Aston Villa v AZ Alkmaar Post-Match Thread

[Meanwood Villa]

Screenshot of the offside check for their goal. Which Villa player does that line relate to exactly??

[tomd2103]

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. 

[Toronto Villa]

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. 

[GordonCowansisthegreatest]

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 .

[Risso]

Didn't even look close, that one.

[Percy McCarthy]

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.

[ChicagoLion]

The handball decisions are now ridiculous. If it touches your arm in the Box its now a penalty.

[Toronto Villa]

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.

[PeterWithe]

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.

[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.

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.

[Percy McCarthy]

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?

[usav]

Blurry as anything, but can only think it relates to Lenglet's fingernails?

Which would be irrelevant in an offside decision.

[Clampy]

My favourite one was Wesley's offside at Burnley. I think they judged the back of his heel offside.

[VillaTim]

Didn't even look close, that one.

i think they wanted to try and make the game semi interesting so let them score

[Toronto Villa]

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.