Ratings & Reactions: Villa v Leicester

[Herman22]

What is a bit worrying is the refs don’t appear to know the rules! All the VAR wanted to show the on field ref was Kaspers hand on the ball. He didn’t show him the build up, which suggests they didn’t know the second part of the rule. 
Can’t wait to hear Dermot Gallagher on sky later say it was “the refs opinion” and hope no one asks him anymore questions! 

[The_Steve]

2 minutes ago, Herman22 said:

What is a bit worrying is the refs don’t appear to know the rules! All the VAR wanted to show the on field ref was Kaspers hand on the ball. He didn’t show him the build up, which suggests they didn’t know the second part of the rule. 
Can’t wait to hear Dermot Gallagher on sky later say it was “the refs opinion” and hope no one asks him anymore questions! 

Yep - a transparent process would show fans both - you could see how angry the crowd got yesterday understandably. Show us both patterns of play not just a terrible low resolution screenshot from one particular angle. 

[Jono62]

5 hours ago, BleedClaretAndBlue said:

 

Young with a nice little elbow dig.

[Davkaus]

6 minutes ago, Herman22 said:

He didn’t show him the build up, which suggests they didn’t know the second part of the rule. 

I'd suggest the people still going on about "the second part of the rule" don't understand the intent of the rule.

[Jono62]

Anyway, the goalie hand thing is moot until it's affects Klopp, Pep or Tuchel.

[DaveAV1]

1 hour ago, Pez1974 said:

I do feel a bit sorry for the ref....the rule is dumb, and very badly worded. This is the sort of thing where he got the decision technically correct, but looks like a bell end. But surely our highly paid refs should be looking at the rules and making sure that such dumb elements are sorted out, before they are shown to an TV audience of millions.

Never feel sorry for Michael Oliver he’s a biased and incompetent idiot. To the letter of the law, when read in full it’s a goal. In the spirit of the law it’s also a goal.
When asked to view the monitor the referees are then of a mind set that they’ve made a mistake and their VAR pal has viewed it about 10 times so must be right. Then they have a quick look and agree. This was a simple case of neither the on field referee or the VAR referee understanding the rule. Which is also very badly written. 
Is that goal disallowed if the home team play at Old Trafford, Anfield, The Etihad? No of course not. 
To make the decision even less palatable the commentator admiringly tells us that Schmeichel has an excellent relationship with all the PL refs. How the hell can that be deemed to be a good thing for the integrity of the game in this context? Bent the lot of them. 

[DaveAV1]

14 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I'd suggest the people still going on about "the second part of the rule" don't understand the intent of the rule.

And what in your opinion is the intent of the rule? 

[TRO]

1 hour ago, The_Steve said:

The law needs to be rewritten since referees cannot rely upon it for it requires too much subjectivity. 
 

A lot of the media and others are focused too much on the goalkeeper touching the ball for a tiny time as justification. That’s missing the point. 
 

It’s negated because he’s clearly only in that position because he’s making a save - thus negating the above. 
 

We saw a reply that focuses on his hand position. Not whether he was responding to a save. And since there’s no real accountability, we don’t know what Stockley Park was looking at - the keepers hand or whether he had made the save first. 

ditto.

[TRO]

32 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I'd suggest the people still going on about "the second part of the rule" don't understand the intent of the rule.

but, its a condition, relating to the first part of the rule, so in the event, it becomes relevant.

i.e He made a save, so the latter part of the wording, becomes relevant.

If its not meant to be a goal, under the said circumstances, they need to make the rule less nebulous.

but here we are again, guinea pigs for the rule book.

 

 

 

[villaglint]

I can't see how anyone can claim a mistake wasn't made yesterday. Clearly those making the decision in the VAR team were not aware (at least in the moment) of the second part of that rule. Maybe they were not sufficiently up to the task or they made a simple mistake who knows. Maybe the rules are now so complicated its difficult for anyone to fully grasp them in pressure moments like that. 

One thing I keep thinking about though is why is that "one hand against the turf" rule there in the first place. I get you dont want players kicking out of keepers hands if they have it in one hand against their body. But I dont see a time when a keeper has one hand against the ball on the ground when it doesnt look just odd in a football context. 

