Aston Villa 2-1 Leicester City post match thread

[Clampy]

Like a few people on here, I thought we going to blow it after the chances we missed. Gerrard seems to have installed a bit of grit into us though. There was some decent performances out there but Marvelous really was Marvellous again.

As for Kasper, what a big horses arse he was. I said to my mate, he's going to stay down until the goal is disallowed. Thoughts and Prayers for the hurty finger.

[Risso]

Like a few people on here, I thought we going to blow it after the chances we missed. Gerrard seems to have installed a bit of grit into us though.

To be fair my Leicester mate was saying it about them after their good first half, and he turned out to be right! Going to take us a while to lose the feeling that we're always going to chuck it away.

I didn't think we were great first half, but we've had far worse recently, so to hear that Gerrard tore them a new one at half time shows that his standards are high. The players probably went in thinking they'd done alright.

[Meanwood Villa]

I think we were second best first half and would have been fortunate to go in ahead. We blew them away first 25 minutes of second half though.

[Mister E]

Leicester should be immediately relegated several tiers just for those disgraceful pink socks that they were sporting yesterday. 

Agreed, and any team wearing grey kit deserve to be docked 38 points for the season.

[eamonn]

I’m loving having Ashley Young back at the club

Gobby little fcuker, i'n 'e ?

[eamonn]

Apart from Harvey Barnes I wouldn't take a single one of their players.

Nah, they have half a dozen or so who are great players. And we were lucky Tielemanns was out.

They played the better football in the game, I thought. If Gerrard can harness the scrapper mentality we now have to a bit more technical quality and flow to our game, we'll usurp them and the likes of Arsenal soon enough.

[eamonn]

He was a disgrace for our second goal. Woeful, the massive wazzock.

A brilliantly-orchestrated corner from Nanny McPhee in phairness.

Deep corner to the back post, crowd the keeper with little 'uns (Marv and McGinn), have two big centre-backs towering at the back post, ready to pounce with their noggins.

Austin in !

[john2710]

On MOTD2 they stated the PL had said that the exception didn't supersede the first part of rule. Which they rightly ridiculed. Why can't they just say they got it wrong?

Listened to Talk Shite earlier, with the usual bolloxs from Jim White & Danny Murphy. They said the ref got the disallowed decision correct whilst completely ignoring the exception tonthe rule.

Murphy brought up some nonsense about the rule being introduced after a Forrest player headed the ball out of the palm of a keeper's hand as he was about to kick it. Which bears no resemblance to what happened yesterday.

Anyway the narrative is they got it right & Villa won anyway. Also don't forget we're only in the PL because of a dodgy goal line decision.

[Risso]

That’s what exceptions are for you fucking idiots.

Please don’t use this defibrillator unless someone is having a heart attack.

Why did you use it? He was having a heart attack.

Sorry, the exception doesn’t overrule the rule.

[wittonwarrior]

With the number of missed chances second half just grab them 3 points and run

[Lastfootstamper]

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.

[Smithy]

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

[paul_e]

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.

[Lastfootstamper]

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.

[Smithy]

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.