Ratings & Reactions: Villa v Leicester

[Davkaus]

The rule is simply badly written, so anyone claiming to be absolutely certain that the refs got it wrong based on the exception  is being rather overconfident.

What does the exception apply to? Is it the whole rule, or is it a limited exception to the part from "or by touching..."?

Grammatically, it's impossible to say, so all we can go on is how the referees are told to interpret it, as well as applying some common sense around the implication. It should be corrected where there are such clearly ambiguous rules but I guess it's just never come up much

Edited December 5, 2021 by Davkaus

[Davkaus]

I'd also ask the people claiming that the exception is relevant to explain what they think the rule is actually intended to do. That interpretation means that the ball is fair game of the keeper is holding it in two hands as long as he's just made a save, which is clearly nonsense.

[Lochheads twin]

A very important win, lifts us back into the middle of the table. Fantastic to hear and see Villa Park rocking again.

Before i get into any detail, a special shoutout to the Leicester players who did not restart the game in the 6th minute (Thomas,& it was Madison who pointed out the time to him?). Top class!

We should have won this comfortably with the chances we created, fortunately we did not regret being profligate for once.

A great second half and we now seem to be lasting the full 90 odd minutes. We just need to make sure we have not lost the game in the first 20. 

Man of the match difficult with a lot of "almost" performances. Opted for Marvelous again but it could easily have been McGinn or our goalscorer. Buendia in and out but improving.The other Emi pretty good too.

Our set-piece coach seems to be earning his corn. After years of offering no threat, we are now reaping rewards.

I am all in favour of referees allowing more physical challenges compared to a free kick every time someone falls over, as in the last two seasons. However, that is 2 in a week who seemed intent on not booking a visitor to Villa Park. 25 fouls and he was only forced to produce the card for GBH. Something not quite right.

We just need to get through next weekend without too much trauma and we should be nicely set up for the New Year when we get a few more players back

UTV/VTID.

 

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Lochheads twin
typo and acknowledged Madison

[ciggiesnbeer]

4 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

The rule is simply badly written, so anyone claiming to be absolutely certain that the refs got it wrong based on the exception  is being rather overconfident.

What does the exception apply to? Is it the whole rule, or is it a limited exception to the part from "or by touching..."?

Grammatically, it's impossible to say, so all we can go on is how the referees are told to interpret it. It should be corrected where there are such clearly ambiguous rules but I guess it's just never come up much

Seems perfectly clear to me. Seemed perfectly clear to the entire team on TV as well including 2 ex pros. Oliver an VAR were just incompetent. They assumed they knew a rule and didnt look it up. Also VAR did not show Oliver the save just the hand on ball. So they shoulder most of the blame but he should have used his eyes.

Edited December 5, 2021 by ciggiesnbeer

[hippo]

Overall I think before VAR - we played to the spirit or intended purpose of the law (has the goalkeeper got control of the ball).

With slow Mo and replays the whole control word takes a whole new meaning. The goalkeeper had a hand on the ball touching the floor - for a millisecond (freeze frame proves it ) but the ball was squirming out of his hand.

VAR to me is like flood defences - it's doesn't solve a problem - it just moves it 

[Davkaus]

1 minute ago, hippo said:

Overall I think before VAR - we played to the spirit or intended purpose of the law (has the goalkeeper got control of the ball).

With slow Mo and replays the whole control word takes a whole new meaning. The goalkeeper had a hand on the ball touching the floor - for a millisecond (freeze frame proves it ) but the ball was squirming out of his hand.

VAR to me is like flood defences - it's doesn't solve a problem - it just moves it 

Yup, I think it's as simple as this, the still frames and slow motion have changed how that looks.

[Davkaus]

1 minute ago, ciggiesnbeer said:

Seems perfectly clear to me. Seemed perfectly clear to the entire team on TV as well including 2 ex pros. Oliver an VAR were just incompetent. They assumed they knew a rule and didnt look it up. Also VAR did not show Oliver the save just the hand on ball. So they shoulder most of the blame but he should have used his eyes.

So you think it's a free for all on the keeper holding the ball in two hands if he's just made a save?

[robby b]

I'm not so sure... although Schmeichel got his hand to the ball only just before Ramsey got his foot to it, he does seem to trap the ball well (completely) between his hand and the pitch. The reason I'm a little annoyed with Schmeichel is him complaining that Ramsey whacked his hand (come on, they went for it at the same time)... it's unfortunate that was painful but actually that wasn't the reason the goal was disallowed by VAR. The reason was that Schmeichel had the ball controlled between his hand and the pitch just as Ramsey struck the ball. Personally I think it was correctly disallowed according to the rules. It was an unusual situation and it has brought the rule book out.

Edited December 5, 2021 by robby b

[hippo]

2 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I'd also ask the people claiming that the exception is relevant to explain what they think the rule is actually intended to do. That interpretation means that the ball is fair game of the keeper is holding it in two hands as long as he's just made a save, which is clearly nonsense.

But the VAR slowdown gives the impression the ball was still under the goalkeepers hand.