Edited December 6, 2021 by villaglint

[Davkaus]

14 minutes ago, TRO said:

but, its a condition, relating to the first part of the rule, so in the event, it becomes relevant.

i.e He made a save, so the latter part of the wording, becomes relevant.

If its not meant to be a goal, under the said circumstances, they need to make the rule less nebulous.

but here we are again, guinea pigs for the rule book.

 

 

 

Agreed. I think it's pretty clearly the intent though if you spend even a couple of minutes considering the consequences of the alternative. We've not been robbed by a change in the rules, we've just been the frustrated victims of a rule that's ambiguously worded.

37 minutes ago, DaveAV1 said:

And what in your opinion is the intent of the rule? 

I've spelled this out in detail in my posts on the previous page, but that rule has two intentions, IMO:

1. Stop the ball being kicked when the keeper is holding it either in their hands or against the floor

2. Allow the attackers to challenge for the ball as the keeper is making a save even if they're touching it with their hands

It's not intended to allow the attacker to kick the ball out when the keeper is holding it against the floor or when the keeper is holding it in their hands - if you think that players should be able to kick the ball out from under the keeper's hand because they've just made a save, you should also think that if the keeper catches the ball in both hands, players can still kick it out of their hands as long as it was a save - the wording of the rule is ambiguous and should be fixed, but it's pretty clear to me that this interpretation is not what was intended.

[BleedClaretAndBlue]

That post match interview from Schmeichel was pathetic. Liar and a cheat. Remember what he did to Traore at VP last season too. Scumbag

[Davkaus]

15 minutes ago, villaglint said:

One thing I keep thinking about though is why is that "one hand against the turf" rule there in the first place. I get you dont want players kicking out of keepers hands if they have it in one hand against their body. But I dont see a time when a keeper has one hand against the ball on the ground when it doesnt look just odd in a football context. 

The only justification I can think is player safety and hands/arms being less well protected than feet/legs, because really, if the keeper was in the same position but with the ball trapped under their foot and Ramsey cleanly kicked it out from under him, it's tough shit. 

[mottaloo]

2 minutes ago, BleedClaretAndBlue said:

That post match interview from Schmeichel was pathetic. Liar and a cheat. Remember what he did to Traore at VP last season too. Scumbag

He's certainly inherited his father's arrogance. Pretty much every goal he concedes he's up moaning at the defence. He probably believes he is bombproof against criticism. 

He never bothered me much until yesterday's post match interview. Now, I'll celebrate every goal past him ( I won't, but it's tempting !)

[bannedfromHandV]

Massive result yesterday, moving into the top half from a purely psychological perspective is really encouraging and I feel that we’ve put enough distance between us and the relegation spots to not have to be too concerned about looking over our shoulder now.

I fully expect we’ll lose to Liverpool but hopefully we go and put up a good fight as we did against City but I’m really looking forward to seeing what we do in the second half of the season now.

[TRO]

14 minutes ago, villaglint said:

I can't see how anyone can claim a mistake wasn't made yesterday. Clearly those making the decision in the VAR team were not aware (at least in the moment) of the second part of that rule. Maybe they were not sufficiently up to the task or they made a simple mistake who knows. Maybe the rules are now so complicated its difficult for anyone to fully grasp them in pressure moments like that. 

One thing I keep thinking about though is why is that "one hand against the turf" rule there in the first place. I get you dont want players kicking out of keepers hands if they have it in one hand against their body. But I dont see a time when a keeper has one hand against the ball on the ground when it doesnt look just odd in a football context. 

I think you make a good point...at this rate, we will need Robots with AI as refs.....The speed of the game is such, that its difficult to get to such fine detail, common sense has to prevail, otherwise the refs will get accused of bias or hiding behind technicalities like this.

We can't turn the game in to a court room.....They need to pay heed to the acronym K.I.S.S.

[Five Ken McNaughts]

The way I read it, everything in that Law up to the word “except” sounds like it is intended to rule out any version of the Gary Crosbie goal circa 1988 – to outlaw every scenario in which a player might try to cheekily nick the ball away from a goalie who is plainly in control of it and should be allowed to distribute it without harassment. And everything after the word “except” is saying that the same level of protection does not apply in a dynamic open-play situation. (What the Law then fails to do is clarify what protection DOES apply in a dynamic situation, beyond essentially saying “not that”). 

