Ratings & Reactions: Villa v Burnley

[TRO]

19 hours ago, NoelVilla said:

We are tired and a bit shit at the moment. But still 3 points. We missed way to many chances. Shouldn't have been this closed if more clinical.

Weird dive from Duran if not kicked. He must have been. Watkins should have a penalty so it evens out.

 

[TRO]

19 hours ago, mottaloo said:

Another spawny vile performance....spawny penalty....spawny red card.....proppa spawny dvbs. Mate.

PS.... we do make it difficult for ourselves though 

spawny league position.

[6065_Villa]

Big win after the Man Utd give away. Much needed rest for a few players now with hopefully a few coming back from injury.

UTV.

[onmeedson]

Burnley were a slightly better team than i thought and had a quick guy upfront but lacked that desire and determination to battle when the time was needed.

[Pinebro]

The pen is seriously soft let's be real.

If that was given against Villa I'd be furious.

But when looking at the play and chances created we deserved nothing more than a win.

[Marka Ragnos]

5 hours ago, Pinebro said:

The pen is seriously soft let's be real.

If that was given against Villa I'd be furious.

But when looking at the play and chances created we deserved nothing more than a win.

Yup. Pretending that's a clear pen is silly. We got lucky AF. It all evens out over the course of the season, and we've endured our share of soft pens. Less convinced we "deserved" a win. Moreno got beat twice, and Lenglet can be just so ... s   l   ooooooooo w . Not our best but moments of supreme excellence did show us the magic that is Villa right now. I thought Diaby was just brilliant at times. Missed all kinds of shots but was a constant thorn in Burney's side, and Ollie and Bailey, too -- wow!

[TRO]

20 hours ago, Pinebro said:

The pen is seriously soft let's be real.

If that was given against Villa I'd be furious.

But when looking at the play and chances created we deserved nothing more than a win.

I am not trying to be argumentative....but I don't really understand that terminology...." Soft penalty "...it was also VAR checked....it can be very much opinion based, but selectively called...most folk who didn't want the penalty given, can resort to that conclusion....because they didn't want Villa to win, we have to get used to that.

For me, he kicked his foot, I am not in a position to judge, whether it rendered him going to ground, only JD will know that, with any surity.....I hear other fans talking about Jack, and saying but he's good at buying fouls, so where does the judgment lie?..sometimes its good, sometimes its bad..

In a game of high intensity and highly strung players, how can we realistically judge if a challenge is soft or otherwise?.....There is no real demarcation line to determine that.

We have had some stone blind penalty claims, deemed soft......MOTD always seem to deem ours soft, and sort of dissmisive when they are universally approved.

but we have had some controversial ones turned down too.

I am not suggesting, its ok, when refs get it wrong....but players can be forgiven for exaggerating a challenge, when the alternative, does not render attention.....lets not forget " necessity is the mother on invention"

your last line, kinda plays in to the hands of poetic justice.

 

Edited January 1 by TRO

[TRO]

15 hours ago, Marka Ragnos said:

Yup. Pretending that's a clear pen is silly. We got lucky AF. It all evens out over the course of the season, and we've endured our share of soft pens. Less convinced we "deserved" a win. Moreno got beat twice, and Lenglet can be just so ... s   l   ooooooooo w . Not our best but moments of supreme excellence did show us the magic that is Villa right now. I thought Diaby was just brilliant at times. Missed all kinds of shots but was a constant thorn in Burney's side, and Ollie and Bailey, too -- wow!

If it was clear?, it was clear to the officials and they give it.

You disagree, and thats fine....but its your opinion...but you are right, we have had some go against us so , Que sera, sera.

I have seen those given before, so its nothing new....I find it hard to be judge and jury, as to whether JD found the kick recoverable, or whether he felt it was sufficient to go down....only he will know that.

Personally, I am tired of us getting poor calls, and when we get a debatable one.....Dr Watson is called upon for his verdict.( Gary Lineker)

 

[sheepyvillian]

59 minutes ago, TRO said:

I am not trying to be argumentative....but I don't really understand that terminology...." Soft penalty "...it was also VAR checked....it can be very much opinion based, but selectively called...most folk who didn't want the penalty given, can resort to that conclusion....because they didn't want Villa to win, we have to get used to that.

