Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Match Threads & Player Ratings => Topic started by: PeterWithesShin on November 09, 2023, 09:56:30 PM
-
Never in doubt.
-
Bit clumsy but lovely goal to win it.
-
What a relief.
Their goal was offside, our equaliser should have been a goal kick. Nothing wrong with the winner, so fair result.
-
Emery Europe touch of Gold
-
Pretty ordinary performance but the result all that mattered tonight
-
Not as good a performance as we've become used to at home but still had the quality to turn it around and once we got the equaliser we looked like the only team trying to win it.
-
AZ can do us a favour and beat Legia next
-
Same vibes as Forest but without the stupid fuck ups. Feels like we need another option for breaking limited but tight opposition. Not sure we have it right now, so maybe a January addition.
We found a way to win.
-
Took all three and deservedly so. We controlled the majority of the match, Emery got his substitutions spot on and we took care of business at home.
Well done, on to sunday - UTV.
-
Incredible home run. We are in historic times
-
AZ can do us a favour and beat Legia next
I reckon they are good enough to do that
-
2-1, as predicted. Just beat Legia by a couple and we'll top the group.
-
We still aren’t top I take it goal difference doesn’t count?
-
We still aren’t top I take it goal difference doesn’t count?
Head to head
-
Are us and Legia through already?
-
Zrinski could still theoretically qualify ahead of us. I think.
-
Made hard work of that and perhaps a little fortuitous to win, but we got it over the line.
-
Batter those fuckers in the next game and we can put the stiffs in for Mostar, handy with all the games in December.
-
My worry is that we are beginning to look a bit tired, we are slow and ponderous , the slick movement and passing has been lacking recently.
The squad not allowing Emery to rotate with our injury problems.
-
1 more point sees us through. We'd have to lose the last 2 and Mostar win their last 2 for us not to finish 2nd.
-
Job Done
Shirts not showing any signs of being drenched in sweat ....we move on
-
Are us and Legia through already?
I’ve a feeling if AZ and us beat Legia, AZ go above them
Edit and AZ beat Zrinjski, too
-
Just get through Sunday time for some to recharge and others to come back ie Ramsey and Moreno.
-
Lenglet had a decent game but he’s so slow he makes Torres look like Des Walker.
-
AZ deserved to be ahead at 0-1 apparently. Like Forest. ARGHHHH! NO. They did not deserve to be ahead for hanging on and skanking a dubious offside goal. What is wrong with these ******?
-
The line they've just shown for their goal looked drawn about a yard behind Lenglet
-
Kamara MOTM .
Good win, forgettable game.
-
It’s all good.
-
How good is Doug?
-
Lenglet had a decent game but he’s so slow he makes Torres look like Des Walker.
Tielemans is another speed merchant , as is Dendonker
-
Are us and Legia through already?
I’ve a feeling if AZ and us beat Legia, AZ go above them
If we lose our next two matches and Mostar win both, we would finish below them IF they beat us by more then 1-0. I don't believe AK can now qualify as they will always be below us in the table even if they get 6 from 6.
-
Tielemans is a good player that I've always rated, but Doug is light years better than him at present, and that's not a slight it's just how good Luiz has become.
-
Nice routine home win.
-
Is anybody still watching the TNT coverage thinking it's like an episode of black mirror? I'm expecting something odd to happen..
-
Is anybody still watching the TNT coverage thinking it's like an episode of black mirror? I'm expecting something odd to happen..
This nightmare is sponsored by BET365
-
Is anybody still watching the TNT coverage thinking it's like an episode of black mirror? I'm expecting something odd to happen..
No.
-
Their goal WAS offside. Just been clarified.
We shouldn’t have a corner. Obviously
But arise Doug n Ollie.
-
Their goal WAS offside. Just been clarified.
We shouldn’t have a corner. Obviously
But arise Doug n Ollie.
Yes, in the end it was a 1-0 win.
-
Their goal WAS offside. Just been clarified.
We shouldn’t have a corner. Obviously
But arise Doug n Ollie.
Clarified on what? I’m watching TNT.
(I agree it was offside btw).
-
Hmm, both Tielmans and Watkins have said the officials have admitted to making a mistake for the disallowed Lenglet goal? I'm guessing it is because people have mentioned the defender played the ball where VAR called it as an unintentional touch or he never played it for the offside.
Villa striker Ollie Watkins to TNT Sports on his goal: "I thought it was close, I didn't celebrate because I thought it was tight. You never know with VAR.
"When you play teams twice, they study you and have a chance to put it right. They made it tough for us but we've won the game and that's all that matters.
"The first goal [disallowed effort after three minutes] should have counted. They said they made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes.
"I'm really enjoying it. The team are playing good football and I'm getting chances. Delighted to be called up again [for England]."
Aston Villa midfielder Youri Tielemans to TNT Sports: "It was very tough. We had to be really patient and fight until the end.
"In the end we won so it's all good.
"We've been told it was a mistake from them [to disallow a goal early on] and they apologised. In the end it's OK.
"Legia are a tough team to play against. The next game will be very important."
-
Their goal WAS offside. Just been clarified.
We shouldn’t have a corner. Obviously
But arise Doug n Ollie.
Clarified where? I turned BT off at FT.
-
Is anybody still watching the TNT coverage thinking it's like an episode of black mirror? I'm expecting something odd to happen..
No.
Disappointed.
-
Are us and Legia through already?
I’ve a feeling if AZ and us beat Legia, AZ go above them
If we lose our next two matches and Mostar win both, we would finish below them IF they beat us by more then 1-0. I don't believe AK can now qualify as they will always be below us in the table even if they get 6 from 6.
AZ have beaten Legia already, so are ahead in the head to head.
If they beat them and beat Zrinjski, and we beat Legia AZ go above them into 2nd.
Likewise with us and Zrinjski, although I’m not even thinking about that scenario.
-
Their goal WAS offside. Just been clarified.
We shouldn’t have a corner. Obviously
But arise Doug n Ollie.
Clarified where? I turned BT off at FT.
Nothing has been mentioned about their goal but the Villa players have said the Ref apologised about our goal being disallowed.
-
Good win. A bit tougher than we all thought it might have been but fair play to them for not just sitting back which after the first leg they might have done. It would have been more comfortable had that first goal stood.
-
Compare our lads reactions to that tarmac head arteta.
-
Tielemans confidence is growing. A noticed a few very clever passes, where he picked an option you wouldn’t expect and it created space.
-
As Stevie used to suggest, we needed that little bit of magic, this time from Doug to set up the goal. Stevie was a colossal bell end just to be clear.
-
As Stevie used to suggest, we needed that little bit of magic, this time from Doug to set up the goal. Stevie was a colossal bell end just to be clear.
Who? Never heard of him.
-
Their goal WAS offside. Just been clarified.
We shouldn’t have a corner. Obviously
But arise Doug n Ollie.
Clarified where? I turned BT off at FT.
Nothing has been mentioned about their goal but the Villa players have said the Ref apologised about our goal being disallowed.
So he should. I've just watched the "goal" again and how anyone with two working eyes can call that offside is beyond me. Even if Bailey is thought to be in an offside position the decenders goal line clearance is clearly "intentionally" playing the ball with Bailey on receipt being onside in any case.
-
Their goal WAS offside. Just been clarified.
We shouldn’t have a corner. Obviously
But arise Doug n Ollie.
Clarified where? I turned BT off at FT.
Nothing has been mentioned about their goal but the Villa players have said the Ref apologised about our goal being disallowed.
So he should. I've just watched the "goal" again and how anyone with two working eyes can call that offside is beyond me. Even if Bailey is thought to be in an offside position the decenders goal line clearance is clearly "intentionally" playing the ball with Bailey on receipt being onside in any case.
It was an appalling decision, I kept trying to work out how they could give offside, then you look at where they give the free kick.
-
Tough game as AZ sat deeper & we seemed to have the same attitude as we did against Forest by just walking through the game. Literally. When we sped up the play, we looked dangerous.
AZ had the odd moment of danger by targeting Lenglets lack of pace by pumping long balls into a striker who lacks pace himself, but on the one time he did manage to trick the officials into letting him be offside (WTF VAR?!?) his lack of pace was slightly less than Lenglets. He passes the ball well, but that lack of pace still concerns me.
But even with that, we were comfortably the better side. So Im not sure what Mr & Mrs Dufus on TNT were talking about by rimming AZ all game. And that was with us missing half our currently fit first team. When Douglas Luiz came on, the game switched in our favour & there was only going to be one winner from that point. He gives us so much control & poise not just in the middle of the park, but all across the pitch.
Shout out to the ref for being so shit for both sides that his incompetence actually balanced things out...
-
So are we saying that VAR fucked up again?...
-
Tielemans was our best player I thought and unlucky to make way for Dougie, but great pass from him for the winner.
Big police operation tonight. Haven’t seen so many on Witton Lane for a long time.
-
So are we saying that VAR fucked up again?...
Twice and both times against us.
-
Tielemans was our best player I thought and unlucky to make way for Dougie, but great pass from him for the winner.
Big police operation tonight. Haven’t seen so many on Witton Lane for a long time.
They were obviously expecting trouble from AZ. Was there any? They seemed a pretty tame bunch...
-
Big police operation tonight. Haven’t seen so many on Witton Lane for a long time.
Christmas around the corner, overtime helps.
-
Good win.
-
So are we saying that VAR fucked up again?...
Twice and both times against us.
errr we scored off a corner that was a goal kick .
-
No match report on guardian again
-
Shite night out tbh.
Some dopey bitch pulled out in front of me on the Hagley road, then drove off before I could get her details, costing me a replacement front bumper at the very least…. then I ended up sitting through a pretty lacklustre performance from both the team and the fans. Well worth the effort! 🙄
3pts in the bag though I suppose. Onto Sunday. UTV
-
So are we saying that VAR fucked up again?...
Twice and both times against us.
errr we scored off a corner that was a goal kick .
errr what? you are correct, but that is not reviewable by VAR, so not what we were talking about.
-
Compare our lads reactions to that tarmac head arteta.
I don't think we'd be as calm if we'd lost because of it, let's be honest.
