The RJW63 Official Jack Grealish Appreciation Thread

[Keyblade]

3 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I think as soon as he felt contact he went down so it was a probably a foul. I think it’s come a little natural to him to wait for the contact to win a freekick or penalty.  

So the ref should have either played on or gave a freekick or penalty. 

Which is what happens when you're fouled, no?

It was a hard thigh to thigh hit that made Cahill do a 180 spin in the air, so you'd think it would also fell someone who had momentum from both running as well as already stumbling to the ground anyway. It wasn't like he felt a tap and then fell down as soon as he did. He was taken out. We're honestly feeding into the stereotype people have of him that even when he's cleaned out and we all agree the ref dropped a clanger, we're still questioning Jack and his motives.

[Vive_La_Villa]

11 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

Which is what happens when you're fouled, no?

It was a hard thigh to thigh hit that made Cahill do a 180 spin in the air, so you'd think it would also fell someone who had momentum from both running as well as already stumbling to the ground anyway. It wasn't like he felt a tap and then fell down as soon as he did. He was taken out. We're honestly feeding into the stereotype people have of him that even when he's cleaned out and we all agree the ref dropped a clanger, we're still questioning Jack and his motives.

I don’t think the way he fell looks totally natural at first. I’m not saying he dived. I’m just saying I can see why a clearing in the woods biased referee would think he did and get it wrong.

Its why they’re meant to use VAR. 

Edited September 5, 2019 by Vive_La_Villa

[Five Ken McNaughts]

42 minutes ago, TRO said:

In my opinion, Kevin Friend could not be sure Jack Dived and was influenced by other sources other than the incident itself

 

31 minutes ago, TRO said:

I don't think they actively cheat in the true sense of the word......but I think their decisions get influenced by elements of criteria, which shouldn't affect that judgement, but do.

[Keyblade]

6 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I don’t think the way he fell looks totally natural at first. I’m not saying he dived. I’m just saying I can see why a clearing in the woods biased referee would think he did and get it wrong.

Its why we’re meant to use VAR. 

I mean, falling naturally is evidently subjective but when analyzing the situation we should be looking at if the contact was enough to make him fall/impede him. How his body contorted as he fell is frankly irrelevant to that. Besides, if we're being honest Kevin Friend was going to call a dive even if he didn't fall and just stumbled slowly to the ground. No point trying to see from his bent perspective, it gives him legitimacy.

[LakotaDakota]

And  this ladies and gentlemen is why VAR will never really work properly as everything other than "did the ball cross the line completely" is pretty subjective and open to interpretation

[TRO]

23 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

I mean, falling naturally is evidently subjective but when analyzing the situation we should be looking at if the contact was enough to make him fall/impede him. How his body contorted as he fell is frankly irrelevant to that. Besides, if we're being honest Kevin Friend was going to call a dive even if he didn't fall and just stumbled slowly to the ground. No point trying to see from his bent perspective, it gives him legitimacy.

Well, it is.....Whats natural in this context?...how is it defined?

He had no grounds for being sure IMO, so should have let play flow.

[TRO]

18 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I think as soon as he felt contact he went down so it was a probably a foul. I think it’s come a little natural to him to wait for the contact to win a freekick or penalty.  

So the ref should have either played on or gave a freekick or penalty. 

Edit: I have to admit at the time I thought he may have dived but I was waiting for VAR to clear it all up one way or another. The fact VAR wasn’t even allowed to look at it because the idiot had blown his whistle was sickening.

I thought he was fouled and a possible penalty at first viewing.

The 2 players involved Zaha and Cahill did not approach the incident like a fair challenge was about to happen.....Its easy for folk to spend so much time looking at Jacks legs ( whooppee) seriously, but how much time has been spent looking at the 2 players to analyse if a legitimate challenge was intended.....Those challenges do not spell good tackles to me.

I say he was possibly clattered.......once again.

Edited September 6, 2019 by TRO

[Vive_La_Villa]

Just now, TRO said:

I thought he was fouled and a possible penalty at first viewing.

Goes to show it’s difficult to be sure which is why you let the game continue and refer to VAR if needed. 

5 minutes ago, TRO said:

Well, it is.....Whats natural in this context?...how is it defined?

He had no grounds for being sure IMO, so should have let play flow.

Exactly this. He was desperate for us to lose for some reason. 

[TRO]

7 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Goes to show it’s difficult to be sure which is why you let the game continue and refer to VAR if needed. 

Exactly this. He was desperate for us to lose for some reason. 

Its hard to dismiss that conclusion, in the light of all what's been said by so many.

But how many times in life do we all experience someone who doesn't like us for a reason that is unknown us......one of lifes little mysteries.

He would never admit that, in a million years.

Edited September 5, 2019 by TRO

[Five Ken McNaughts]

20 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Exactly this. He was desperate for us to lose for some reason. 

VillaTalkers were already pointing out this very thing by half-time in the match thread. The front-loading of just under half the Villa team with yellow cards – while Palace enjoyed diplomatic immunity – all but guaranteed the last 30-40 minutes of this match would be 11 v 10. And so it proved. It is actually a very clever way to orchestrate a desired outcome – no controversial incidents for Match of the Day's 5 minutes, no interest from the wider football world... just set the match going in one direction and let nature take its course. Apart from a bunch of "whinging Villa fans" it would all have been so wonderfully under the radar.