For me, he kicked his foot, I am not in a position to judge, whether it rendered him going to ground, only JD will know that, with any surity.....I hear other fans talking about Jack, and saying but he's good at buying fouls, so where does the judgment lie?..sometimes its good, sometimes its bad..

In a game of high intensity and highly strung players, how can we realistically judge if a challenge is soft or otherwise?.....There is no real demarcation line to determine that.

We have had some stone blind penalty claims, deemed soft......MOTD always seem to deem ours soft, and sort of dissmisive when they are universally approved.

but we have had some controversial ones turned down too.

I am not suggesting, its ok, when refs get it wrong....but players can be forgiven for exaggerating a challenge, when the alternative, does not render attention.....lets not forget " necessity is the mother on invention"

your last line, kinda plays in to the hands of poetic justice.

 

Just my tuppence worth, but I thought Watkins had a what you could call a better case for a penalty when he was pulled back by his shirt in the box. I was raging that it didn't hardly get a mention. If there's contact and the player goes down hoping the ref gives a penalty, depending on who your team is, you're either delighted or disgusted. And, that my friend is football.  A happy New year to you, my friend. 

[tinker]

The big call for us was the Carlos handball, similar to the one against us for Sheffield. I'm not sure what hand ball is anymore.

As for the penalty, he clipped the bottom of Durans boot who didn't go down like he was shot (Jesus against us) he just staggered to the floor. If that's not a penalty then we're treading a fine line of deciding if illegal contact is enough to bring players down, which artificially exaggerating the affects of a foul make it easy to dismiss, Jesus being shot......

[rjw63]

18 minutes ago, tinker said:

The big call for us was the Carlos handball, similar to the one against us for Sheffield. I'm not sure what hand ball is anymore.

As for the penalty, he clipped the bottom of Durans boot who didn't go down like he was shot (Jesus against us) he just staggered to the floor. If that's not a penalty then we're treading a fine line of deciding if illegal contact is enough to bring players down, which artificially exaggerating the affects of a foul make it easy to dismiss, Jesus being shot......

Thought he was crucified but it's all just a story anyway

 

[PaulC]

7 hours ago, TRO said:

If it was clear?, it was clear to the officials and they give it.

You disagree, and thats fine....but its your opinion...but you are right, we have had some go against us so , Que sera, sera.

I have seen those given before, so its nothing new....I find it hard to be judge and jury, as to whether JD found the kick recoverable, or whether he felt it was sufficient to go down....only he will know that.

Personally, I am tired of us getting poor calls, and when we get a debatable one.....Dr Watson is called upon for his verdict.( Gary Lineker)

 

Its a clear pen but as with the modern game he milked it by making out he was seriously injured.  Although that one was given by the ref, there's no doubt that Var has changed the way the game is played.

[TRO]

19 hours ago, sheepyvillian said:

Just my tuppence worth, but I thought Watkins had a what you could call a better case for a penalty when he was pulled back by his shirt in the box. I was raging that it didn't hardly get a mention. If there's contact and the player goes down hoping the ref gives a penalty, depending on who your team is, you're either delighted or disgusted. And, that my friend is football.  A happy New year to you, my friend. 

I agree...and Happy New Year to you too sheepy.

[limpid]

A foul is a foul is a foul, even if no contact at all is made. Attempting foul play is a foul.

I don't understand how so many people who've watched football all their lives don't know this. Referees are crap, but when everyone thinks "but he got the ball" is a valid defence, what hope do they have?

Read Law 12.

If the ref/VAR felt that the defender attempted foul play, it's a foul. The amount of contact and "whether he could have stayed on his feet" is not relevant.

[BigJim]

2 hours ago, limpid said:

A foul is a foul is a foul, even if no contact at all is made. Attempting foul play is a foul.

I don't understand how so many people who've watched football all their lives don't know this. Referees are crap, but when everyone thinks "but he got the ball" is a valid defence, what hope do they have?