-
Maybe I'm in a majority of one but anyone else worried about Diaby?
Think he has been completely ineffectual last 2 games and is making Watkins become very isolated which is limiting our pace when we break.
-
Shite night out tbh.
Some dopey bitch pulled out in front of me on the Hagley road, then drove off before I could get her details, costing me a replacement front bumper at the very least…. then I ended up sitting through a pretty lacklustre performance from both the team and the fans. Well worth the effort! 🙄
3pts in the bag though I suppose. Onto Sunday. UTV
Let's not refer to women as bitches eh, not helpful is it
-
Didn't see the game tonight but good to get back to winning ways after last Sunday. Emery rotated the squad a bit too with Cash, Luiz and Torres given a breather. Maybe a bit worrying that Moreno not given a minute yet. Any of Lenglet, Carlos, Tielemans, Bailey suggest they deserve more game time?
-
One of those nights that I hope become routine.
YT was our best player and fair play to him for putting people like me straight.
Scruffy now and again, not always smooth but in the grand scheme of things, this is not bad, not bad at all....
-
-
I thought we looked a good team and played fluid football until Cash and Zaniolo came on. Tielemans had a good game and Luiz brought the quality that won us the game I also thought. Pleased for Watkins gettng a goal - he was not that involved with the ball all the time but he seems to run around a lot in front trying making himself available and making space for others - thought he had a good game.
-
Didn't see the game tonight but good to get back to winning ways after last Sunday. Emery rotated the squad a bit too with Cash, Luiz and Torres given a breather. Maybe a bit worrying that Moreno not given a minute yet. Any of Lenglet, Carlos, Tielemans, Bailey suggest they deserve more game time?
Tielemans motm for me, lenglet was very good, Carlos was decent though those two look like they need more minutes as a pair generally but they played well. Bailey was involved in all our good moments but also classic him gave the ball away a lot and often held on to it for too long.
Moreno - it was his first time on the bench after months, I imagine he's holding him back for sunday
-
If it was a guy I’d call him a b’stard (or probably far worse). She’s broken the law, driving off after causing an accident, whilst also causing me a lot of expense and inconvenience weeks before Christmas. I would absolutely not use that term to describe women generally, but I think I’m absolutely well within my rights to use that term on this occasion. Thanks.
-
I was surprised how many times Kamara was furthest forward of the midfielders, especially with Tielemans being a better "attacking" mid.
-
Didn't see the game tonight but good to get back to winning ways after last Sunday. Emery rotated the squad a bit too with Cash, Luiz and Torres given a breather. Maybe a bit worrying that Moreno not given a minute yet. Any of Lenglet, Carlos, Tielemans, Bailey suggest they deserve more game time?
Emery seems quite good at protecting players, so I don't think chasing a game against a physical enough side is the time to bring on a player who hasn't played in about 6 months. Obviously we'll have to put him on at some point, but I'd imagine the ideal scenario is 20/25 minutes at the end of the Fulham game, and if he's still in one piece after that, he may well start against Spurs.
-
Decent game and lively in the ground in parts, though went a bit flat towards the end.
Tielemans and Kamara played well, Lenglet was ok, but he’s not as good as Torres. Konsa is better than Diego and Lenglet at CB but is not a right back.
Lenglets goal not incorrectly ruled out, we stroll that 3 or 4 nil.
Dougie’s pass for Watkins goal was Sidesque. It reminded me so much of how Cowans and Platt used to combine.
We march on.
-
-
Emery needs to make better use of Diaby , he looks lost . Playing infield in tight spaces where his main asset is lost . He isn't the best with the ball with time .
-
Are us and Legia through already?
I’ve a feeling if AZ and us beat Legia, AZ go above them
If we lose our next two matches and Mostar win both, we would finish below them IF they beat us by more then 1-0. I don't believe AK can now qualify as they will always be below us in the table even if they get 6 from 6.
AZ have beaten Legia already, so are ahead in the head to head.
If they beat them and beat Zrinjski, and we beat Legia AZ go above them into 2nd.
Likewise with us and Zrinjski, although I’m not even thinking about that scenario.
Good to hear. I was thinking on a situation of us losing both our matches, then they couldn't. So all teams below us have to be open in attacking, which hopefully should mean we have spaces the other way against Mostar and not trying to break them down.
-
So Im not sure what Mr & Mrs Dufus on TNT were talking about by rimming AZ all game. A
You must have been watching a different TNT to me, I thought they spent the entire 90 minutes practically sucking us off, they were so effusive in praising us.
The last ten minutes was borderline embarassing as they went on and on about how clever we are, closing down the game effortlessly.
I genuinely thought the whole match was the most fawning coverage I've heard in ages.
-
A subdued game on and off the pitch. Really glad we won, but it was a bit too pedestrian at times.
I thought Tielemans played well especially in the first half, but not sure Lenglet and Carlos are that suited to the high line, but I guess they don't play much.
-
So Im not sure what Mr & Mrs Dufus on TNT were talking about by rimming AZ all game. A
You must have been watching a different TNT to me, I thought they spent the entire 90 minutes practically sucking us off, they were so effusive in praising us.
The last ten minutes was borderline embarassing as they went on and on about how clever we are, closing down the game effortlessly.
I genuinely thought the whole match was the most fawning coverage I've heard in ages.
Yeah the bloke who kept calling Bailey Diaby is a massive fan of ours .
-
We didn't play great but getting back to 1-1 so quickly was important.
In the groups it's just about winning games and hopefully winning the group as we need a lighter February if possible rather than having to compete in a play off round.
Then once in last 16 it's about the performance aswell as the result.
Beating Warsaw next game confirms winning the group.
-
Thought Tielemans and Kamara both played well, McGinn good first half but anonymous in the second.
Martinez made some good saves and was quick off his line in the second half. Lenglet played well but he tried to play a few through balls like Torres but he just hasn’t got the technique for that and that helps open a team up. Not a great performance but it’s the result that matters.
Quite a queue for Upper North Stand with either the machines struggling to read the QR codes or supports using the wrong codes, quite a few didn’t get in for kick off.
-
Then once in last 16 it's about the performance aswell as the result.
I wonder what team selection will look like if/when we get to must win knock outs. Do we stick with the lineups that get us there, or do we play the same team that starts the league games. Although really, central defence and Tielemans seems to be the only difference between weekends and midweek.
-
If we sign players in January will they be Cup tied ?
-
Made hard work of that, but did what we needed to do on the night. Lenglet looked like he was going to get caught with that ball in behind him all night and it didn't help that the linesmen seemingly didn't have a clue when to raise the flag for offsides. The ref was OKish, but I don't think he packed his yellow card with him as a couple of fouls they did in the 2nd half were the most blatant bookings you'll see.
What was with the set up in the away end? There was a main body of their support in the lower, then a gap and then a small section of them by the divide with the home fans. Never seen that before. Sat in the North Stand upper for the first time in years tonight, is it always a nightmare like that to get into before the game?
The games haven't been great on the whole, but I'm enjoying this European campaign so far. "Oh what a night / watching Villa on a Thursday night"!! Beat Legia Warsaw by 2 goals in the next game and we'll have won the group I think.
-
If we sign players in January will they be Cup tied ?
If they have played in European group rounds yes.
-
If we sign players in January will they be Cup tied ?
Are qualifying, group stages and knockouts not deemed separate things?
I know Zaniolo couldn't play the qualifying rounds for us because he played for Galatasary in CL qualifying.
And I'm sure when talking about Kellyman being accidentally left out of the Conference squad they said the could be registered for the knockouts. He also played against Hibs, didn't he?
-
A subdued game on and off the pitch. Really glad we won, but it was a bit too pedestrian at times.
I thought Tielemans played well especially in the first half, but not sure Lenglet and Carlos are that suited to the high line, but I guess they don't play much.
Whenever Konsa plays in the middle, he's in charge. No ifs, buts or maybes, it's Konsa's line. Without him there I get the impression they all know what they're supposed to be doing, but nobody's pulling the strings. They were all hokeycokeying tonight. We looked like spurs.
-
If we sign players in January will they be Cup tied ?
Are qualifying, group stages and knockouts not deemed separate things?
I know Zaniolo couldn't play the qualifying rounds for us because he played for Galatasary in CL qualifying.
And I'm sure when talking about Kellyman being accidentally left out of the Conference squad they said the could be registered for the knockouts. He also played against Hibs, didn't he?
Here we are....
The UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League and UEFA Europa Conference League knockout hopefuls are allowed to register a maximum of three new eligible players during the winter. Since 2018/19, it no longer matters whether those players have already played in the competition for another club, even for another club still in the competition.
-
If we sign players in January will they be Cup tied ?
Are qualifying, group stages and knockouts not deemed separate things?
I know Zaniolo couldn't play the qualifying rounds for us because he played for Galatasary in CL qualifying.
And I'm sure when talking about Kellyman being accidentally left out of the Conference squad they said the could be registered for the knockouts. He also played against Hibs, didn't he?
You can register three new eligible players in the squad in January (Kellyman scenario). However we can only register one player who would be ineligible as long as that player has not already played in the competition but had played in another competition. This could be Zaniolo situation for us already so we can't do anyone else.
Edit: It seems Wiki needs updating if AV84 is drawing directly from UEFA. However if we bought four players, we could only field three in Europe.
-
Oh yeah and Douglas Luiz's ball for Watkins' goal was a touch of class. Rolled back the clock over 30 years there and reminded me of a Gordon Cowans pass and David Platt header.
-
Edit: It seems Wiki needs updating if AV84 is drawing directly from UEFA. However if we bought four players, we could only field three in Europe.
Yeah, that's straight from the UEFA website. I do wonder though if we can remove players from the list of registered players. Like Chambers, for example. Can we take him out and register Kellyman instead. And then add 3 new signings too? Or is it then squad already named + 3?
-
Emery genius getting the full squad effect. He does know a bit about winning in Europe .
-
Edit: It seems Wiki needs updating if AV84 is drawing directly from UEFA. However if we bought four players, we could only field three in Europe.
Yeah, that's straight from the UEFA website. I do wonder though if we can remove players from the list of registered players. Like Chambers, for example. Can we take him out and register Kellyman instead. And then add 3 new signings too? Or is it then squad already named + 3?