[TRO]

37 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Agreed. I think it's pretty clearly the intent though if you spend even a couple of minutes considering the consequences of the alternative. We've not been robbed by a change in the rules, we've just been the frustrated victims of a rule that's ambiguously worded.

I've spelled this out in detail in my posts on the previous page, but that rule has two intentions, IMO:

1. Stop the ball being kicked when the keeper is holding it either in their hands or against the floor

2. Allow the attackers to challenge for the ball as the keeper is making a save even if they're touching it with their hands

It's not intended to allow the attacker to kick the ball out when the keeper is holding it against the floor or when the keeper is holding it in their hands - if you think that players should be able to kick the ball out from under the keeper's hand because they've just made a save, you should also think that if the keeper catches the ball in both hands, players can still kick it out of their hands as long as it was a save - the wording of the rule is ambiguous and should be fixed, but it's pretty clear to me that this interpretation is not what was intended.

• That is to be established, we can't be sure what their intentions was, while it is so unclear. You have made a genuine attempt to clarify, but respectfully the intent, is just your opinion.....and to be fair, thats all we have, opinions.

I think to kick the ball, when a keeper has one hand on it, against the turf, like in our scenario.....is entirely different from have the ball kicked from both hands...."The save " is muddying the waters, it should be one hand goal, 2 hands no goal....IMO.

My personal interpretation is this :

• If a goalkeeper has it in 1 hand, the ball is not under control, if its secured by 2 hands it is under control. It is a natural instinct for a keepers ideal position to be 2 hands on the ball, unless he is making a save or a goal kick.
• I think, if the area of the ball, is only covered by one hand, it should be open to be challenged....... 2 hands and its in the goalkeepers possession.

That to me is clear....but who am I?.....Just my take on it.

Judging by the reponses, most folk, think morally, it should have been a goal.....so the rule needs tidying up, and kept simple.

 

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by TRO

[danceoftheshamen]

So my take on the disallowed goal is this

Firstly, as we all know if that was against Liverpool, Manure or the Chelskis of this World it would have been a goal 100%. This is yet another example of the huge weight of bias hitting a club not in amongst the Scummy six. 

The rule is clearly badly written and i can see Davkaus's point, if you read it with imaginary punctuation put in. 

The glaring issue here is though that if you look at the two freeze frame images someone posted a page or two back, the ball is quite clearly still moving under Kaspers hand. This is proven as the two freeze frames clearly show. Surely the rule means that if the ball is stopped dead between part of the keepers arm and the ground or his other hand then effectively the ball is under control (that's if we forget about the 2nd part of the rule which appears to be what the muppets in VAR did). 

What for me is staggering here, is that the guy in the VAR room has clearly been wiggling back & forth looking for the perfect freeze frame to sent to the monitor which then influences the on field ref. So this has to mean that during this process he could clearly see the ball was still moving frame by frame as is clearly visable in the two freeze frame images which can not possibly give any other conclusion than, even if we do ignore the second part of the rule, the ball was not under control regardless. So there we have it... evidence of corruption, nothing else makes sense!!! 

Edited December 6, 2021 by danceoftheshamen

[TRO]

1 hour ago, DaveAV1 said:

Never feel sorry for Michael Oliver he’s a biased and incompetent idiot. To the letter of the law, when read in full it’s a goal. In the spirit of the law it’s also a goal.
When asked to view the monitor the referees are then of a mind set that they’ve made a mistake and their VAR pal has viewed it about 10 times so must be right. Then they have a quick look and agree. This was a simple case of neither the on field referee or the VAR referee understanding the rule. Which is also very badly written. 
Is that goal disallowed if the home team play at Old Trafford, Anfield, The Etihad? No of course not. 
To make the decision even less palatable the commentator admiringly tells us that Schmeichel has an excellent relationship with all the PL refs. How the hell can that be deemed to be a good thing for the integrity of the game in this context? Bent the lot of them. 

Well, its becoming increasing harder to rule it out.