Ratings & Reactions: Villa v Leicester

[Peter Griffin]

5 minutes 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?

Tro, I don't believe the ball was a rebound or from a save. It was a cross from Cash into the box. 

[TRO]

2 hours ago, Davkaus said:

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. 

I think safety is/was the priority in their thinking.....but equally, when a ball is a yard away from their body ( arms length) The safety is a dubious claim....it could be claimed in such circumstances Safety as an entitiy is going OTT....Blimey, it could be claimed elbows are far more dangerous to a player going for an aerial ball.

If Interpretation was a justifiable interjection, why did the referree, not give priority to the entertainment factor of the game, when safety of the player was never in question.

My personal take on the incident is.....despite the rule being nebulous, they chose a route of interpretation, that they felt comfortable with, not necessarily what was morally right....which means in essence that, we could so easily have been in a situation, where the reverse has happened, Emi Martinez, was in a similar position and the goalscorer was given the benefit of the doubt....which I have every confidence, playing the top sides would have happened.

We are getting in to dangerous territory here where the impartiality of referree's is coming in to question.....when 25 fouls bares only one yellow card, the most even tempered soul could be roused to suspecting Bias.

[TRO]

20 minutes ago, Peter Griffin said:

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. 

 

 

"Except" is the operative word here for me.

[Herman22]

4 hours 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! 

If you haven’t seen it Gallagher is shown that the ball is off the ground when JJ strikes it. But he’s decided the “challenge” happens earlier. The lengths these guys will go to to say the refs are right is shocking! 
 

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/teams/aston-villa/12488328/ref-watch-was-schmeichel-fouled-by-ramsey

[mottaloo]

Dunno if it's been mentioned already but this goal was allowed to stand - with BOTH hands on the ball :

 

 

[Herman22]

4 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.

Equally I think if you have to talk about the “intent” of a rule it’s not clearly defined. 

[Herman22]

1 minute ago, mottaloo said:

Dunno if it's been mentioned already but this goal was allowed to stand - with BOTH hands on the ball :

 

 

Jesus man don’t bring up Sheffield United, everyone will talk about the famous non-goal that single handedly saved us from relegation! 

[danceoftheshamen]

3 minutes ago, Herman22 said:

If you haven’t seen it Gallagher is shown that the ball is off the ground when JJ strikes it. But he’s decided the “challenge” happens earlier. The lengths these guys will go to to say the refs are right is shocking! 
 

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/teams/aston-villa/12488328/ref-watch-was-schmeichel-fouled-by-ramsey

But according to Davkaus it would be "paranoia" to think that wouldn't it? Surely they would never actually try to cover their error up? (sorry for the sarcasm but you get my point )

[Davkaus]

1 minute ago, Herman22 said:

Equally I think if you have to talk about the “intent” of a rule it’s not clearly defined. 

I think the one thing we can all agree on is that it's really badly defined. 

I sometimes like to keep an eye on this forum to get opinions from real refs that aren't going through the PR machine. The concensus seems to be with the interpretation I outlined, but with almost universal agreement it's a poorly writted rule. I particularly enjoyed the post that says if you take the rule literally that the keeper isn't in control of the ball after making a save, that once the keeper makes 1 save in a game, they can't be in control of the ball for the rest of the game  

 

[Davkaus]

12 minutes ago, Herman22 said:

If you haven’t seen it Gallagher is shown that the ball is off the ground when JJ strikes it. But he’s decided the “challenge” happens earlier. The lengths these guys will go to to say the refs are right is shocking! 
 

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/teams/aston-villa/12488328/ref-watch-was-schmeichel-fouled-by-ramsey

That's a cracking spot from Warnock tbh, eagle eyes!

One could argue it's absurd to slow things down that much, and zoom right in to see a tiny gap from the floor, but it's no more ridiculous than what they did to identify the "control" in the first place.

[DaveAV1]

1 hour 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, the constant interference from VAR was reduced at the start of the season but now is creeping back in. This incident was clearly a case of judgment being applied by the ref at the time in the heat of battle being overruled for some contentious reason that people still don’t agree on almost 24 hours later. This isn’t what VAR was supposed to be for. 
 

If VAR is used as it is intended, ie. as you say, only for clear and obvious mistakes, the logical conclusion should be that they should never take more than a few seconds to decide on and also never be controversial. VAR isn’t there for a second opinion. Refs aren’t refereeing games properly anymore and are relying on Stockley Park to cover their backs. 
 

The footballing authorities seemed to agree with fans that there was a problem with poor standards of referees. The standard has remained low but effectively they’ve just added another layer of incompetence and inconsistency. Both of which were the big gripe that most fans had in the first place. 
 

As for your comment on a “cover up”, it’s becoming increasingly apparent that whilst it may not be happening consciously or deliberately, there’s certainly plenty of evidence of subconscious bias. Whether that is by referees, administrators the media or all of them is the big question. 

[MaVilla]

just watched the Leicester match back, my lord we were good in the second half.

I know Emi made that amazing save, but we really could have scored 3/4/5 with some more clinical finishing.

[Lichfield Dean]

4 hours ago, Five Ken McNaughts said:

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”). 

This is exactly what I assumed the rule was getting at. However it is so badly worded that we end up in ridiculous situations like yesterday.

[turvontour]

59 minutes ago, danceoftheshamen said:

But according to Davkaus it would be "paranoia" to think that wouldn't it? Surely they would never actually try to cover their error up? (sorry for the sarcasm but you get my point )

Its annoying that they dont ever say, "we got it wrong". Its not like that would be an issue.

[Davkaus]

26 minutes ago, turvontour said:

Its annoying that they dont ever say, "we got it wrong". Its not like that would be an issue.

I remember there being one ref back in the 90s who went on TV and held his hands up to making a gaff, and he got nothing but respect from fans/pundits, but it never happened again, so I wonder what was said behind closed doors. 

[John]

We beat VAR, a so called referee and the hand of Schmeichel! Top half already, quite a reversal in fortune! 

[robby b]

I know it doesn't really matter whether Konsa's flick for his first goal was a fluke or brilliant but I'm wondering which it was. It sent the ball perfectly into the corner, out of Schmeikel's reach, and it seemed to me that the ball might have hit the post or gone a few cm wide otherwise! Maybe it was a vital little touch. 

[Peter Griffin]

3 hours ago, TRO said:

"Except" is the operative word here for me.

Would that mean that the ball is 'in control' except when it is a shot or a rebound. So for the Ramsey disallowed goal it would have been counted if it was a shot or a rebound. Given Cash's crossing in the game before the disallowed goal then I am sure we could argue that Cash was shooting as opposed to scoring 

[TomC]

Sorry to sound like the former ref that I am, but it depends on how you read the exception.

Putting numbers into the clause: "The ball is (1) between the hands or (2) between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or (3) 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." Is the exception an exception to all of #1-3, or just to #3?

I think that's an exception only to #3, because it makes no sense as an exception to #1. The ball wouldn't be between the hands if the ball has rebounded from the goalkeeper. The point of the exception is that, if you touch the ball to make the save but it rebounds from the arm and is no longer in contact with the arm, the mere fact that you touched the ball is not enough to be considered possession.

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by TomC
Caught mistake after I was quoted; replaced "a save" with "possession"

[Delphinho123]

2 hours ago, MaVilla said:

just watched the Leicester match back, my lord we were good in the second half.

I know Emi made that amazing save, but we really could have scored 3/4/5 with some more clinical finishing.

It’s true. The game should have ended 4-3 to us on the balance of play. We could have scored more in the second half but then they missed some chances in the first.