According to goal.com
The squad size in list A cannot excede 25 by any means. So if a club has to register 3 new players, then an equal number must be replaced.
If a club makes more than 3 new signings in January, then they have to choose 3 players they wish to have registered. The rest have to sit out.
So if we sign 3, we can add 3. Or we could do 2 and Kellyman. But if we already have 25 on list A, then we have to remove people.
-
A subdued game on and off the pitch. Really glad we won, but it was a bit too pedestrian at times.
I thought Tielemans played well especially in the first half, but not sure Lenglet and Carlos are that suited to the high line, but I guess they don't play much.
Don’t agree with your first paragraph. It was actually a very good game and I thought Villa Park was quite lively.
I do agree that Tielemans was very good and surprised when subbed.
-
If it was a guy I’d call him a b’stard (or probably far worse). She’s broken the law, driving off after causing an accident, whilst also causing me a lot of expense and inconvenience weeks before Christmas. I would absolutely not use that term to describe women generally, but I think I’m absolutely well within my rights to use that term on this occasion. Thanks.
You most certainly are. Just ignore any wet wipes on here. Sorry to learn about your misfortune.
-
If it was a guy I’d call him a b’stard (or probably far worse). She’s broken the law, driving off after causing an accident, whilst also causing me a lot of expense and inconvenience weeks before Christmas. I would absolutely not use that term to describe women generally, but I think I’m absolutely well within my rights to use that term on this occasion. Thanks.
You most certainly are. Just ignore any wet wipes on here. Sorry to learn about your misfortune.
Less of that, please.
-
If it was a guy I’d call him a b’stard (or probably far worse). She’s broken the law, driving off after causing an accident, whilst also causing me a lot of expense and inconvenience weeks before Christmas. I would absolutely not use that term to describe women generally, but I think I’m absolutely well within my rights to use that term on this occasion. Thanks.
You most certainly are. Just ignore any wet wipes on here. Sorry to learn about your misfortune.
Less of that, please.
WTF?
-
If it was a guy I’d call him a b’stard (or probably far worse). She’s broken the law, driving off after causing an accident, whilst also causing me a lot of expense and inconvenience weeks before Christmas. I would absolutely not use that term to describe women generally, but I think I’m absolutely well within my rights to use that term on this occasion. Thanks.
You most certainly are. Just ignore any wet wipes on here. Sorry to learn about your misfortune.
Less of that, please.
WTF?
'Wet wipes' is a bit childish.
-
If it was a guy I’d call him a b’stard (or probably far worse). She’s broken the law, driving off after causing an accident, whilst also causing me a lot of expense and inconvenience weeks before Christmas. I would absolutely not use that term to describe women generally, but I think I’m absolutely well within my rights to use that term on this occasion. Thanks.
You most certainly are. Just ignore any wet wipes on here. Sorry to learn about your misfortune.
Less of that, please.
WTF?
'Wet wipes' is a bit childish.
Very true in this scenario, though.
-
It's not true in any scenario.
-
It's not true in any scenario.
Well, we'll just have to disagree on that one!!
-
So Im not sure what Mr & Mrs Dufus on TNT were talking about by rimming AZ all game. A
You must have been watching a different TNT to me, I thought they spent the entire 90 minutes practically sucking us off, they were so effusive in praising us.
The last ten minutes was borderline embarassing as they went on and on about how clever we are, closing down the game effortlessly.
I genuinely thought the whole match was the most fawning coverage I've heard in ages.
Yeah the bloke who kept calling Bailey Diaby is a massive fan of ours .
He got Bailey/Diaby, Kamara/Tielemans and Torres/Digne all mixed up.
-
If that early goal had stood (as it should) we were headed for a comfortable evening but as it turned out AZ grew into the game. Not a vintage performance but we stayed calm and were deserved winners in the end. After a tricky opening game we’re now in control of our destiny in the group.
-
Just watched the highlights back. Cannot fathom the logic why the goal in the first few minutes was chalked off. Were they saying that Bailey was offside when the ball was headed? Surely he was nowhere near interfering with play at that point and only became 'active' after the AZ player had cleared the ball off the line?
What a bizarre decision. Saying that, I've just seen the decision to rule out Liverpool's equaliser in Feance and that's an awful one as well.
-
So Im not sure what Mr & Mrs Dufus on TNT were talking about by rimming AZ all game. A
You must have been watching a different TNT to me, I thought they spent the entire 90 minutes practically sucking us off, they were so effusive in praising us.
The last ten minutes was borderline embarassing as they went on and on about how clever we are, closing down the game effortlessly.
I genuinely thought the whole match was the most fawning coverage I've heard in ages.
Yeah the bloke who kept calling Bailey Diaby is a massive fan of ours .
He got Bailey/Diaby, Kamara/Tielemans and Torres/Digne all mixed up.
Skillfull black guys, skilful brown guys and skillfull white guys. Apart from Bailey they all have foreign names too. There’s a lot to mix up.
I used to mistake Draper and Curcic back in the day.
Weplayed Leeds once and was highlighting Carlton Palmers technical deficiencies from afar, somewhat unflattering. My mate pointed it that it was Brian Deane
-
We won, which is the main thing.
But, taking into account the level of opposition, championship at best, we struggled again to create clear chances.
For me, it looks like our style/approach has changed in the last few weeks.
Yes, we controlled the game, but what has happened to the pace and power we have showed in so many games this season.
Recently, we have spent more time ambling forward 3 or 4 yards, checking, and then playing a sideways or backwards pass, and it’s happening all over the pitch.
Possession appears to be everything without anything at the end of it.
Like when he first came in and started educating maybe Unai is developing and refining the way we play.
I am not questioning him in any way, I just think our style is changing, and I think we have become a bit less potent or explosive than a few games ago.
And Emi playing sweeper/keeper like last night ? I’m not sure.
-
We won, which is the main thing.
But, taking into account the level of opposition, championship at best, we struggled again to create clear chances.
For me, it looks like our style/approach has changed in the last few weeks.
Yes, we controlled the game, but what has happened to the pace and power we have showed in so many games this season.
Recently, we have spent more time ambling forward 3 or 4 yards, checking, and then playing a sideways or backwards pass, and it’s happening all over the pitch.
Possession appears to be everything without anything at the end of it.
Like when he first came in and started educating maybe Unai is developing and refining the way we play.
I am not questioning him in any way, I just think our style is changing, and I think we have become a bit less potent or explosive than a few games ago.
And Emi playing sweeper/keeper like last night ? I’m not sure.
It’s easier to play with pace and power when a team commits players up the other end of the pitch.
-
We seem to struggle to get out of second gear in these euro home games and the players are definitely holding a bit back. Seem to be overplaying some of the moves when I think we could be a bit more direct. Still it's a win, gets Sunday out the system a bit and hopefully sets us up nicely for Fulham . A clean sheet at some point would be nice .
-
We won, which is the main thing.
But, taking into account the level of opposition, championship at best, we struggled again to create clear chances.
For me, it looks like our style/approach has changed in the last few weeks.
Yes, we controlled the game, but what has happened to the pace and power we have showed in so many games this season.
Recently, we have spent more time ambling forward 3 or 4 yards, checking, and then playing a sideways or backwards pass, and it’s happening all over the pitch.
Possession appears to be everything without anything at the end of it.
Like when he first came in and started educating maybe Unai is developing and refining the way we play.
I am not questioning him in any way, I just think our style is changing, and I think we have become a bit less potent or explosive than a few games ago.
And Emi playing sweeper/keeper like last night ? I’m not sure.
I really dont think they are championship at best.
-
Their goal WAS offside. Just been clarified.
We shouldn’t have a corner. Obviously
But arise Doug n Ollie.
Clarified where? I turned BT off at FT.
Nothing has been mentioned about their goal but the Villa players have said the Ref apologised about our goal being disallowed.
The official has muddied the waters on that one. It's one you don't see often but by the laws of the game it was correctly given as offside
-
We're going to have to show a lot of patience at Villa Park by and large these days, next two visitors after Fulham notwithstanding.
Low block, 11 men behind the ball, compact spaces only looking for a long out ball. Sunday was exactly the same, as was the Sunday before that.
We may need a point of difference in our attack so we can go more direct by whipping balls in, percentage wise, when teams are happy to come and sacrifice the wide areas deep.
Look at last night, Sunday, Luton, Mostar etc etc, for where we manage to break beyond. It's usually 18-12 yards out. That's how deep the opposition sit and that's how hard it is we have to work to create opportunities.
I felt Tielemans played well and moved it quickly. Final ball was lacking from Bailey and Diaby, although the laters off the ball movement is excellent for making space.
We got the job done, which is what cup football is all about. Felt their goal was offside, despite the VAR and not seen it back. Our offside trap would frighten Admiral Akbar it's so effective.
Nobody wants to press us, nobody wants to mix it with us at home and for good reason. Direct runners in JJ and 3 Lungs Moreno will give us something different.
Didn't think Konsa worked at full back but understand Cash being rested.
Happy with the win. Thought their support was poor all round really. Surprised that they came in an Uber when it's easier to get to than us going to Selhurst Park.
Looking forward to Sunday and hoping for an early goal. If not, I'm prepared to be patient. 15 from 15 in the league and Europe.
-
So are we saying that VAR fucked up again?...
Twice and both times against us.
I think VAR should have intervened at no corner corner and disallowed the goal for us.
-
Did anything happen with the Cloggies in town before the match as the policing seemed very excessive for what looked to me like a few hundred fans?
We were prevented from going down Manor Rd and behind the North, then again from going out of the North stand gates after? And there were that many coppers it looked like a game v that lot. Maybe they were just practicing for Legia?
-
Did anything happen with the Cloggies in town before the match as the policing seemed very excessive for what looked to me like a few hundred fans?
We were prevented from going down Manor Rd and behind the North, then again from going out of the North stand gates after? And there were that many coppers it looked like a game v that lot. Maybe they were just practicing for Legia?
Guessing after all that business that Alkmaar had with West Ham the other season they thought it was better safe than sorry.
