Standard of Refereeing

[Demitri_C]

Even though the new angles have shown it wss out by some distance i bet if yhat was manure goal would have been given

[tomd2103]

Just for good measure can I throw this into the mix?

Limits: While there is no specific time limit, the review is limited to the immediate phase of play. If a new phase of play starts (e.g., the defending team clears the ball and establishes control), any previous offence is "written off".

I would suggest that when Kellener parried the ball, Brentford had effectively cleared the ball and therefore a new phase had started and the previous “offence” should have been written off

Although It could probably be argued that although he parried it they did not establish control because it went straight to Tammy

All very subjective - as was the original decision

Can remember the Bailey one that got ruled out a couple of years ago against Sheffield United for a supposed foul on tje keeper from a corner.  The ball broke and Sheffield United had possession on the edge of their box, gave it away, we scored and the goal was ruled out for a questionable foul on the keeper. 

We'd have been top at Christmas if we'd have won that.

[Gareth]

Even though the new angles have shown it wss out by some distance i bet if yhat was manure goal would have been given

. New angles are totally irrelevant, all that matters is what the VAR saw…if they had an angle proving it fine, if they had an angle where they guessed it was out then answers are required

[luke95]

Even though the new angles have shown it wss out by some distance i bet if yhat was manure goal would have been given

100% it would've been given.

[Steve67]

I haven’t seen these new angles but am pretty sure that, after the game, they don’t count for shit as they can be manipulated to justify the piss poor decision making from the PGMOL. It was a total guess on the day.  They are screwing up far too many times as far as Villa are concerned. No conspiracy theory, but just get it right.

[Ian.]

It looked miles out to me and doesn’t this just really highlight the uselessness of the officials letting play go on in the first place and then the uselessness of the team running VAR to intervene when that’s not really their duty. Otherwise it’s contradicts too many other missed things that happen dozens of times in a match. The most clear one it never gets involved with is when the corner or throw-in is given the wrong way and a goal is scored.

It’s just a mess.

[Somniloquism]

It looked miles out to me and doesn’t this just really highlight the uselessness of the officials letting play go on in the first place and then the uselessness of the team running VAR to intervene when that’s not really their duty. Otherwise it’s contradicts too many other missed things that happen dozens of times in a match. The most clear one it never gets involved with is when the corner or throw-in is given the wrong way and a goal is scored.

It’s just a mess.

I don't blame the ref in that situation. Lino was on the wrong side of the pitch, other end of the line so it was only the ref who might have judged it but Bailey and the Brentford defender was blocking his view. If the ref had gone closer he might have interfered with play (accidently blocked a player or ball) so I'm fine with him guessing it hadn't and not relying solely on the oppositions players claims.

[LeeB]

Even though the new angles have shown it wss out by some distance i bet if yhat was manure goal would have been given

100% it would've been given.

Then it would become 'inconclusive'.

[lovejoy]

The salient points that you need to be sure to give it and from his angle the ref wasn’t sure. He made the best decision. VAR is their to opine on clear and obvious errors and only when it is a n an attacking phase leading to a goal. Neither applied here so the VAR intervention was incorrect.