Aston Villa vs Crystal Palace Post-Match

[OCD]

Just to clarify - from Garth Crooks:
Douglas Luiz (Aston Villa): I thought that Crystal Palace assistant manager Paddy McCarthy's analysis on the penalty awarded to Villa was spot on. Any referee who needs five minutes to make a decision must have sufficient doubts, but that didn't stop Darren England from compounding his error of judgment.

And yet the rules to overturn his decision mean that the error has to be "clear & obvious".

Any referee who needs five minutes to make a decision must not see a "clear & obvious" error.

Therefore, penalty...

And thats without the fact that it was still a penalty, with or without VAR, because feathering the ball with your toenail fluff & then going through the man to kick the ball means that its a foul whichever way you look at it.

And Im not convinced he even got his toenail fluff on the ball tbh...

I would put a countdown timer on VAR. If it takes longer, than say a minute, it's not a clear and obvious and the on-field decision stands.

[Smithy]

Was chatting to a couple of mates yesterday about the pen (neither are Villa fans, and only saw it on MoTD), and both thought it was a VERY soft, until I showed them the slowed-down version where there are clearly two "phases" to the incident.

1.  The defender makes a VERY slight touch on Watkins' shin, followed by a VERY slight touch on the ball.  The ball remains under Ollie's control.
2.  The defender takes Ollie out, followed by clearing the ball.

You can look at it two ways, either point 1 means a very minor contact was first with the attacker's leg, so it's a pen, or both contacts in point 1 were insufficient for the ref to blow his whistle at all, in which case we move to point 2, and it's definitely a pen.

There is an incorrect assumption that if a defender "touches" the ball, it can't be a pen or a foul, but that's simply not true.  If the touch is just that - a touch - but the ball is still under the complete control of the attacker, then any subsequent touch is a foul.

I was surprised - and delighted - to see a ref stick to his original decision after going to the monitor.  It's been one of VAR's biggest problems that the on-field ref ALWAYS changes their mind having gone to the monitor, so it was great to see one stick with his original assumption.

[The Edge]

Just to clarify - from Garth Crooks:
Douglas Luiz (Aston Villa): I thought that Crystal Palace assistant manager Paddy McCarthy's analysis on the penalty awarded to Villa was spot on. Any referee who needs five minutes to make a decision must have sufficient doubts, but that didn't stop Darren England from compounding his error of judgment.

And yet the rules to overturn his decision mean that the error has to be "clear & obvious".

Any referee who needs five minutes to make a decision must not see a "clear & obvious" error.

Therefore, penalty...

And thats without the fact that it was still a penalty, with or without VAR, because feathering the ball with your toenail fluff & then going through the man to kick the ball means that its a foul whichever way you look at it.

And Im not convinced he even got his toenail fluff on the ball tbh...

I would put a countdown timer on VAR. If it takes longer, than say a minute, it's not a clear and obvious and the on-field decision stands.

I like this idea. I'd also do away with those poxy lines on the screen for offside. If it's not obvious by watching a couple of replays the goal stands. They're guessing as it is because you can't accurately say when the ball is accurately played. Moving it just one frame forwards or backwards makes a player on or off. It's totally open to bias.

[Lastfootstamper]

With offsides, why should the cheating forwards get the benefit of any doubt? Because they're only cheating a little bit?

[pauliewalnuts]

Anyway, fuck these funeralled fuckers, that's pay back for that insane disallowed Lansbury goal at their place a few years back.

[olaftab]

Garth Crooks is a thick ******. The fact that he's being paid by BBC to do this useless team of the week crap by people who should know better and not waste Licence payers money is a diabolical state.

[dave shelley]

There's too much emphasis on penalties, yea or nay, and the same applies to offside.  FFS give us the game back.  In the days before VAR we've all seen some absolutely disgraceful decisions given/not given but we sucked it up and got on with it.  I'd be happy to see it go back to that.  If we have to have it then just use it for ball in and out of play and goal line technology which does a fairly decent job, er...Sheffield United, then we wouldn't need Fred in the shed at Stockley Park.

[itbrvilla]

Eni Aluko is a twat.