-
Their Ultras looked really menacing , half & half scarves and sparklers , straight out of the dark ages
-
They did join in the Charlie Aitken tribute, apart from the yoot in black anoraks down the front, so fair play to them for that. Nicely done that I thought.
-
Exactly Ads, with our new found status this is something we will have to get used to when we are playing the so called lesser teams.
Patience will be a virtue. Given time, we have the manager and squad to crack the nut.
-
If our first had stood we would have run riot again. That being chalked off changed the dynamic of things but we still got the job done.
-
We won, which is the main thing.
But, taking into account the level of opposition, championship at best, we struggled again to create clear chances.
For me, it looks like our style/approach has changed in the last few weeks.
Yes, we controlled the game, but what has happened to the pace and power we have showed in so many games this season.
Recently, we have spent more time ambling forward 3 or 4 yards, checking, and then playing a sideways or backwards pass, and it’s happening all over the pitch.
Possession appears to be everything without anything at the end of it.
Like when he first came in and started educating maybe Unai is developing and refining the way we play.
I am not questioning him in any way, I just think our style is changing, and I think we have become a bit less potent or explosive than a few games ago.
And Emi playing sweeper/keeper like last night ? I’m not sure.
I really dont think they are championship at best.
Ontop of the fact that anybody who comes to VP apart from the top sides will just sit back and just try and beat our high line, this is a European campaign with tough games and plenty of squad rotation.
Not easy as Liverpool proved last night.
I liked the fact that we kept our patience despite going behind.
Sign of a very good side.
-
If our first had stood we would have run riot again. That being chalked off changed the dynamic of things but we still got the job done.
Apparently the officials have apologised for getting the offside wrong . Is this not where VAR are supposed to step in
-
If our first had stood we would have run riot again. That being chalked off changed the dynamic of things but we still got the job done.
Apparently the officials have apologised for getting the offside wrong . Is this not where VAR are supposed to step in
It was VAR that got it wrong.
-
If our first had stood we would have run riot again. That being chalked off changed the dynamic of things but we still got the job done.
Apparently the officials have apologised for getting the offside wrong . Is this not where VAR are supposed to step in
It was VAR that got it wrong.
Christ even worse then. I thought the lino had flagged Bailey off
-
Their goal WAS offside. Just been clarified.
We shouldn’t have a corner. Obviously
But arise Doug n Ollie.
Clarified where? I turned BT off at FT.
Nothing has been mentioned about their goal but the Villa players have said the Ref apologised about our goal being disallowed.
The official has muddied the waters on that one. It's one you don't see often but by the laws of the game it was correctly given as offside
I suspect it depends on whether you think the defender deliberately played it or not.
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately played* the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
*‘Deliberate play’ (excluding deliberate handball) is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:
passing the ball to a team-mate;
gaining possession of the ball; or
clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it)
If the pass, attempt to gain possession or clearance by the player in control of the ball is inaccurate or unsuccessful, this does not negate the fact that the player ‘deliberately played’ the ball.
-
We almost scored direct from a corner in the first half but for a tremendous goal line clearance, and we did in the second. So far this season we haven't done much from them. Was this down to the quality of the opposition, the different taker or the different defenders we had going for it?
-
We got the win but it wasn't pretty. The lack of pressure from our forwards allowed that ball ver the top to be very dangerous for AZ. Bailey was back to his usual self of making the wrong decision 99% of the time. He has talent but the lack of any consistency is infuriating. We need an upgrade
-
Their goal WAS offside. Just been clarified.
We shouldn’t have a corner. Obviously
But arise Doug n Ollie.
Clarified where? I turned BT off at FT.
Nothing has been mentioned about their goal but the Villa players have said the Ref apologised about our goal being disallowed.
The official has muddied the waters on that one. It's one you don't see often but by the laws of the game it was correctly given as offside
A nice assertive statement but you can't get away without explaining why? Myself and a many others are of the view that Bailey can't be offside if he receives the ball from a defender who deliberately played the ball. If you know otherwise please enlighten us.
-
We almost scored direct from a corner in the first half but for a tremendous goal line clearance, and we did in the second. So far this season we haven't done much from them. Was this down to the quality of the opposition, the different taker or the different defenders we had going for it?
Diego Carlos definitely gives us more of a presence in the air at corners.
-
I'm happy with the win great tribute to Charlie Aitkin we are in a great position to win the group now.
-
About time Carlos scored a header from a corner. He tends to miss one each game he plays :)
Lovely ball from Luiz for Watkins goal.
-
Who is that commentator on TNT, he's like a cross between Alan Partridge and Ron Manager. Goes out of his way with stupid pronunications of the players' names, eg Douglush Lew-eesh, Tielemons etc.
-
Douglush Lew-eesh
I await Mark or Gary's correction - but isn't that a pretty accurate recreaction of how is would be pronounced in Brazilian Portuguese?
-
Happy with the win, and a great tribute to Charlie. I think patience is needed for some fans, after going one down quite a few around me are screaming for the ball to be launched forward quicker. It's not how we play now, that is never going to happen under Unai thankfully.
-
I didn't see last nights game, reading reports it seemed to be another lack lustre performace until Dougie came on. We may be suffering the West Ham experience where our squad is not quite good enough compete in both competitions. We seem to have run out of energy and options in last couple of games, the spark is missing. I hope put half a dozen past Fulham at the weekend to make me look an idiot.
-
Happy with the win, and a great tribute to Charlie. I think patience is needed for some fans, after going one down quite a few around me are screaming for the ball to be launched forward quicker. It's not how we play now, that is never going to happen under Unai thankfully.
I think that you are right but sometimes our play is so slow and pedestrian that it feels like time has stopped.
Emi is bringing some Zen into the art of keeping hold of the ball as long as possible without playing it.
I'm expecting at least a 5 minute delay some time soon as Emi refuses to play the ball and the opposition refuses to engage at which point the referee stops the game and announces a stalemate.
-
Yes, we didn't look like scoring at all and it was all very flat for the most part. When Doug (plus Cash and Zanoli-soon-to-score-a-beltero) came on we immediately legged up the park and FTF!
-
I note the comment elsewhere about AZ Alkmaar being Championship standard and I have to disagree. This is a team that plays European football every year and got to the semis of this competition last season after pissing their group and knocking out Lazio and Anderlecht.
They've not been as good this time around for sure, but credit to Villa for persevering and getting the job done.
-
I didn't see last nights game, reading reports it seemed to be another lack lustre performace until Dougie came on. We may be suffering the West Ham experience where our squad is not quite good enough compete in both competitions.
Aren't we fifth in the league and sailing through the group pretty comfortably?
-
I didn't see last nights game, reading reports it seemed to be another lack lustre performace until Dougie came on. We may be suffering the West Ham experience where our squad is not quite good enough compete in both competitions. We seem to have run out of energy and options in last couple of games, the spark is missing. I hope put half a dozen past Fulham at the weekend to make me look an idiot.
The Forest defeat was after a week off though.
-
So Im not sure what Mr & Mrs Dufus on TNT were talking about by rimming AZ all game. A
You must have been watching a different TNT to me, I thought they spent the entire 90 minutes practically sucking us off, they were so effusive in praising us.
The last ten minutes was borderline embarassing as they went on and on about how clever we are, closing down the game effortlessly.
I genuinely thought the whole match was the most fawning coverage I've heard in ages.
Yeah the bloke who kept calling Bailey Diaby is a massive fan of ours .
They were just bi-polar. If one team had the ball for any length of time they were prime Barcelona while the other one wasn’t at the races and was being dominated.
Think they were just poor commentators trying to create excitement in what was broadly a fairly flat game that we controlled for all but a 10 minute period around HT.
-
The biggest problem last night was the same one at Forest, we didn't get Diaby into the game enough, or - to a degree - Watkins, as we normally do.
We played some nice passing football, it was clearly men against boys for most of that match, but we just couldn't find what we needed in the final third.
Douglas Luiz - and I still can't believe it, how much he has improved under UE - is a fucking brilliant footballer, though, and we saw that last night, we needed someone with his quality to make that difference.
It's a long season, the manager has only been here a year, there are going to be ups and downs.
I think we might be forgetting this a bit, we're so used to winning matches now.
We're fifth in the league, and looking good for further progression in Europe. Prior to the start of the season, I doubt anyone would have said no to that. It is going to come with bad performances along the way, though, that's inevitable.
-
Douglush Lew-eesh
I await Mark or Gary's correction - but isn't that a pretty accurate recreaction of how is would be pronounced in Brazilian Portuguese?
I don't think so, at least not the Luiz bit.
-
Douglush Lew-eesh
I await Mark or Gary's correction - but isn't that a pretty accurate recreaction of how is would be pronounced in Brazilian Portuguese?
I don't think so, at least not the Luiz bit.
A propos of nothing, I was listening to a podcast recently which was taking the piss out of a Man U pod, and in particular how the presenter pronounced the name of the player Fred.
It was like "Fresh" or "Frez"
Glory hunting twat.
-
Did anything happen with the Cloggies in town before the match as the policing seemed very excessive for what looked to me like a few hundred fans?
We were prevented from going down Manor Rd and behind the North, then again from going out of the North stand gates after? And there were that many coppers it looked like a game v that lot. Maybe they were just practicing for Legia?
Guessing after all that business that Alkmaar had with West Ham the other season they thought it was better safe than sorry.
Mentioned it before, but wonder why was there a gap.in their supporters in the lower Doug Ellis last night?
-
Douglush Lew-eesh
I await Mark or Gary's correction - but isn't that a pretty accurate recreaction of how is would be pronounced in Brazilian Portuguese?
I don't think so, at least not the Luiz bit.
A propos of nothing, I was listening to a podcast recently which was taking the piss out of a Man U pod, and in particular how the presenter pronounced the name of the player Fred.
It was like "Fresh" or "Frez"
Glory hunting twat.
It should be something like Fred-jey I believe.
-
My guess would be that those were the AZ fans without pre bought tickets and the Police would rather have them in the ground than wandering about so had requested an area to put any who showed up.
It’s clear why they didn’t have any fireworks in the ground, they’d used them all up at New St. It looked better than the display at the Edgebaston Cricket Ground the other night.
