Jump to content

Ratings & Reactions: Villa v Leicester


limpid

Match Polls  

301 members have voted

  1. 1. Who was your Man of the Match?

  2. 2. Manager's Performance

  3. 3. Refereeing Performance


This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 07/12/21 at 23:59

Recommended Posts

Decent analysis on Motd. Showed how important it is we keep possession due to the full backs being so forward. We get exposed quite badly on the break if give the ball away and we’re maybe lucky not to concede more than one on the break. 
 

Also showed some good in game management as the full backs sat once we got the lead and let the forward players do the damage whilst space opened up as Leicester needed a goal.  
 

That second half was superb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The_Steve said:

We are being gaslighted again like with Man City last season 

This is the worry, I have.

If that goal had of been given....how much outcry, would that of caused?...very little, I suspect.

Is the rule book open ended, and we are just writing it as we go?

 

Edited by TRO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TRO said:
  • 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.

 

 

I was fully on board with this point, and I agree, the interpretation is my opinion, but you've then countered this with not your interpretation of the current rule, but a proposal for a completely different rule :D 

I don't disagree with you that it would be a better rule, it certainly isn't what it currently is, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 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.

I think your analysis of the rule is spot on. It's really badly phrased, but the intention is as you describe and why the goal was not given. 

Ironically, if JJ had been a split second later to the shot, I think it's likely that Schmeichel would have lost control of the ball from under his fingertips and the goal would have stood.

As said though, it galvanised the crowd and team after the event, so in the end, no harm done.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rubberman said:

I think your analysis of the rule is spot on. It's really badly phrased, but the intention is as you describe and why the goal was not given. 

Ironically, if JJ had been a split second later to the shot, I think it's likely that Schmeichel would have lost control of the ball from under his fingertips and the goal would have stood.

As said though, it galvanised the crowd and team after the event, so in the end, no harm done.

I think you're right. Absolutely rotten luck for him. A split second earlier and he beats him, a split second later and he is in place for the spilled ball. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Five Ken McNaughts said:

“Ref Watch” on Sky Sports was a predictably painful watch on the whole matter. Not one reference to the full law and its wording from any of the four in the studio. Pointless.

It’s actually so bad - they are a cartel - cannot criticise refs - so we get their mates to do it and defend them to the hilt before they quietly admit they had it wrong. 
 

They wilfully insult the intelligence of fans 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Kasper but the 'nothing to see here' response when interviewed by the BBC with 100% foul is so disappointingly disingenuous. For Leicester? 100% goal. Against? An obvious foul.

I honestly think journo's should stop interviewing players and most managers. What's the point? They're become more like politicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

Not to mention the debates whether it was a save or just a catch from time to time. I'm with you all the way and had the same argument last night. I have to admit that at first I thought it was a rubbish decision, but then I kept on thinking that it unfortunately was the right call. I also thought that had Ramsey come in a second later he would've scored as the ball probably would've been lost for Schmeichel by then. But we'll never know. But from what we can see it's right to disallow it. Not bad refereeing. But very badly worded rule, no doubt.

I can't help finding it a bit funny that so many think that what pundits say and how they interpret the rule is more right than the ref's, claiming the ref's don't know the rules. Of course they do, it's the very basics of their job, and things like this have probably been discussed plenty of times. The rule, the words and how to read the words. And now a few pundits have found the rule and had their say and so many think that their uneducated interpretation indeed is the right one. 

But again we've been on the losing side of a rule that has its loopholes and/or is badly put in the book of rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

The ball wasn’t firmly in the players control and kicking the ball didn’t endanger the goal keeper at all in this instance, despite Schmiechel’s pathertic protestations. If anything Schmiechel seemed to believe that the law was there to prevent the GK being injured which he wasn’t. He didn’t claim to have it under control, he claimed he was fouled, which he also wasn’t. 
 

I think rule was made with the intention of preventing players recklessly  trying to kick the ball out of a goal keepers hands when they genuinely have the ball under control, which is fair. However none of these factors where in play when Schmeichel had his hand on the ball for 0.12 of a second. 
 

I don’t expect Schmeichel to do anything but try to get the goal overturned at the time, that’s the way the game is. However his post match interview was pathetic and reminded me of a certain Argentinian who’s hand was also involved in a controversial goal. Perhaps the X-ray will confirm if this particular hand is of this world. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole point of this is not "can they find a freeze frame 12th of a second moment when it looks like he is in control of the ball " though is it! Many on here seem to be saying because of that freeze frame it was a correct call??? I find that bizarre as surely it is about whether or not he has it under control? Which he clearly as evidenced does not as it's moving through his hand. Surely it should only be if the ball has stopped moving as it wouldn't make sense otherwise.

