Ratings & Reactions: FAC3: Man Utd v Villa

[TRO]

57 minutes ago, jacketspuds said:

For 60 minutes we dominated this game. The deficiencies in this team are obvious and Gerrard will sort it.

The commentators are boiling my piss though with the completely biased commentary. Dublin’s meant to be one of us.

Thought he played to the gallery...he was disappointing.

Edited January 10, 2022 by TRO

[Tommo_b]

Just now, TRO said:

Thought he played to the gallery.

Surprised me how much he did, I normally don’t mind Dublin. 

[IrishVilla10]

Var doesn’t control our lack of intensity, wastefulness in possession, being caught badly on the counter. I said we looked flat against Chelsea and got pelters for it, maybe rightfully once I heard the game plan. But I don’t see any intensity from us at all three games later. Mcginn looked exhausted in the first half 

[ozvillafan]

19 minutes ago, R.Bear said:

The "everything favours the big teams" and "corruption to keep the same teams at the top" is the exact same small time rubbish that we'd kill SHA fans for. Embarrassing.

I agree.

But there comes a point where it happens so often, with so much evidence of it, that you find yourself unsurprised when it happens.

Off the top of my head:

- Bruno getting a penalty for stepping on Konsa

- Pogba getting a penalty for brushing his leg against Luiz

- Salah getting a penalty for stepping across Mings then tumbling

- Man City scoring against us when a clearly offside player plays at the ball

In each one of those cases, the score was 0-0 when given (I think)

 

[Awol]

Just now, TRO said:

Thought he played to the gallery.

Knows what side his bread is buttered. Anyone going towards main stream media understands the integrity/payment trade off

[LondonLax]

2 minutes ago, Tommo_b said:

New tactic every team should adopt!

The easiest way to prevent it is to do what most attacking teams do and stay onside

[TRO]

58 minutes ago, Ouchmefoot said:

Absolutely disgraceful officiating. That's all

They were looking for stuff to penalise us....it was so obvious.

but some of our decision making was pants.

[ozvillafan]

5 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

The whole reason he was positioned there miles offside was to block the defenders run. It was a deliberate tactic we employed but it backfired. 

Exactly.

Now the question is: Why did it backfire?

[AlwaysAVFC]

Fuming. 

Made the mistake of reading social media comments, fuming more. 

[VillaJay]

You really get all reactionary over the top posts directly after a defeat.

We played well enough, were the better side by a distance and lacked a little quality where it mattered, Digne and Coutinho will improve the starting 11 considerably and our attacking output.

Even if we lost the next 3 it shouldn't be panic stations, we are playing considerably better and much more competitive at the moment vs the first 10/11 games.

[The_Steve]

Cavani's sniper antics won the day. What a sad indictment of the idiocy of English football.

[flashingqwerty]

30 minutes ago, Herman22 said:

As they said in BBC it’s only an offence if they (Cavani) will get to the ball which he’s nowhere near. 
On the Konsa foul, we will never get that! We don’t get stonewall pens and the VAR refuses to look at them! 

So someone takes some one out off the ball and that's not a foul? C'mon mate, you can't be serious?

[Newry_Villan]

Tonight's VAR revealed. 

[Aston_Villan4]

9 minutes ago, ozvillafan said:

Yes it is. You are allowed to stand in any offside position that does not impede the play.

So if you were to stand in front of the keeper to block his vision - that impedes play and you are called offside.

Now if you are standing in front of a retreating player, there is enough room that that player can get around you (that is, you aren't grabbing his arms or pulling his shirt when the ball is played) then you are legally offside.

There is no rule that says you need to move - the only rule is that you cannot impede the initial play.

There is simply no guarantee that Cavani would get there (since Konsa was already away), nor is there enough reason to suggest that Cavani could not have avoided the contact with a stationary player whom he knew was standing in front of him.

I’m not sure how you can possibly say that. Watch the replay again. Cavani was clearly running ahead of/alongside Konsa when he came in contact with Ramsey. There’s also plenty of reason to suggest Cavani could not have avoided him. He wasn’t looking at Ramsey. Look at the replay and you’ll see he’s entirely focused on the ball and had no idea Ramsey was there.

[foreveryoung]

3 minutes ago, Awol said:

Knows what side his bread is buttered. Anyone going towards main stream media understands the integrity/payment trade off

Top 4 are definitely protected by the media. I listen to Talk Sport on the road and in the house nearly every day, an you can tell some of the new presenters have been told to calm down dissing the top teams, even Simon Jordon rarely slates a Man City or Chelsea anymore, used to get ripped same as every other team.

[TRO]

1 hour ago, Ouchmefoot said:

The VAR took so long because they were searching for any justification to disallow the goal. So **** annoyed.

That is the worrying factor.

[VillaChris]

Just now, jimmygreaves said:

Weird isn't it - pissed we lost a winable game in the cup but there's a strong chance we take 6 points off them in the league.

Rather still be in the cup though. 

Cup run is always random tbh in terms of who you get.

We're well overdue ending the VP hoodoo v them so I think 3 points and we should go on another decent run as we have plenty of winnable fixtures ahead in next two months and good signings usually see a teams results improve in short term.

[TomC]

Ex-ref's analysis...

The law of obstruction has changed a bit over the years. Obstruction (technically called "impeding an opponent") used to be an indirect free kick foul. Now, it is a direct free kick foul if done with contact, and indirect if it is done without contact. Ramsey clearly made contact with Cavani, so if the referee's decision was obstruction, it would have been a direct free kick. Offside is an indirect free kick. We should be able to tell which was the referee's decision by whether he had his arm in the air for an indirect free kick or not. I have not seen what the ref did, one way or the other, in any replay.

"Impeding" isn't defined, but to me, but the word implies a deliberate act, and as I always understood it, you have to be doing something deliberate to impede the opponent. It isn't at all clear from the overhead angle that I saw that Ramsey did something intentional to impede Cavani, certainly not clear enough to overturn the original decision.

If the decision was offside on Ramsey, that's a closer call. Ramsey was in an offside position. But with the current wording, I'm still not sure it's a good argument. Law 11.2 reads:

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 [obviously not]

• 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 [obviously not]

  • challenging an opponent for the ball or [obviously not]

  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or [obviously not]

  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball [this is the question]

or

• gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:

  • rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar, match official or an opponent [obviously not]

  • been deliberately saved by any opponent [obviously not]

I think you can make a pretty good argument that Ramsey impacted Cavani's ability to play the ball...to me, the word "impacting" does not carry the deliberate sense that "impeding" does. But "obvious action" adds another couple layers on top of it. Ramsey had to act, not just stand there. He did take a half step backwards right before Cavani ran into him, so I guess that's an act. Whether that's an "obvious" action, well, you can debate that. I don't like it, but I'm biased.

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by TomC
Fixed grammar

[The_Rev]

 

[flashingqwerty]

31 minutes ago, nick76 said:

I don’t agree with your interpretation.  

Bet you if it had been the other way around it wouldn’t have been ruled out for Man U.

I’ve tried to see it your way and at best it’s 50/50 on that interpretation, it’s very soft to rule that out and given it took 3.5 minutes to get to that is very dubious and looks like they were trying to find something to give a foul on.  It’s a very soft call.

Whether it would have been ruled out is besides the point.  Rules don't change based on which team it's for - only the person awarding or not awarding things changes.

We would all be calling for that to be ruled out if it happened at the other end no matter how soft you may think it is.

And if you tell me you would not be calling for it to be disallowed at the other end you are fooling yourself.