-
Douglush Lew-eesh
I await Mark or Gary's correction - but isn't that a pretty accurate recreaction of how is would be pronounced in Brazilian Portuguese?
I don't think so, at least not the Luiz bit.
Correct. But on a similar subject Costa's first name is pronounced: Gee - eh - go.
-
A memory crossed my mind whilst watching the game last night. A memory of being stood on the Holte with a mate, Wimbledon in town, Beasant in goal, and the pair of us booing him with every ounce of energy and breath we could muster because he was dribbling the ball a good two yards outside of the box before launching it up the pitch AND THIS IS ENGLAND AND THAT'S NOT HOW WE PLAY HERE, GET BACK IN YOUR BOX, YOU ANTI-FOOTBALL ****.
Fast forward to now and I can't imagine a future in which the sight of Martinez, ball at his feet, steadily edging up the pitch, attackers retreating, doesn't have me grinning and giggling.
-
Douglush Lew-eesh
I await Mark or Gary's correction - but isn't that a pretty accurate recreaction of how is would be pronounced in Brazilian Portuguese?
I don't think so, at least not the Luiz bit.
Correct. But on a similar subject Costa's first name is pronounced: Gee - eh - go.
Although that's not how his second name is pronounced. Or spelled ;-)
Our one, anyway.
-
Their goal WAS offside. Just been clarified.
We shouldn’t have a corner. Obviously
But arise Doug n Ollie.
Clarified where? I turned BT off at FT.
Nothing has been mentioned about their goal but the Villa players have said the Ref apologised about our goal being disallowed.
The official has muddied the waters on that one. It's one you don't see often but by the laws of the game it was correctly given as offside
I suspect it depends on whether you think the defender deliberately played it or not.
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately played* the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
*‘Deliberate play’ (excluding deliberate handball) is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:
passing the ball to a team-mate;
gaining possession of the ball; or
clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it)
If the pass, attempt to gain possession or clearance by the player in control of the ball is inaccurate or unsuccessful, this does not negate the fact that the player ‘deliberately played’ the ball.
That sounds like they got it right then.
-
This is now officially decided as ChatGPT says following:
"You:
If a player deliberately heads the ball away from the goal line, a player who no longer is offside, but was offside prior to the headed save, then gets the ball - is he offside, or is he not offside as it is a new situation
ChatGPT:
In the scenario you described, if a player who was initially in an offside position becomes onside because the ball is deliberately played by an opponent (in this case, headed away from the goal line), and then they receive the ball, they are not considered offside.
The Laws of the Game state that a player cannot be offside if they receive the ball directly from a deliberate play by an opponent. In this case, the headed clearance by the opponent constitutes a deliberate play on the ball, and any player, including one who was previously in an offside position, can legally play the ball without being penalized for offside.
So, if a player is offside initially but then becomes onside due to a deliberate play by an opponent (such as a headed clearance), they are free to receive and play the ball without any offside violation. It is indeed considered a new situation, and the player's offside position from the previous phase of play is no longer relevant."
By defintion of humanity, ChatGPT can't be wrong.
-
Douglush Lew-eesh
I await Mark or Gary's correction - but isn't that a pretty accurate recreaction of how is would be pronounced in Brazilian Portuguese?
Yes it is correct
-
For those not there, this was the Charlie Aitken flag, not sure if the tv showed it.
(https://i.ibb.co/m8qx8qf/IMG-3890.jpg) (https://ibb.co/m8qx8qf)
-
This is now officially decided as ChatGPT says following:
"You:
If a player deliberately heads the ball away from the goal line, a player who no longer is offside, but was offside prior to the headed save, then gets the ball - is he offside, or is he not offside as it is a new situation
ChatGPT:
In the scenario you described, if a player who was initially in an offside position becomes onside because the ball is deliberately played by an opponent (in this case, headed away from the goal line), and then they receive the ball, they are not considered offside.
The Laws of the Game state that a player cannot be offside if they receive the ball directly from a deliberate play by an opponent. In this case, the headed clearance by the opponent constitutes a deliberate play on the ball, and any player, including one who was previously in an offside position, can legally play the ball without being penalized for offside.
So, if a player is offside initially but then becomes onside due to a deliberate play by an opponent (such as a headed clearance), they are free to receive and play the ball without any offside violation. It is indeed considered a new situation, and the player's offside position from the previous phase of play is no longer relevant."
By defintion of humanity, ChatGPT can't be wrong.
But the rules clearly state ‘unless it’s a save’ which it was.
-
First European night for me since the 98-99 season, first game since Gerrard was in charge.
Think my dad was a bit frustrated at the lack of urgency at times. I didn't mind so much, I quite enjoy us holding on to the ball for ages. Didn't play amazingly, but it's the kind of game that we'd have lost last time I saw us in Europe. Instead going home with a smile on my face.
We seem to be so much more intelligent as a side now. You don't really see it on telly but the movement off the ball is fantastic. Quite easy to see why, when it clicks, we absolutely batter other teams.
The tribute to Charlie Aitken was wonderful.
-
This is now officially decided as ChatGPT says following:
"You:
If a player deliberately heads the ball away from the goal line, a player who no longer is offside, but was offside prior to the headed save, then gets the ball - is he offside, or is he not offside as it is a new situation
ChatGPT:
In the scenario you described, if a player who was initially in an offside position becomes onside because the ball is deliberately played by an opponent (in this case, headed away from the goal line), and then they receive the ball, they are not considered offside.
The Laws of the Game state that a player cannot be offside if they receive the ball directly from a deliberate play by an opponent. In this case, the headed clearance by the opponent constitutes a deliberate play on the ball, and any player, including one who was previously in an offside position, can legally play the ball without being penalized for offside.
So, if a player is offside initially but then becomes onside due to a deliberate play by an opponent (such as a headed clearance), they are free to receive and play the ball without any offside violation. It is indeed considered a new situation, and the player's offside position from the previous phase of play is no longer relevant."
By defintion of humanity, ChatGPT can't be wrong.
I thought at the time they'd somehow not seen the clearance and thought Ollie's header had gone straight to our player.
The further incidents in the game only solidified that view, it must have been Ronnie Barker's 'Clarence' on VAR.
-
It is the "save" definition - if player was in control, it no longer is a save, but a deliberate play. Rules.
"gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
been deliberately saved by any opponent
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately played* the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
*‘Deliberate play’ (excluding deliberate handball) is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:
passing the ball to a team-mate;
gaining possession of the ball; or
clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it)
If the pass, attempt to gain possession or clearance by the player in control of the ball is inaccurate or unsuccessful, this does not negate the fact that the player ‘deliberately played’ the ball.
The following criteria should be used, as appropriate, as indicators that a player was in control of the ball and, as a result, can be considered to have ‘deliberately played’ the ball:
The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it
The ball was not moving quickly
The direction of the ball was not unexpected
The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited
contact/control
A ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air
A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area)."
This being the key bits:
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately played* the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
*‘Deliberate play’ (excluding deliberate handball) is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:
passing the ball to a team-mate;
gaining possession of the ball; or
clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it)
-
So the Alkmaar defender's header was just a muffed clearance, it wasn't a stop on a ball travelling directly towards goal at the time? Sorry I don't recall now exactly what happened, although I don't remember a clearance from the line directly before Lenglet struck
-
So the Alkmaar defender's header was just a muffed clearance, it wasn't a stop on a ball travelling directly towards goal at the time? Sorry I don't recall now exactly what happened, although I don't remember a clearance from the line directly before Lenglet struck
Yes, Ollie headed the ball, and the player saw the ball and headed it out (clearing the ball)
-
for me, I found the game to be a hard watch. The time that Carlos spent on the ball before passing to Lenglet or Konsa just did my head in. And - yes - I get the fact that the oppo were not engaging with a higher press, but we seemed unwilling to move into space and launch quick passes into the likes of Diaby and Watkins. Likewise vs Forest.
Bailey - particularly first half - seemed to lose possession every time he had the ball and I was amazed to see Diaby get replaced rather than the aforementioned Jamaican. Tielemans played well in the main, and I was surprised he did not stay on the pitch.
We won: we move on.
-
Forgive me if I'm being spectacularly thick, but Watkins header is going in, isn't it? Therefore doesn't the AZ defender's headed clearance count as a save and, with Bailey being in an offside position at the point of Ollie's attempt, make the offside decision correct?
-
So the Alkmaar defender's header was just a muffed clearance, it wasn't a stop on a ball travelling directly towards goal at the time? Sorry I don't recall now exactly what happened, although I don't remember a clearance from the line directly before Lenglet struck
Yes, Ollie headed the ball, and the player saw the ball and headed it out (clearing the ball)
But Watkins' header is going in, so how come the AZ defender's clearing header doesn't count as a save? Confused of Caterham
-
This is now officially decided as ChatGPT says following:
"You:
If a player deliberately heads the ball away from the goal line, a player who no longer is offside, but was offside prior to the headed save, then gets the ball - is he offside, or is he not offside as it is a new situation
ChatGPT:
In the scenario you described, if a player who was initially in an offside position becomes onside because the ball is deliberately played by an opponent (in this case, headed away from the goal line), and then they receive the ball, they are not considered offside.
The Laws of the Game state that a player cannot be offside if they receive the ball directly from a deliberate play by an opponent. In this case, the headed clearance by the opponent constitutes a deliberate play on the ball, and any player, including one who was previously in an offside position, can legally play the ball without being penalized for offside.
So, if a player is offside initially but then becomes onside due to a deliberate play by an opponent (such as a headed clearance), they are free to receive and play the ball without any offside violation. It is indeed considered a new situation, and the player's offside position from the previous phase of play is no longer relevant."
By defintion of humanity, ChatGPT can't be wrong.
But the rules clearly state ‘unless it’s a save’ which it was.
Yes... I'm not misunderstanding this...
-
Forgive me if I'm being spectacularly thick, but Tielemans header is going in, isn't it? Therefore doesn't the AZ defender's headed clearance count as a save and, with Bailey being in an offside position at the point of Youri's attempt, make the offside decision correct?