The outrage over the penalty and the over analysis reminds me of this one from 2010. Yeah he touched the ball with his toenail, but then scythes down the attacking player in the box - penalty every day of the week.

https://www.facebook.com/avfcofficial/videos/otd-2010-aston-villa-1-0-birmingham-city/227162735272037/

[pablo_picasso]

Just to clarify - from Garth Crooks:
Douglas Luiz (Aston Villa): I thought that Crystal Palace assistant manager Paddy McCarthy's analysis on the penalty awarded to Villa was spot on. Any referee who needs five minutes to make a decision must have sufficient doubts, but that didn't stop Darren England from compounding his error of judgment.

And yet the rules to overturn his decision mean that the error has to be "clear & obvious".

Any referee who needs five minutes to make a decision must not see a "clear & obvious" error.

Therefore, penalty...

And thats without the fact that it was still a penalty, with or without VAR, because feathering the ball with your toenail fluff & then going through the man to kick the ball means that its a foul whichever way you look at it.

And Im not convinced he even got his toenail fluff on the ball tbh...

I would put a countdown timer on VAR. If it takes longer, than say a minute, it's not a clear and obvious and the on-field decision stands.

Yeah, I agree.

Would sort out the "clear & obvious"issue of each decision...

[Simon Page]

Only if the Horne Section played the countdown music. The crowd would be encouraged to shout down from 10. Refs would be under pressure to make a quick, rather than correct decision. It'd be hell.

We could always bin VAR.

[LeeB]

Only if the Horne Section played the countdown music. The crowd would be encouraged to shout down from 10. Refs would be under pressure to make a quick, rather than correct decision. It'd be hell.

We could always bin VAR.

Exactly my thoughts, they'll just rush through the wrong decision instead.

[lovejoy]

It was a pen, having minimal contact with the ball ( if there was any contact) does not allow you to then play the man, if he had got meaningful contact with the ball, diverted the ball away from Watkins before colliding with him, then it would be a legitimate tackle. He didn’t, it wasn’t, Penalty.

Unless you're Solly March at VP a few seasons ago, late on.

You are right though, skimming the ball then going through the player is still a foul.

[LeeB]

Anyway, fuck these funeralled fuckers, that's pay back for that insane disallowed Lansbury goal at their place a few years back.

The penalty they got last season down there was a joke and wouldn't be given now, although we were so bad that day we deserved it.

[mrfuse]

Just to clarify - from Garth Crooks:
Douglas Luiz (Aston Villa): I thought that Crystal Palace assistant manager Paddy McCarthy's analysis on the penalty awarded to Villa was spot on. Any referee who needs five minutes to make a decision must have sufficient doubts, but that didn't stop Darren England from compounding his error of judgment.

And yet the rules to overturn his decision mean that the error has to be "clear & obvious".

Any referee who needs five minutes to make a decision must not see a "clear & obvious" error.

Therefore, penalty...

And thats without the fact that it was still a penalty, with or without VAR, because feathering the ball with your toenail fluff & then going through the man to kick the ball means that its a foul whichever way you look at it.

And Im not convinced he even got his toenail fluff on the ball tbh...

I would put a countdown timer on VAR. If it takes longer, than say a minute, it's not a clear and obvious and the on-field decision stands.

Yeah, I agree.

Would sort out the "clear & obvious"issue of each decision...

This is my view on VAR that a timer should be involved especially for offsides. In an offsides call  there should be a 30 second timer with a view from a correct angle with no lines drawn and if you cant tell in that time its onside.

Having a timer would speed up the process for fans and also could be a get out for officials who could just say well within the time limit we had to make a decision.   

In my mind VAR was supposed reduce really obvious errors not micro manage the game, but as with the handball rule its got itself tied up in knots

[OCD]

Only if the Horne Section played the countdown music. The crowd would be encouraged to shout down from 10. Refs would be under pressure to make a quick, rather than correct decision. It'd be hell.

We could always bin VAR.

Exactly my thoughts, they'll just rush through the wrong decision instead.

If it takes 5 minutes to re-referee a decision, it wasn't a clear and obvious error to begin with.