Aston Villa 2-1 Leicester City post match thread

[LeeB]

I'll admit I'm also struggling to imagine what they're referring to by the exceptions. I don't think they mean that at any point during a goalmouth scramble you can kick it out of the keeper's hand(s). Or maybe they do, maybe that's exactly what they mean, fuck knows. All I can say is that given the current wording and what actually happened, if I'd been on duty at Stockley Park I'd have chalked the goal off. He's done making the save, and then something else happens.

The exception isn't about the keeper being in the act of "making a save" - the exception clearly says "has made" a save. It's the past tense.  It's clearly designed to be used when the keeper has just made a save - which he clearly just had.

Like you, I can't picture a scenario where a goal is allowed because of the exception, but it must exist, so it's probably a lack of imagination on my part - but it would be hugely helpful to see such a scenario so we can at least put this to bed.

I mentioned it in the match thread I think, but I expect we will see a clarification of that part of the law pretty soon, much like when Rhodri challenges Mings.

I'm in the middle of an argument on The Guardian with some throbber that's insisting that because he's added a semi colon after the first part of the law it means that's how it should be applied, therefore the ref was right. Despite that semi colon not existing in the actual laws. Then there's follow ups citing him saying yes, it was right as it was the letter of the law.

It's fucking unbelievable. Can you imagine the day/weeks of anguished debate and thought pieces from the likes of Barney Ronay and Jonathan Wilson had this affected the result of a game between one of the *spits* 'elite' clubs?

[Somniloquism]

I don't think they got it wrong.

Schmeichel makes save with right hand.

Schmeichel recovers position, gets down, gets left hand onto ball.

Ramsey kicks ball.

It all happened very quickly, the blink of a mortal's eye almost, but they were three distinct elements to that passage of play.

I understand what you're saying, and that appears to be the position of the "ref's union", but can you explain to me what WOULD have constituted the exception in Law 12 for that incident to allow a goal? 

The laws of the game clearly have an exception following a save or after the ball rebounds from the keeper, so can you explain a situation where Schmeichel has his hand on the ball and the goal IS allowed per the exception - and how that is different to what actually happened in the game?

I have understood the arguments about why it was disallowed, but I still can't understand how any situation USING the exception is any different to the disallowed goal?

For completeness, the rule is:

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:

- the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save

In the cold light of day and having a thought, I'm guessing the exception is if the keeper makes a save / block with his hands initially, (Ball between hand and ground or both hands behind the ball) and then it spills out. The original "control" is then lost. So in theory the original stop from him wouldn't have counted as in control with those initial rules, but then the follow up could be.

[alan_clarke]

- the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save

From this I take it that the exception only applies to the second half of the sentence. There is no exception if the ball is between the hands and any surface, like what happened yesterday. The exception for the second part I think is to differentiate a keeper holding the ball upright with the palm of his hand (in control of the ball) or palming the ball out from a save (has touched the ball but is not in control of it).

[Richard E]

There isn’t that much anti Small Heath chanting at matches this season. Have they now finally officially become irrelevant to us?

[The Edge]

There isn’t that much anti Small Heath chanting at matches this season. Have they now finally officially become irrelevant to us?

Sorry, who?

[tricky dicky]

How’s Kasper’s hand today? He was supposed to be getting it “checked” wasn’t he? because it was so sore. He even suggested an X-ray might be required. My thoughts are with him at this difficult time. Puts everything into perspective, etc…

[Richard E]

Perhaps the laws of the game should be clear and not require the application of the rules of interpretation applicable to an Act of Parliament being considered by the Supreme Court. 

[LeeB]

Perhaps the laws of the game should be clear and not require the application of the rules of interpretation applicable to an Act of Parliament being considered by the Supreme Court. 

Exactly.

Another point is the goal was given, and the law is ambiguous at best, especially in this context. Therefore, how does VAR conclude that there is a 'clear and obvious error' to correct?

[eamonn]

Changing the rules - changing the rules
We're Aston Villa - we change the rules!

[Moonraker]

Had a look at "Pete the Canadian Guys" podcast, The Holy Trinity. Opening bit is pretty funny....

[Smithy]

Perhaps the laws of the game should be clear and not require the application of the rules of interpretation applicable to an Act of Parliament being considered by the Supreme Court. 

Exactly.