"A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately played* the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
*‘Deliberate play’ (excluding deliberate handball) is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:
passing the ball to a team-mate;
gaining possession of the ball; or
clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it)"
Reading the rule, I see it as it is either a deliberate play or a deliberate save - they then define what is a deliberate play, which is what the defender did (ergo, not a deliberate save)
-
for me, I found the game to be a hard watch. The time that Carlos spent on the ball before passing to Lenglet or Konsa just did my head in. And - yes - I get the fact that the oppo were not engaging with a higher press, but we seemed unwilling to move into space and launch quick passes into the likes of Diaby and Watkins. Likewise vs Forest.
Bailey - particularly first half - seemed to lose possession every time he had the ball and I was amazed to see Diaby get replaced rather than the aforementioned Jamaican. Tielemans played well in the main, and I was surprised he did not stay on the pitch.
We won: we move on.
Diaby was almost a total passenger last night, and Bailey involved in almost everything that was dangerous or lead to a 'goal' last night. As frustrating as he is people forget that a lot
Edit - his goal involvement stats for us are very decent this season and we'd be several points less off without him
-
I didn't see last nights game, reading reports it seemed to be another lack lustre performace until Dougie came on. We may be suffering the West Ham experience where our squad is not quite good enough compete in both competitions. We seem to have run out of energy and options in last couple of games, the spark is missing. I hope put half a dozen past Fulham at the weekend to make me look an idiot.
We didn't perform to our best for sure but credit has to be given to AZ. They weren't going all guns blazing to beat us because if they had we would have picked them off and they knew it. They bided their time and exploited where and when they could. It's how they got their goal. The stand out thing for me was that the game was evidence of how important a player Luiz is for us.
I'm really looking forward to the Warsaw game now. It should be far more open with both teams going for the win.
-
Forgive me if I'm being spectacularly thick, but Tielemans header is going in, isn't it? Therefore doesn't the AZ defender's headed clearance count as a save and, with Bailey being in an offside position at the point of Youri's attempt, make the offside decision correct?
"A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately played* the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
*‘Deliberate play’ (excluding deliberate handball) is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:
passing the ball to a team-mate;
gaining possession of the ball; or
clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it)"
Reading the rule, I see it as it is either a deliberate play or a deliberate save - they then define what is a deliberate play, which is what the defender did (ergo, not a deliberate save)
Basically the rule is badly written and contradicts itself in this instance, they could make it just explicitly a save from the keeper (which I think is the intention).
-
I'm assuming the interpretation is that only a goalkeeper can make a save, that the action(s) of a goalkeeper making a save are different to those of an outfield player intercepting a goal bound effort. It saved a goal, but it wasn't a save, it was just a headed clearance.
-
Forgive me if I'm being spectacularly thick, but Tielemans header is going in, isn't it? Therefore doesn't the AZ defender's headed clearance count as a save and, with Bailey being in an offside position at the point of Youri's attempt, make the offside decision correct?
"A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately played* the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
*‘Deliberate play’ (excluding deliberate handball) is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:
passing the ball to a team-mate;
gaining possession of the ball; or
clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it)"
Reading the rule, I see it as it is either a deliberate play or a deliberate save - they then define what is a deliberate play, which is what the defender did (ergo, not a deliberate save)
Ah OK, so it wasn't just a matter of the AZ defender getting his body in the way of the ball, it was - I guess by dint of the fact that he twisted his neck whilst heading in order to put some deliberate direction on the ball - counted as a clearance. Understood... although this does bring a subjective judgement into play as to when such a contact is a save rather than a clearance, how deliberately does a defender deal with the incoming ball...
-
Forgive me if I'm being spectacularly thick, but Tielemans header is going in, isn't it? Therefore doesn't the AZ defender's headed clearance count as a save and, with Bailey being in an offside position at the point of Youri's attempt, make the offside decision correct?
"A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately played* the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
*‘Deliberate play’ (excluding deliberate handball) is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:
passing the ball to a team-mate;
gaining possession of the ball; or
clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it)"
Reading the rule, I see it as it is either a deliberate play or a deliberate save - they then define what is a deliberate play, which is what the defender did (ergo, not a deliberate save)
It was a deliberate save, which to me, unlike ‘deliberate play’, doesn’t need further definition. So offside.
-
Forgive me if I'm being spectacularly thick, but Tielemans header is going in, isn't it? Therefore doesn't the AZ defender's headed clearance count as a save and, with Bailey being in an offside position at the point of Youri's attempt, make the offside decision correct?
"A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately played* the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
*‘Deliberate play’ (excluding deliberate handball) is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:
passing the ball to a team-mate;
gaining possession of the ball; or
clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it)"
Reading the rule, I see it as it is either a deliberate play or a deliberate save - they then define what is a deliberate play, which is what the defender did (ergo, not a deliberate save)
It was a deliberate save.
Yeah, there's a whole lot of murky subjectivity going on here...
-
Forgive me if I'm being spectacularly thick, but Tielemans header is going in, isn't it? Therefore doesn't the AZ defender's headed clearance count as a save and, with Bailey being in an offside position at the point of Youri's attempt, make the offside decision correct?
"A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately played* the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
*‘Deliberate play’ (excluding deliberate handball) is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:
passing the ball to a team-mate;
gaining possession of the ball; or
clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it)"
Reading the rule, I see it as it is either a deliberate play or a deliberate save - they then define what is a deliberate play, which is what the defender did (ergo, not a deliberate save)
It was a deliberate save, which to me, unlike ‘deliberate play’, doesn’t need further definition. So offside.
Yet the referee admitted it was a wrong call?
-
The law is an ass if our goal last night is illegal and this is not:
In this instance Salah was offside when the pass was made directly to him, but apparently is onside because of the defenders header in between, what a farce.
-
Forgive me if I'm being spectacularly thick, but Tielemans header is going in, isn't it? Therefore doesn't the AZ defender's headed clearance count as a save and, with Bailey being in an offside position at the point of Youri's attempt, make the offside decision correct?
"A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately played* the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
*‘Deliberate play’ (excluding deliberate handball) is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:
passing the ball to a team-mate;
gaining possession of the ball; or
clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it)"
Reading the rule, I see it as it is either a deliberate play or a deliberate save - they then define what is a deliberate play, which is what the defender did (ergo, not a deliberate save)
It was a deliberate save, which to me, unlike ‘deliberate play’, doesn’t need further definition. So offside.
Yet the referee admitted it was a wrong call?
Yes he did, but if you consider it was a deliberate save, the decision was right. That’s according to the rules you quoted.
-
It should be tidied up to mean any deliberate play except by the keeper
-
Bailey is as infuriating as Dinge - both had a lot of the ball, but little end product.
-
Bailey isn't very good.
I'm looking an upgrade on his hesitant nonsense come January.
-
Forgive me if I'm being spectacularly thick, but Tielemans header is going in, isn't it? Therefore doesn't the AZ defender's headed clearance count as a save and, with Bailey being in an offside position at the point of Youri's attempt, make the offside decision correct?
"A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately played* the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
*‘Deliberate play’ (excluding deliberate handball) is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:
passing the ball to a team-mate;
gaining possession of the ball; or
clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it)"
Reading the rule, I see it as it is either a deliberate play or a deliberate save - they then define what is a deliberate play, which is what the defender did (ergo, not a deliberate save)
It was a deliberate save, which to me, unlike ‘deliberate play’, doesn’t need further definition. So offside.
Yet the referee admitted it was a wrong call?
That has what has muddied the waters, and lets be fair, there's been no official confirmation from the officials that they've got it wrong.
-
Personally I think the interpretation of the rule to disallow the goal is the right one and the one that makes the most sense.
Our goal was on the extreme end of it because Bailey was clearly not in a goalscoring position but if you allow that goal then you have to accept that goals like the one Salah scored in the clip above or the one Rodri scored against us are correct interpretations of the law. I can't accept that, for me goals like that show how badly they've fucked the rule up over the last few decades. I'm generally in favour of most of the rule changes that come in but changing offside to 'interfering in play' and then adding all these silly little sub-clauses beyond that has made it open to far too much interpretation.
-
To simplify it - when the ball is played - whether you are interfering or not - if you are in a technical offside position - you are offside.
-
At it's essence, the offside rule is dead simple. It is amazing that they've managed to make something that simple into something that's become complicated.
-
Its one of those that pre VAR, it would never have been given as offside, and no one would have thought to question it.
-
To simplify it - when the ball is played - whether you are interfering or not - if you are in a technical offside position - you are offside.
Cue the entire planet sprinting away from goal at every corner to catch the taker. Like in the good ol' days.
-
Its one of those that pre VAR, it would never have been given as offside, and no one would have thought to question it.
Pre-VAR, West Ham would have had theirs chalked off even though it was well onside because the linesman flagged after the goal. Also we probably would have let in more goals as well as we rely on VAR to call the offsides when playing the highline.
-
Risso the commentator was Paul Dempsey I think. He used to be a staple of sky sports. I believe he’s a Cornishman or somewhere like that.
-
At it's essence, the offside rule is dead simple. It is amazing that they've managed to make something that simple into something that's become complicated.
As with most, if not all, things VAR, they're trying to remove nuance from stuff that's very nuanced. And failing every time they try.
Between us just on here, we've got centuries, maybe even millennia of experience of watching the game. And yet for the first time in my life I find that interpretation of what constitutes a save turns out to be an arguable opinion!
-
At it's essence, the offside rule is dead simple. It is amazing that they've managed to make something that simple into something that's become complicated.
As with most, if not all, things VAR, they're trying to remove nuance from stuff that's very nuanced. And failing every time they try.
Between us just on here, we've got centuries, maybe even millennia of experience of watching the game. And yet for the first time in my life I find that interpretation of what constitutes a save turns out to be an arguable opinion!
I expect it is because it is widely described as a save if it is made by a goal-keeper, and a goal-line clearance if made by an outfield player. I think the only times I have seen "great save by the right back" is normally followed by " unfortunately he has just been red-carded for handling the ball and a penalty has been given for the opposition".
-
To simplify it - when the ball is played - whether you are interfering or not - if you are in a technical offside position - you are offside.
Cue the entire planet sprinting away from goal at every corner to catch the taker. Like in the good ol' days.