Unfortunately for Kevin Friend, as the ball rolled to Henri Lansbury in the 96th minute, his steering of this match hit a bloody big problem. I mean, how's your luck, Kev? 15 seconds from exiting stage left with a classic dimpled smirk. Of the two options available (hope that Lansbury misses, or simply "out" his agenda with a ludicrous decision) Friend chose the latter. Was that agenda personal, or broader? That, I couldnt possibly know. I do know it was clearly observable.

[Only2McInallys]

1 hour ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Goes to show it’s difficult to be sure which is why you let the game continue and refer to VAR if needed. 

Exactly this. He was desperate for us to lose for some reason. 

I just wonder if it wasn’t wanting us to lose but wanting Palace to win .Palace have some wealthy backers .

[QldVilla]

1 hour ago, TRO said:

Its hard to dismiss that conclusion, in the light of all what's been said by so many.

But how many times in life do we all experience someone who doesn't like us for a reason that is unknown us......one of lifes little mysteries.

He would never admit that, in a million years.

Didn't Villa make a formal complaint about him after a match a few years ago? 

[Vive_La_Villa]

Im suprised he didn’t give Palace a penalty for Luiz’s challenge in the first half. He could have been all over that.

Maybe it would have been too blatant.

[Keyblade]

3 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Im suprised he didn’t give Palace a penalty for Luiz’s challenge in the first half. He could have been all over that.

Maybe it would have been too blatant.

VAR could have been on his mind. The yellow cards and the blowing off the whistle before the goal, he took VAR out of the equation while also heavily influencing the match.

[Kiwivillan]

5 hours ago, LakotaDakota said:

And  this ladies and gentlemen is why VAR will never really work properly as everything other than "did the ball cross the line completely" is pretty subjective and open to interpretation

It's astonishing the amount of people on all forms of social media criticizing VAR when the fact is when the referee blows his whistle the ball is dead. VAR can't rule on a goal scored after ref has blown his whistle. 

[Kiwivillan]

3 hours ago, QldVilla said:

Didn't Villa make a formal complaint about him after a match a few years ago? 

 Lambert 2013 Chelsea 2-1

[samjp26]

1 hour ago, Kiwivillan said:

 Lambert 2013 Chelsea 2-1

Lambert was absolutely fuming. I think the only good that can come from this is that despite Jack's "reputation for diving", the general consensus including from the media is that he was in the right this time, I think decisions against him will be under the microscope in the coming games. 

[LakotaDakota]

1 hour ago, Kiwivillan said:

It's astonishing the amount of people on all forms of social media criticizing VAR when the fact is when the referee blows his whistle the ball is dead. VAR can't rule on a goal scored after ref has blown his whistle. 

It wasn't a criticism of var especially, & not being able to rule on this particular decision it was more that after a page or so of "it wasn't a dive but maybe looks a little like one i guess" & not being able to agree on whether or not  a somewhat unnatural looking leg movement & fall could be perceived as being a dive by a ref then what hope is there. A ball crossing a line can be measured and is a simple yes/no, anything else is completely subjective and if you get a group of 10 people to watch every single foul/incident/dive from any game you will always have differing views, var can not fix this, it doesn't completely work in other sports that use similar video reviews like the NFL either for exactly the same reasons. Everyone knows that Kane just stopped and caused a player to run into him at the weekend but i have seen plenty of fouls given for that exact same thing

Edited September 6, 2019 by LakotaDakota

[BleedClaretAndBlue]

4 hours ago, Kiwivillan said:

It's astonishing the amount of people on all forms of social media criticizing VAR when the fact is when the referee blows his whistle the ball is dead. VAR can't rule on a goal scored after ref has blown his whistle. 

Technically on this instance yes, but on the whole I think its been awful in not awarding clear pens/reds etc.

How they can review that Tielemans one on Saturday and not give a red, the Haller pen against Norwich, the David Silva pen vs. B'mouth, the rugby tackle by Lamela against City, the Watford wall jumping and clear handball in the box. Its shit and has made football more controversial than before

[Five Ken McNaughts]

I'm disappointed we haven't heard more from Villa regarding the Jack Grealish situation. I know the FA rules say we can't appeal the yellow card, but that's exactly what the Scottish FA rules used to say until two years ago. Then a couple of teams kicked up a big fuss over blatant fouls given as simulation and the SFA were forced into a re-think. Now cards wrongly given for diving can be reviewed and revoked in Scotland.

Why is this common sense approach totally beyond our own FA? Why are we not hammering on their door with the Grealish case? The only argument we ever hear for the long list of things that can't be reviewed – compared to the tiny list of things that can – is something to do with "workload". Cry me a river! I've never heard such nonsense.

In what other profession can someone be accused of dishonesty, then told – by that profession's governing body, no less – that they have NO RIGHT to object and clear their name? Against an allegation that was demonstrably false?!? What kind of Orwellian bullshit is this? And how is the FA's stance even legal in wider employment law?

These clowns and their panels have plenty of time to go looking for something that isn't there (remember the laughable "Grealish cleared to play in second leg" headlines after the first match against West Brom?). But when it comes to doing the simple, obvious and right thing to clear up an injustice, they want to hide behind illogical and unfair rules as if they are unchallengeable holy scripture. Heavy-handed, authoritarian, bullying behaviour is what it is. A court with a prosecution but no defence. All from the people who want to talk to you about "Respect".

So, come on Villa. Even if it gets us nowhere. Let's have an official complaint against Kevin Friend and a press release calling on the FA to change their rules. I, for one, would feel better for it.