff Utd incident, and there is a consistent theme that we're being hard done by.  What does the league have against us? It wouldn't even bloody exist if we hadn't formed it 133 years ago .

god i so wish that sheff utd goal had been given. i'm 100% convinced if it had we'd have still stayed up. we had more about us than the other sides. we'd have either come out 2nd half and still gotten a result or we would have done enough in the other games

so sick of hearing about it. i refuse to engage in conversation to anyone that mentions it.

the FA came out and admitted spurs should have had a pen in their 0-0 draw at bournemouth during project restart. no one talks about that do they.

but we have this hanging over us and apparently cannot complain about any bad decision against us ever again

[El Zen]

4 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

this is what i'm pissed off about. the media all agreeing with the decision. no one seems to be challenging the fact that rodri literally tackled mings. i don't get it

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55757428

Totally. It’s akin to the brainwashed masses of a totalitarian society, where critical thinking has long since been wiped out. My mind is just failing to understand this total acceptance of a reinventing of the offside rule that has no precedent and would change the game of football if it is followed. It’s completely bonkers. I get that non-Villa fans won’t be as emotionally invested in this as I am, but why aren’t people thinking over what this rule interpratation really means for the game of football? 

[sparrow1988]

5 minutes ago, Michelsen said:

Totally. It’s akin to the brainwashed masses of a totalitarian society, where critical thinking has long since been wiped out. My mind is just failing to understand this total acceptance of a reinventing of the offside rule that has no precedent and would change the game of football if it is followed. It’s completely bonkers. I get that non-Villa fans won’t be as emotionally invested in this as I am, but why aren’t people thinking over what this rule interpratation really means for the game of football? 

Never before have I seen an avatar so well suited to a sentence.

[Herman22]

30 minutes ago, tinker said:

Imagine the farce of just one of those ten touching the ball ' in a controlled way'  will cause the officials and VAR. 

The premier league have made a right hash of this, the rules were obviously bending to the point of breaking to allow that goal and now every goal ruled offside after an opposing playing has touched the ball will be up to debate.

The rules should be simple and easy to implement, instead we getting conflicting and complicated interpretations of these rules that are not fit for purpose and make the referees jobs a total nightmare.

One thing I can't understand and no one has been able to explain. Why was that rule brought in in the first place? Like in what situation would having that rule make sense and help the game? I sometimes think rules are brought in because there's a team somewhere who are getting paid huge sums of money and have to change something to vindicate their existence! 

[Jonesy7211]

Now Dean has rightly blown up at the officials, and the offside incident completely waved away by all and sundry, my worry is that he's going to become a figure of fun in the media. Next time Dean complains about anything there'll be stories about his behavior rather than the incident, just like whenever Mourinho used to blow up. Mourinho historically acted like a clown to unify his squad (us and them mentality), but he did sometimes have a point. I fully expect other refs to pay more attention to Dean now, in the way that they're aware of who the play actors are and by admission will be more reluctant to hand out free kicks etc. I'm in no way criticizing our manager and agree with his reaction, however I can see it coming back to bite us in the future.

[lexicon]

I'd be angrier if it hadn't happened to us plenty of times before 

[Mantis]

1 hour ago, Jonesy7211 said:

Now Dean has rightly blown up at the officials, and the offside incident completely waved away by all and sundry, my worry is that he's going to become a figure of fun in the media. Next time Dean complains about anything there'll be stories about his behavior rather than the incident, just like whenever Mourinho used to blow up. Mourinho historically acted like a clown to unify his squad (us and them mentality), but he did sometimes have a point. I fully expect other refs to pay more attention to Dean now, in the way that they're aware of who the play actors are and by admission will be more reluctant to hand out free kicks etc. I'm in no way criticizing our manager and agree with his reaction, however I can see it coming back to bite us in the future.

**** the media. We all back him and that's what matters.

[jimmygreaves]

1 hour ago, Jonesy7211 said:

Now Dean has rightly blown up at the officials, and the offside incident completely waved away by all and sundry, my worry is that he's going to become a figure of fun in the media. Next time Dean complains about anything there'll be stories about his behavior rather than the incident, just like whenever Mourinho used to blow up. Mourinho historically acted like a clown to unify his squad (us and them mentality), but he did sometimes have a point. I fully expect other refs to pay more attention to Dean now, in the way that they're aware of who the play actors are and by admission will be more reluctant to hand out free kicks etc. I'm in no way criticizing our manager and agree with his reaction, however I can see it coming back to bite us in the future.

I don't think so.... It's a genuine grievance even with the "backing" of the media plenty have spoken out at the absurd application of the rule in this instance.

 

[bannedfromHandV]

2 hours ago, tomav84 said:

this is what i'm pissed off about. the media all agreeing with the decision. no one seems to be challenging the fact that rodri literally tackled mings. i don't get it

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55757428

It’s easier than facing the truth isn’t it.

I think people now much prefer an easy lie over a hard truth.

[Mjvilla]

2 hours ago, Herman22 said:

One thing I can't understand and no one has been able to explain. Why was that rule brought in in the first place? Like in what situation would having that rule make sense and help the game? I sometimes think rules are brought in because there's a team somewhere who are getting paid huge sums of money and have to change something to vindicate their existence! 