Read Law 12.

If the ref/VAR felt that the defender attempted foul play, it's a foul. The amount of contact and "whether he could have stayed on his feet" is not relevant.

That's interesting, I didn't know that law....

The wording confuses me though. Does attempting foul play mean intending to foul the opponent? 

If not, I'd be grateful if someone could give me an example of how you unintentionally attempt foul play without actually making contact.

If so, no penalty should be given where there is no intent, because amount of contact and "whether he could have stayed on his feet" cannot apply in one case and not the other.

Anyway I think Duran dived, but the ref was very close and must have thought otherwise, so I guess it's a fair call.

 

[limpid]

1 hour ago, BigJim said:

That's interesting, I didn't know that law....

The wording confuses me though. Does attempting foul play mean intending to foul the opponent? 

If not, I'd be grateful if someone could give me an example of how you unintentionally attempt foul play without actually making contact.

If so, no penalty should be given where there is no intent, because amount of contact and "whether he could have stayed on his feet" cannot apply in one case and not the other.

Anyway I think Duran dived, but the ref was very close and must have thought otherwise, so I guess it's a fair call.

The Laws of the game are easily found with Google.

Example from the Law (re direct free kick):

Quote

kicks or attempts to kick

It's a refereeing decision as to whether the player was attempting to kick (or strike or trip). The referee can award an indirect free-kick even if there is no contact at all, but the (attempted) foul play only has to meet to "careless" test to mean a direct free kick.

If the referee felt that the defender attempted to kick, strike or trip Durán, it's a direct free kick and therefore a penalty, but not a caution. The referee(s) have to decide the intent of the defender. What the fouled player does afterwards shouldn't come into consideration, neither does any injury sustained, unless the foul play was reckless or used excessive force.

[BigJim]

14 minutes ago, limpid said:

The Laws of the game are easily found with Google.

Example from the Law (re direct free kick):

It's a refereeing decision as to whether the player was attempting to kick (or strike or trip). The referee can award an indirect free-kick even if there is no contact at all, but the (attempted) foul play only has to meet to "careless" test to mean a direct free kick.

If the referee felt that the defender attempted to kick, strike or trip Durán, it's a direct free kick and therefore a penalty, but not a caution. The referee(s) have to decide the intent of the defender. What the fouled player does afterwards shouldn't come into consideration, neither does any injury sustained, unless the foul play was reckless or used excessive force.

Thanks for that.

So intent is everything: if two opposing players are going hell for leather side by side in pursuit of the ball and the attacker trips over the defender's foot, no penalty. If the defender tries but fails to make contact, penalty.

[BigJim]

7 hours ago, limpid said:

Read Law 12.

If the ref/VAR felt that the defender attempted foul play, it's a foul. The amount of contact and "whether he could have stayed on his feet" is not relevant.

I just saw that the second paragraph is not part of law 12, but rather your interpretation. I should have noticed that in the first place.

What the law actually says is:

<quote>Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

....

• trips or attempts to trip

If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

</quote>

Edited January 2 by BigJim

[limpid]

1 hour ago, BigJim said:

I just saw that the second paragraph is not part of law 12, but rather your interpretation. I should have noticed that in the first place.

What the law actually says is:

<quote>Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

....

• trips or attempts to trip

If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

</quote>

I used a quote box the line I quoted. The rest is my interpretation. I don't see how that corrects or changes what I said.

I was being generous and using the bullet about "kicks or attempts to kick", rather than tripping, but contact was made so

[BigJim]

46 minutes ago, limpid said:

I used a quote box the line I quoted. The rest is my interpretation. I don't see how that corrects or changes what I said.

I was being generous and using the bullet about "kicks or attempts to kick", rather than tripping, but contact was made so

Fair enough. 

Your post led me to think that the rule said that any attempt to foul could be penalised. It was my interpretation of your interpretation which sent me down the rabbit-hole. I'm sure we can all agree that Ramsey's challenge was not reckless or dangerous, so contact was necessary for the decision.