Whichever way around i thought VAR were only supposed to interfere if it was a clear & obvious error? Not if it was open to conjecture? In which case they should have gone with the Refs original on field decision.

Thay are a farce basically and the cover up after is quite frankly pathetic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, danceoftheshamen said:

The whole point of this is not "can they find a freeze frame 12th of a second moment when it looks like he is in control of the ball " though is it! Many on here seem to be saying because of that freeze frame it was a correct call??? I find that bizarre as surely it is about whether or not he has it under control? Which he clearly as evidenced does not as it's moving through his hand. Surely it should only be if the ball has stopped moving as it wouldn't make sense otherwise.

Whichever way around i thought VAR were only supposed to interfere if it was a clear & obvious error? Not if it was open to conjecture? In which case they should have gone with the Refs original on field decision.

Thay are a farce basically and the cover up after is quite frankly pathetic.

I agree with most of your post if we put the "cover up" to one side, which sounds a little paranoid.

I think there's a real problem with the way technology has been shoe-horned into the game, and the use of slow-motion to enforce a minutia of percieved offences to a level of strictness that's never before been in the game. Though many of the rules haven't changed, the spirit of the rules have changed due to the use of freeze-frames/slow motion. There's nothing wrong with saying "if the keeper has his hand on the ball, it's under his control and you can't attack it", because at real speed, we could see he didn't have it under control. Without VAR, that was probably a goal, it was a 50/50 at worst. still images amplify every percieved offence.

I think, in the context of the current applications of the rules and use of VAR that the referee got it right, but I think the game would be much better off if VAR was used to catch complete cock-ups and nothing else. If I were in charge, I'd limit its use to a second look when the referee has genuinely missed something, and allow them to see it back at real time, rather than zoomed-in slow motion to identify the tiniest infringements imaginable. Where it's too tight to see at full speed, give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker. Job done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

I was fully on board with this point, and I agree, the interpretation is my opinion, but you've then countered this with not your interpretation of the current rule, but a proposal for a completely different rule :D 

I don't disagree with you that it would be a better rule, it certainly isn't what it currently is, though.

It wasn't my intention, to interpretate the rule.....I was aware, I was giving my proposal to a change to the rule.😀

I am a big advocate of keeping things simple in a high speed, highly emotive game.

Edited by TRO
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours 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.

It may be that people are assuming an intent that is not part of the rules. The definition of 'in control' is very clear. If the definitions need to be changed that is different but the rules were correctly applied to disallow the goal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I agree with most of your post if we put the "cover up" to one side, which sounds a little paranoid.

I think there's a real problem with the way technology has been shoe-horned into the game, and the use of slow-motion to enforce a minutia of percieved offences to a level of strictness that's never before been in the game. Though many of the rules haven't changed, the spirit of the rules have changed due to the use of freeze-frames/slow motion. There's nothing wrong with saying "if the keeper has his hand on the ball, it's under his control and you can't attack it", because at real speed, we could see he didn't have it under control. Without VAR, that was probably a goal, it was a 50/50 at worst. still images amplify every percieved offence.

I think, in the context of the current applications of the rules and use of VAR that the referee got it right, but I think the game would be much better off if VAR was used to catch complete cock-ups and nothing else. If I were in charge, I'd limit its use to a second look when the referee has genuinely missed something, and allow them to see it back at real time, rather than zoomed-in slow motion to identify the tiniest infringements imaginable. Where it's too tight to see at full speed, give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker. Job done. 

so what is your take on the wording that says " except when the goalkeeper saves or a rebound" which is what happened here?

I think the latter part of the wording has an effect on the earlier claim in the rule....in which case the ref would be wrong....am I missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Made In Aston said:

And I think this is what should be added to the rule for clarity, to define what constitutes 'under control'. 

The definition is in the rules, see below https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

Imo, the problem with the definition is that the definition doesn't cover situations when the GK would be clearly not in control of the ball, and by that I mean from a dictionary definition of the words and not an FA definition. The ball could be moving or theoretically the 'hard surface' could be anything, even the opposition striker's dick if he had a hard on. 

 

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

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TRO said:

so what is your take on the wording that says " except when the goalkeeper saves or a rebound" which is what happened here?

I think the latter part of the wording has an effect on the earlier claim in the rule....in which case the ref would be wrong....am I missing something?

To save me turning this thread into my own soapbox on the rules, my view on that is here

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â