I think this is the point though. That ISNT the rule. It's NOT. At no point has this been the rule. The rule they are using to justify it is being incorrectly used. Remember Ashley Young's first goal in the 3-2 win at Everton where jagielka plays it back and Ashley young is stood offside but receives the ball and scores. THAT. THATS WHAT THIS RULE IS FOR. 

They've used it incorrectly, and I feel like a bloody conspiracy theorist trying to explain it.

No one has questioned the receive Vs challenge point in the rule. Which is the real question here. If rodri is deemed to have received it from Mings, then that is the only way it could be considered legal. He didnt, he challenged Mings for it. I don't understand how they've completely changed the whole offside law to justify what happened the other night.

[TRO]

Where can we improve ?

I still think we can improve our ability to not be dispossessed so easy and in contrast, dispossess our opponents better......In those duels i think we can do better.

[osmark86]

I want us to abuse this loophole against Newcastle. if anything just to show how ridiculous this rule is. If the refs blow offside for a similar situation I want us to cause a ruckus.

[Mjvilla]

5 minutes ago, TRO said:

Where can we improve ?

I still think we can improve our ability to not be dispossessed so easy and in contrast, dispossess our opponents better......In those duels i think we can do better.

Agree. Also, think we need to be more clinical in front of goal and take those chances when they come.

[StefanAVFC]

2 hours ago, Herman22 said:

One thing I can't understand and no one has been able to explain. Why was that rule brought in in the first place? Like in what situation would having that rule make sense and help the game? I sometimes think rules are brought in because there's a team somewhere who are getting paid huge sums of money and have to change something to vindicate their existence! 

It was never brought in. The rule is clearly intending to describe situations in which the defender plays a pass or header to an offside player. Instead they've twisted this to justify this poor decision, despite the fact that it makes no sense (receiving the ball)

And the footballing world have lapped it up.

If roles were reserved would everyone be so eager to listen? Nope, they'd be querying the word received. Makes me sick tbh.

[osmark86]

6 minutes ago, TRO said:

Where can we improve ?

I still think we can improve our ability to not be dispossessed so easy and in contrast, dispossess our opponents better......In those duels i think we can do better.

I do too and I want Mings to be a little less risky in defense because he's been in similar situations before where we couldn't make the case for offside like against citeh. However, the Rodri Mings situation I blame squarily on the referees.

I think improving our ability to dispossess and not get dispossessed is defo something to work on.

[StefanAVFC]

10 minutes ago, Mjvilla said:

I think this is the point though. That ISNT the rule. It's NOT. At no point has this been the rule. The rule they are using to justify it is being incorrectly used. Remember Ashley Young's first goal in the 3-2 win at Everton where jagielka plays it back and Ashley young is stood offside but receives the ball and scores. THAT. THATS WHAT THIS RULE IS FOR. 

They've used it incorrectly, and I feel like a bloody conspiracy theorist trying to explain it.

No one has questioned the receive Vs challenge point in the rule. Which is the real question here. If rodri is deemed to have received it from Mings, then that is the only way it could be considered legal. He didnt, he challenged Mings for it. I don't understand how they've completely changed the whole offside law to justify what happened the other night.

Yes, looking at the whole offside rule.

Offside offence

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 play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
• 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

*The first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball should be used

or

• gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
• rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
• been deliberately saved by any opponent
• A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent. 

How can they, with a straight face that 1) Rodri receives the ball from Mings and 2) Rodri doesn't gain an advantage by being there is just absurd. And the nodding dogs within the media are just as **** bad. 

[TRO]

12 minutes ago, osmark86 said:

I want us to abuse this loophole against Newcastle. if anything just to show how ridiculous this rule is. If the refs blow offside for a similar situation I want us to cause a ruckus.

I want us to just score and win........that incident does not need to distract us from getting our game right and progressing......let them wallow in their own stupidity, everyone to a man knows deep down that rule is pants, but they haven't got the humility to own up to it....they will change it, when no one is looking.....pathetic creatures.

I wouldn't mind quite so much if they responded by saying " we can't change the result, but we can see why Aston Villa are aggrieved, we will look at the ruling.......instead of that, to top it all, our manager is being punished......intransigent bunch of cockroaches.

Back to our play and what can we do

despite an heroic performance under difficult circumstances, there was a few things we could do better.....we just need to refocus our efforts on getting better......progress is the holy grail, and so far we are doing just fine....but,get back on track and start winning again.

Edited January 22, 2021 by TRO

[TRO]

14 minutes ago, osmark86 said:

I do too and I want Mings to be a little less risky in defense because he's been in similar situations before where we couldn't make the case for offside like against citeh. However, the Rodri Mings situation I blame squarily on the referees.

I think improving our ability to dispossess and not get dispossessed is defo something to work on.

To be honest, i get as much joy out of watching little pockets of improvement like that, as watching a winning performance.

I noticed the other night when Burnley beat Liverpool.......The innocuous header back in to the box from Lowton, caused all the problem, with Liverpool players surrounding him just not getting a challenge in, these are the little things that lead to big things.....you have to compete at this level, the name on the shirt, won't do it.....their levels have dropped considerably, but hey ho, who cares, just saying.

back to us.....I was also aware of the workrate and competiveness of Man City, they have rediscovered it, from a slow start......despite them being the side they are, they do many of the basics, very well.......shame they needed a "leg up the wall" from the Ref to beat us.