It would be like in weightlifting where a slow Mo or still frame shows the guy with the weight above his head. But the footage shows he was never in full control.

[Davkaus]

Just now, hippo said:

But the VAR slowdown gives the impression the ball was still under the goalkeepers hand.

It would be like in weightlifting where a slow Mo or still frame shows the guy with the weight above his head. But the footage shows he was never in full control.

I think we're in agreement. The problem is some people are arguing that this "exception" would mean that even if he was completely in control, had the ball firmly held down, it's still a goal because he'd just made a save, which is just silly.

[robby b]

I mean that the ball appears to be touching the keeper's hand and the pitch as Ramsey strikes it.

[ciggiesnbeer]

9 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

So you think it's a free for all on the keeper holding the ball in two hands if he's just made a save?

Thats not what happened. The rule is very clear in this case.

[Five Ken McNaughts]

Funny thing, “perspective”...

(EDIT: Clearly not “in control” of anything according to that second angle, which was never shown by VAR). 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Five Ken McNaughts

[ciggiesnbeer]

By the way Tim Howard was one of the Peacock show hosts he also thought it was obviously a goal. I imagine he should know a thing or two about it.

[Davkaus]

1 minute ago, ciggiesnbeer said:

Thats not what happened. The rule is very clear in this case.

No, it's not what happened, it was a question to see how far you think this exception applies, and I'll explain why the question was relevant.

I don't think we're going to come to an agreement, but let me try and spell out how I see it. So, the rule:

Quote

 

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:

• the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms, except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save

 

There's the exception, plain as day, right? Except, there are at least two ways to read this.

Interpretation 1, which is what the ref and VAR used:

• the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms, except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save

In this interpretation, the rule is in two parts separated by the or. the keeper is in control if it's in their hands/between their hands and the ground, OR if they are touching it with the hands. The second part has an exception, this means it allows the keeper to be in control when touching it with their hands but still allows players to challenge if they're just making a save but the ball isn't in control. Crucially, this means the exception would *not* apply to part one, when the ball is in the hands or held to the ground.

Interpretation 2, which some fans are relying on, including yourself, is that the "except...." applies to the whole rule. This means that the ball is not in control if the keeper is holding the ball to the ground if it's just as the keeper has made a save? This is your argument, yes? If that is the case, the exception surely also applies to "the ball is between the hands" which means if the keeper catches the ball, well, players are entitled to go for it as long as the keeper has made a save.

A lot of fans are relying on this exception being relevant, and to be fair, from just reading the rule the intention isn't clear, but thinking through the consequences of that interpretation makes it ludicrous, IMO. 

One thing is for sure, it's a poorly written rule and should be clarified in the laws.

[Zhan_Zhuang]

Great performance from the team, manager and the fans.

Nakamba for me MOTM.

Schmeichel you are a Word Removed of the highest order!

 

[ciggiesnbeer]

2 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

(snip good points)
One thing is for sure, it's a poorly written rule and should be clarified in the laws.

Fair enough. I see where you are coming from. 

[kidlewis]

10 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

No, it's not what happened, it was a question to see how far you think this exception applies, and I'll explain why the question was relevant.

I don't think we're going to come to an agreement, but let me try and spell out how I see it. So, the rule:

There's the exception, plain as day, right? Except, there are at least two ways to read this.

Interpretation 1, which is what the ref and VAR used:

• the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms, except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save

In this interpretation, the rule is in two parts separated by the or. the keeper is in control if it's in their hands/between their hands and the ground, OR if they are touching it with the hands. The second part has an exception, this means it allows the keeper to be in control when touching it with their hands but still allows players to challenge if they're just making a save but the ball isn't in control. Crucially, this means the exception would *not* apply to part one, when the ball is in the hands or held to the ground.

Interpretation 2, which some fans are relying on, including yourself, is that the "except...." applies to the whole rule. This means that the ball is not in control if the keeper is holding the ball to the ground if it's just as the keeper has made a save? This is your argument, yes? If that is the case, the exception surely also applies to "the ball is between the hands" which means if the keeper catches the ball, well, players are entitled to go for it as long as the keeper has made a save.

A lot of fans are relying on this exception being relevant, and to be fair, from just reading the rule the intention isn't clear, but thinking through the consequences of that interpretation makes it ludicrous, IMO. 

One thing is for sure, it's a poorly written rule and should be clarified in the laws.

It’s a rule written by an idiot, it’s why we are debating it. The fact they’ve even put both in the same law is ridiculous. You don’t even need the second part for this rule. 
 

Otherwise if you do, it applies to the whole thing, based on the English language and how that rule is currently formatted. 
 

if you read that rule and watch that footage it should be a goal. 
 

but as we know the rules are stupid 

[Davkaus]

I'm just glad this is purely a matter of rules pedantry that didn't end up costing us. Plenty of things like this in the rules though. They need some argumentative Representatives for Wellingborough to review it looking to pick an argument.

[srsmithusa]

4 hours ago, SuperTed said:

25 fouls today and they had 1 yellow. 

and it was not for persistent - it was for a cynical foul from behind after the first attempt at a cynical foul missed.