Another point is the goal was given, and the law is ambiguous at best, especially in this context. Therefore, how does VAR conclude that there is a 'clear and obvious error' to correct?

It seems the refs are entirely clear on the law, it's just badly drafted to give the impression the exclusion applies to the entire sentence, rather than the second part only.  It's a bit like the comma in the US' second amendment - punctuation matter. The difference here is that the people who wrote it aren't dead and they should make it clearer as quickly as possible.

Or they'll just think "fuck it, WE know what it means, and that's good enough".

I do think incidents like this will now be scrutinised much more closely, given it has denied a goal in a premier league game.  Will keepers now think it's more important to get downward pressure on the ball (like a try in rugby) than it is to actually make a block or attempt to get the ball clear? It certainly changes the potential options available to a goalie when the ball is moving around in the six-yard box.  You don't have to make a save, or clear the ball to relieve pressure, you just have to convince VAR you had "control" of the ball.

For example, if the ball breaks free in the six-yard box and it's a race to the ball between striker and keeper, I'd always hope the keeper will push the ball away with his hand/fingers or at worst get a reasonable block in, i.e. stop the striker scoring at all costs - but now there is the option to race to get your hand on top of the ball, even if you know that doing so doesn't actually stop the shot coming in. 

It gives keepers an option of drawing a foul, like players can in midfield; they can make a risky low-percentage save/block, or go for the free-kick you know you'll get if it goes to VAR, even if it doesn't stop a striker getting the shot away.

[KevinGage]

We seemed to struggle with formation early on and there was too big a agap between mids and forwards. Apart from Emi2. And You never knew where he was going to turn up. Much better second half. Obvious the players have great faith in Marvellous as they are never afraid to pass to him even when he has players on top of him. Happy with Sanson again. Will we finally have a successful French player? Ollie is a kick of a ball away from having a great game. He will be fine. I was behind the goal for Martinez save. One of the best saves I have seen. He is so agile for a man mountain. Marry Cash apart from a couple of overhit crosses had a great game. Couple of pints b4 with my brother and some friends. A Villa win. Enjoy the small things

Sanson was good - in the sense that there were no obvious howlers and our midfield didn't cede ground to the same extent we did when Luiz went off against Wolves.   More minutes can only benefit him.

Chucky was the standout of the subs, looked composed in possession.

Like he'd played in the topflight for the last ten years.

[chrisw1]

I think that one was a poor decision but it's distracted from the far worse decision to blow up when Watkins was about to shoot. If he'd let play go for a couple of seconds he could've gone to VAR to see if there was a foul on Evans by blowing up he made that impossible. It's the same scenario as with Friend in that Palace game and is exactly the sort of decision making that should be taken away by VAR, let play go and then go back and make decision instead rushing to a snap judgement.

I thought exactly the same thing.  The problem is the inflexible way they use VAR as by not giving the foul it would then move to the 'clear and obvious' test.  If they had a more collaborative approach as in rugby it would be much easier to do as you have suggested and then have a dialouge after the play has stopped.  He should be allowed to go and have a quick look at the monitor and make his mind up.  VAR is ridulous and I've no idea why they can't just be more pragmatic in their approach, the outcomes would be so much better.

[KevinGage]

I do think incidents like this will now be scrutinised much more closely, given it has denied a goal in a premier league game.  Will keepers now think it's more important to get downward pressure on the ball (like a try in rugby) than it is to actually make a block or attempt to get the ball clear? It certainly changes the potential options available to a goalie when the ball is moving around in the six-yard box.  You don't have to make a save, or clear the ball to relieve pressure, you just have to convince VAR you had "control" of the ball.

Indeed. And why this needs to be nipped in the bud pronto.

It's a shame referees try to shift the whole dynamic of Association Football when we're involved.

There's the law to the letter (which is a hornets nest, as we've seen from the attempts here to explain the definition) and the common sense interpretation that's worked for years. But which Friend, Oliver Jonathan Moss et al seem to bypass when it's us.

Did it look like a foul/ Schmeichel had control in real time?  No.  Did any of the Leicester players apart from the blond tart appeal? No.

If the ref is unsure, don't point to the centre circle and then check.

[The Edge]

How’s Kasper’s hand today? He was supposed to be getting it “checked” wasn’t he? because it was so sore. He even suggested an X-ray might be required. My thoughts are with him at this difficult time. Puts everything into perspective, etc…

Made me laugh this did