He could step off the pitch or run back too - as long as he's behind the ball there's no problem. Got to be better than the mess the game has got itself into at the moment.
-
The current offside law as it stands, and all the anomalies therein, causes more questions than it was introduced to solve.
-
Douglush Lew-eesh
I await Mark or Gary's correction - but isn't that a pretty accurate recreaction of how is would be pronounced in Brazilian Portuguese?
I don't think so, at least not the Luiz bit.
A propos of nothing, I was listening to a podcast recently which was taking the piss out of a Man U pod, and in particular how the presenter pronounced the name of the player Fred.
It was like "Fresh" or "Frez"
Glory hunting twat.
It should be something like Fred-jey I believe.
Near enough, I'd expect it to be pronounced Fred-jee or Fredge but it's more of an individual thing (rather than based on pronunciation rules) e.g. Help is generally pronounced Helpee.
Luiz is pronounced Lou-ees with a (slight) emphasis on the second syllable. However the Rio accent is a bit like Brazilian Scouse and they tend to slur their words, so in his home town it would Lou-EESH e.g. similarly with Rua Miguel Lemos in Copacabana, the last word is pronounced lay-MOSH.
As an aside, R at the start of a word (or two Rs in the middle of the word) is pronounced similar to a 'h' so it's Hio, Honaldo etc.
-
Forgive me if I'm being spectacularly thick, but Tielemans header is going in, isn't it? Therefore doesn't the AZ defender's headed clearance count as a save and, with Bailey being in an offside position at the point of Youri's attempt, make the offside decision correct?
"A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately played* the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
*‘Deliberate play’ (excluding deliberate handball) is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:
passing the ball to a team-mate;
gaining possession of the ball; or
clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it)"
Reading the rule, I see it as it is either a deliberate play or a deliberate save - they then define what is a deliberate play, which is what the defender did (ergo, not a deliberate save)
Basically the rule is badly written and contradicts itself in this instance, they could make it just explicitly a save from the keeper (which I think is the intention).
Reading it I do think it is a bit clearer, but it's probably the fact that it was cleared off the line that confuses it a bit.
Ad I read it it probably differentiates between say a defender who has control of the ball and plays it back blind to a player who is an offside position as opposed to a defender who might stretch to intercept a ball and deflect it to an offside player.
Adding "Having clear control of the ball" might help to.clarify things a bit.
-
At it's essence, the offside rule is dead simple. It is amazing that they've managed to make something that simple into something that's become complicated.
As with most, if not all, things VAR, they're trying to remove nuance from stuff that's very nuanced. And failing every time they try.
Between us just on here, we've got centuries, maybe even millennia of experience of watching the game. And yet for the first time in my life I find that interpretation of what constitutes a save turns out to be an arguable opinion!
I'm not against VAR, just the way it used. They could simplify it and use it for it's proper purpose - to assist the officials in eliminating the 'howler'. If you have got to look at screen for 5 minutes, then it is not clear and obvious. Any foul play and penalty decision - VAR official asks referee if they have seen it and only intervenes if they haven't seen it or it is clear a mistake has been made.
I have always thought that the offside can be made very easy. Make it about the feet and draw a line at the back foot of the last defender. If an opposition player's foot is over that line then it's offside and only the act of either scoring or directly assisting are looked at. They should be able to check that by the time a player has celebrated, so no need for long waits.
-
At it's essence, the offside rule is dead simple. It is amazing that they've managed to make something that simple into something that's become complicated.
As with most, if not all, things VAR, they're trying to remove nuance from stuff that's very nuanced. And failing every time they try.
Between us just on here, we've got centuries, maybe even millennia of experience of watching the game. And yet for the first time in my life I find that interpretation of what constitutes a save turns out to be an arguable opinion!
I'm not against VAR, just the way it used. They could simplify it and use it for it's proper purpose - to assist the officials in eliminating the 'howler'. If you have got to look at screen for 5 minutes, then it is not clear and obvious. Any foul play and penalty decision - VAR official asks referee if they have seen it and only intervenes if they haven't seen it or it is clear a mistake has been made.
I have always thought that the offside can be made very easy. Make it about the feet and draw a line at the back foot of the last defender. If an opposition player's foot is over that line then it's offside and only the act of either scoring or directly assisting are looked at. They should be able to check that by the time a player has celebrated, so no need for long waits.
Re: the 'howler', that's the problem, every minor indescretion is a howler if it goes against you, so they're drilling down into everything to be on the safe side.
-
You either check everything, or you check nothing. As LeeB implied, who decides what is and isn't a howler?
-
You either check everything, or you check nothing. As LeeB implied, who decides what is and isn't a howler?
The ones that spring to mind are the ones where a player deliberately handballs the ball on the line or in the box and something off the ball that the officials haven't seen.
I would just like it to be a case where the conversation is along the lines of the VAR official just saying "have you seen that foul" and the ref replies "yep, seen it and this is my decision". It's then left at that and the responsibility is then on the ref.
Its like the handball against Liverpool last night. There is absolutely no way that was a 'howler' that needed correcting. The offside nonsense could be easily cleared up as well by making it a lot more simple.
As I say, I don't think VAR is the problem, it's the way it's used. The VAR team shouldn't be there to referee the game, but they seem to want to do that.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/mD48pJ9/Screenshot-20231110-142324-You-Tube.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mD48pJ9)
Screenshot of the offside check for their goal. Which Villa player does that line relate to exactly??
-
Blurry as anything, but can only think it relates to Lenglet's fingernails?
As I mentioned above, a simple solution would be to just draw the line at the defender's back foot and if any part of the attacker's foot is past that line, its offside.
-
At it's essence, the offside rule is dead simple. It is amazing that they've managed to make something that simple into something that's become complicated.
As with most, if not all, things VAR, they're trying to remove nuance from stuff that's very nuanced. And failing every time they try.
Between us just on here, we've got centuries, maybe even millennia of experience of watching the game. And yet for the first time in my life I find that interpretation of what constitutes a save turns out to be an arguable opinion!
I'm not against VAR, just the way it used. They could simplify it and use it for it's proper purpose - to assist the officials in eliminating the 'howler'. If you have got to look at screen for 5 minutes, then it is not clear and obvious. Any foul play and penalty decision - VAR official asks referee if they have seen it and only intervenes if they haven't seen it or it is clear a mistake has been made.
I have always thought that the offside can be made very easy. Make it about the feet and draw a line at the back foot of the last defender. If an opposition player's foot is over that line then it's offside and only the act of either scoring or directly assisting are looked at. They should be able to check that by the time a player has celebrated, so no need for long waits.
Re: the 'howler', that's the problem, every minor indescretion is a howler if it goes against you, so they're drilling down into everything to be on the safe side.
I think setting reasonable expectations and communicate clearly would go a long way. There are always going to be fine margins. But right now it’s excruciating how they try and prove or disprove things. For example I always try to find intent or something that creates an obvious advantage. So handball for example. Most of them are incidental when looked at rationally which we need refs to be. Today most of those are called and when it’s given as a penalty, then the consequences are far more severe than it often warrants. Same as these reds for studs up. In slow motion everything looks awful or can do. But if one of our players got sent off like Rashford did, I’d be furious. I don’t think there was any intent there in proper speed. So a lot of this is stating clearly what is being assessed and why, and most of the time the frustration is it varies so widely from game to game and between officials.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/mD48pJ9/Screenshot-20231110-142324-You-Tube.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mD48pJ9)
Screenshot of the offside check for their goal. Which Villa player does that line relate to exactly??
None! It's a white socked player, therefore an AZ player in an offside position .
-
Didn't even look close, that one.
-
At it's essence, the offside rule is dead simple. It is amazing that they've managed to make something that simple into something that's become complicated.
As with most, if not all, things VAR, they're trying to remove nuance from stuff that's very nuanced. And failing every time they try.
Between us just on here, we've got centuries, maybe even millennia of experience of watching the game. And yet for the first time in my life I find that interpretation of what constitutes a save turns out to be an arguable opinion!
I'm not against VAR, just the way it used. They could simplify it and use it for it's proper purpose - to assist the officials in eliminating the 'howler'. If you have got to look at screen for 5 minutes, then it is not clear and obvious. Any foul play and penalty decision - VAR official asks referee if they have seen it and only intervenes if they haven't seen it or it is clear a mistake has been made.
I have always thought that the offside can be made very easy. Make it about the feet and draw a line at the back foot of the last defender. If an opposition player's foot is over that line then it's offside and only the act of either scoring or directly assisting are looked at. They should be able to check that by the time a player has celebrated, so no need for long waits.
Re: the 'howler', that's the problem, every minor indescretion is a howler if it goes against you, so they're drilling down into everything to be on the safe side.
I think setting reasonable expectations and communicate clearly would go a long way. There are always going to be fine margins. But right now it’s excruciating how they try and prove or disprove things. For example I always try to find intent or something that creates an obvious advantage. So handball for example. Most of them are incidental when looked at rationally which we need refs to be. Today most of those are called and when it’s given as a penalty, then the consequences are far more severe than it often warrants. Same as these reds for studs up. In slow motion everything looks awful or can do. But if one of our players got sent off like Rashford did, I’d be furious. I don’t think there was any intent there in proper speed. So a lot of this is stating clearly what is being assessed and why, and most of the time the frustration is it varies so widely from game to game and between officials.
Intent is irrelevant. Otherwise you’d have to have Clinton Baptiste in the VAR room.
-
The handball decisions are now ridiculous. If it touches your arm in the Box its now a penalty.
-
At it's essence, the offside rule is dead simple. It is amazing that they've managed to make something that simple into something that's become complicated.
As with most, if not all, things VAR, they're trying to remove nuance from stuff that's very nuanced. And failing every time they try.
Between us just on here, we've got centuries, maybe even millennia of experience of watching the game. And yet for the first time in my life I find that interpretation of what constitutes a save turns out to be an arguable opinion!
I'm not against VAR, just the way it used. They could simplify it and use it for it's proper purpose - to assist the officials in eliminating the 'howler'. If you have got to look at screen for 5 minutes, then it is not clear and obvious. Any foul play and penalty decision - VAR official asks referee if they have seen it and only intervenes if they haven't seen it or it is clear a mistake has been made.
