Aston Villa v AZ Alkmaar Post-Match Thread

[OCD]

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.

[taylorsworkrate]

Its one of those that pre VAR, it would never have been given as offside, and no one would have thought to question it.

[Lastfootstamper]

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.

[Somniloquism]

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.

[kippaxvilla2]

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.

[Lastfootstamper]

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!

[Somniloquism]

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".

[London Villan]

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.

[dave shelley]

The current offside law as it stands, and all the anomalies therein, causes more questions than it was introduced to solve.

[Brazilian Villain]

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.

[tomd2103]

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.

[tomd2103]

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.

[LeeB]

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.

[Lastfootstamper]

You either check everything, or you check nothing. As LeeB implied, who decides what is and isn't a howler?

[tomd2103]

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.