I have always thought that the offside can be made very easy. Make it about the feet and draw a line at the back foot of the last defender. If an opposition player's foot is over that line then it's offside and only the act of either scoring or directly assisting are looked at. They should be able to check that by the time a player has celebrated, so no need for long waits.
Re: the 'howler', that's the problem, every minor indescretion is a howler if it goes against you, so they're drilling down into everything to be on the safe side.
I think setting reasonable expectations and communicate clearly would go a long way. There are always going to be fine margins. But right now it’s excruciating how they try and prove or disprove things. For example I always try to find intent or something that creates an obvious advantage. So handball for example. Most of them are incidental when looked at rationally which we need refs to be. Today most of those are called and when it’s given as a penalty, then the consequences are far more severe than it often warrants. Same as these reds for studs up. In slow motion everything looks awful or can do. But if one of our players got sent off like Rashford did, I’d be furious. I don’t think there was any intent there in proper speed. So a lot of this is stating clearly what is being assessed and why, and most of the time the frustration is it varies so widely from game to game and between officials.
Intent is irrelevant. Otherwise you’d have to have Clinton Baptiste in the VAR room.
It’s irrelevant because they don’t consider it which I find stupid and why they take forever on everything.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/mD48pJ9/Screenshot-20231110-142324-You-Tube.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mD48pJ9)
Screenshot of the offside check for their goal. Which Villa player does that line relate to exactly??
Although that line doesnt seem to be near the attackers foot either.
-
At it's essence, the offside rule is dead simple. It is amazing that they've managed to make something that simple into something that's become complicated.
As with most, if not all, things VAR, they're trying to remove nuance from stuff that's very nuanced. And failing every time they try.
Between us just on here, we've got centuries, maybe even millennia of experience of watching the game. And yet for the first time in my life I find that interpretation of what constitutes a save turns out to be an arguable opinion!
I'm not against VAR, just the way it used. They could simplify it and use it for it's proper purpose - to assist the officials in eliminating the 'howler'. If you have got to look at screen for 5 minutes, then it is not clear and obvious. Any foul play and penalty decision - VAR official asks referee if they have seen it and only intervenes if they haven't seen it or it is clear a mistake has been made.
I have always thought that the offside can be made very easy. Make it about the feet and draw a line at the back foot of the last defender. If an opposition player's foot is over that line then it's offside and only the act of either scoring or directly assisting are looked at. They should be able to check that by the time a player has celebrated, so no need for long waits.
Re: the 'howler', that's the problem, every minor indescretion is a howler if it goes against you, so they're drilling down into everything to be on the safe side.
I think setting reasonable expectations and communicate clearly would go a long way. There are always going to be fine margins. But right now it’s excruciating how they try and prove or disprove things. For example I always try to find intent or something that creates an obvious advantage. So handball for example. Most of them are incidental when looked at rationally which we need refs to be. Today most of those are called and when it’s given as a penalty, then the consequences are far more severe than it often warrants. Same as these reds for studs up. In slow motion everything looks awful or can do. But if one of our players got sent off like Rashford did, I’d be furious. I don’t think there was any intent there in proper speed. So a lot of this is stating clearly what is being assessed and why, and most of the time the frustration is it varies so widely from game to game and between officials.
Agree TV, which is why I think the way VAR is currently used is wrong. At the moment, it is being used as almost an extra referee, when it should just be there to help with the very marginal and difficult decisions such as offside and to pick up the decisions that the officials haven't seen.
-
At it's essence, the offside rule is dead simple. It is amazing that they've managed to make something that simple into something that's become complicated.
As with most, if not all, things VAR, they're trying to remove nuance from stuff that's very nuanced. And failing every time they try.
Between us just on here, we've got centuries, maybe even millennia of experience of watching the game. And yet for the first time in my life I find that interpretation of what constitutes a save turns out to be an arguable opinion!
I'm not against VAR, just the way it used. They could simplify it and use it for it's proper purpose - to assist the officials in eliminating the 'howler'. If you have got to look at screen for 5 minutes, then it is not clear and obvious. Any foul play and penalty decision - VAR official asks referee if they have seen it and only intervenes if they haven't seen it or it is clear a mistake has been made.
I have always thought that the offside can be made very easy. Make it about the feet and draw a line at the back foot of the last defender. If an opposition player's foot is over that line then it's offside and only the act of either scoring or directly assisting are looked at. They should be able to check that by the time a player has celebrated, so no need for long waits.
Re: the 'howler', that's the problem, every minor indescretion is a howler if it goes against you, so they're drilling down into everything to be on the safe side.
I think setting reasonable expectations and communicate clearly would go a long way. There are always going to be fine margins. But right now it’s excruciating how they try and prove or disprove things. For example I always try to find intent or something that creates an obvious advantage. So handball for example. Most of them are incidental when looked at rationally which we need refs to be. Today most of those are called and when it’s given as a penalty, then the consequences are far more severe than it often warrants. Same as these reds for studs up. In slow motion everything looks awful or can do. But if one of our players got sent off like Rashford did, I’d be furious. I don’t think there was any intent there in proper speed. So a lot of this is stating clearly what is being assessed and why, and most of the time the frustration is it varies so widely from game to game and between officials.
Intent is irrelevant. Otherwise you’d have to have Clinton Baptiste in the VAR room.
It’s irrelevant because they don’t consider it which I find stupid and why they take forever on everything.
Imagine how long it would take to work out if someone meant it. Lie detector test next to the monitor? Derren Brown on call?
-
Blurry as anything, but can only think it relates to Lenglet's fingernails?
Which would be irrelevant in an offside decision.
-
My favourite one was Wesley's offside at Burnley. I think they judged the back of his heel offside.
-
Didn't even look close, that one.
i think they wanted to try and make the game semi interesting so let them score
-
My favourite one was Wesley's offside at Burnley. I think they judged the back of his heel offside.
Absolutely fucking stupid. That’s the kind of stuff that makes a mockery of the intent of why VAR was introduced.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/mD48pJ9/Screenshot-20231110-142324-You-Tube.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mD48pJ9)
Screenshot of the offside check for their goal. Which Villa player does that line relate to exactly??
Although that line doesnt seem to be near the attackers foot either.
From that angle it is hard to deduce properly. I would suggest that the line for Lenglet is drawn on his sleeve length / shoulder and the same with the other guy. When they click on where to place the line, it then drops it down on the actual pitch. However the angle means it is all subjective the same with they couldn't use the angle for the ball being "out" for the Newcastle one. So if the Offside wasn't given by the lino, they would have really had to go with the onfield decision anyway. For an easy way to see the angle differences for on/off side, watch the TNT highlights of Watkins goal. Live, the camera is further back and seems to show Watkins very level or maybe slightly head of the defender. However when the angle is closer to 90 degree to the action, you can see Watkins is actually slightly behind the defender when the ball is played.
The trouble with VAR is it is also dependent to who is the broadcaster. Sky has cameramen coming out the wazoo but TNT don't employ as many. The same issue with why Liverpool got away with a similar VAR decision against Wolves in the cup as the camera didn't cover an angle that showed where Neves was on the pitch when the ball came back and the lino called offside.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/mD48pJ9/Screenshot-20231110-142324-You-Tube.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mD48pJ9)
Screenshot of the offside check for their goal. Which Villa player does that line relate to exactly??
Anybody else think it looks like Konsa's screaming across at somebody who should be holding their ****ing line?
-
(https://i.ibb.co/mD48pJ9/Screenshot-20231110-142324-You-Tube.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mD48pJ9)
Screenshot of the offside check for their goal. Which Villa player does that line relate to exactly??
Although that line doesnt seem to be near the attackers foot either.
unless he's size 19's
-
After last night and Carlos' goal, we've now had 13 different goal scorers this season. Would have been 14 if Lenglet's had stood.
I think Konsa, Zaniolo, and Lenglet are the only regular(ish) players to not have scored yet.
-
After last night and Carlos' goal, we've now had 13 different goal scorers this season. Would have been 14 if Lenglet's had stood.
I think Konsa, Zaniolo, and Lenglet are the only regular(ish) players to not have scored yet.
Even Emi's scored a couple
-
Looked offside to me in real time and didn’t change my mind when the replays were shown.
Also, the early goal we scored was incorrectly called offside. They really need to do much better with VAR
-
I've finally watched the goals back. Douglas Luiz's ball to Ollie Watkins for the winner looked brilliant live from the Holte End but was positively Cowansesque on TV.
-
The Luiz pass to Watkins was our 27th in possession. Liquid football again.
-
I've finally watched the goals back. Douglas Luiz's ball to Ollie Watkins for the winner looked brilliant live from the Holte End but was positively Cowansesque on TV.
As I mentioned, it is obviously something they have worked on the training ground with Emery. Watch Watkins in the build-up off the ball, he suddenly comes alive and makes the run the second he see the ball going to Dougie. Luiz also looks for the same run and dink onto the head for the goal. Still needs the perfect pass though.
-
The Luiz pass to Watkins was our 27th in possession. Liquid football again.
It wasn't that long ago we couldn't string two passes together.
-
I've finally watched the goals back. Douglas Luiz's ball to Ollie Watkins for the winner looked brilliant live from the Holte End but was positively Cowansesque on TV.
Yep. It was a very Cowans to Platt type of goal from my youth.
-
I've finally watched the goals back. Douglas Luiz's ball to Ollie Watkins for the winner looked brilliant live from the Holte End but was positively Cowansesque on TV.
Yep. It was a very Cowans to Platt type of goal from my youth.
That's what I saw in it, particularly Platt's goal v Inter.
-
An answer David Platt gave to the question "What's your greatest footballing ambition?" was "To make a run that Gordon Cowans doesn't spot."
-
Love the comments re the winner -the first thing I thought of when Doug whipped that ball in was the Immortal Gordon Sidney Cowans.
Thought the ref/VAR had an interesting evening, a mix of raging incompetence re the 'goals' that should/shouldn't have been allowed/disallowed and a refusal to book Alkmaar players for repeated fouling. Against that, he wasn't conned by players falling over than expecting a cheap free-kick. More of the latter, please.