Young Boys vs Aston Villa Post-Match Thread

[The Edge]

Great start to our Champions league adventure. Such a shame Durans goal got ruled out as others have said how far back do you go though to find a reason to disallow a goal?

It's a perfectly valid question in the abstract, but six passes and sixteen seconds is definitely fine.

I watched it back and it felt longer at the time. I have changed my position since last night based on that aspect alone.

But i do think they need to clarify in future how long you can go back for decisions like this. Maybe something like 30-45 seconds or at worst 60 seconds then it was nullified.

Ollies one though no excuse why that was disallowed

Bruce used to go back about 4 minutes when managing Blues.  A 50:50 free kick could have gone the other way

Haha good old fistface. But you do have to blame the powers at be for not making the rules clear so we all understand.

I think mccoist called the handball for onana literally within a second.  VAR should have seen that straight away and said to ref hand ball.

I still find the clear and obvious error aspect very vague. It just seems to be a rule they use when it suits their narrative and isnt always consistent

Var would not have been able to stop the game for Onanas handball but I do think clarity is needed when it comes to how far back they can go to find a problem with a goal. The officiating was iffy to say the least. The lino giving that throw in when the ball was clearly still in play and right in front of Unai was a shocker.

[baddowvillans]

The crazy thing is if a defender gets a foot to the ball and knocks it back out to a Villa player and that attack continues it probably gets deemed a "different phase" and the goal allowed.  Fine margins.

[passport1]

Excellent  start to our latest rampage through Europe. Onwards  and Upwards!

[Dave]

Great start to our Champions league adventure. Such a shame Durans goal got ruled out as others have said how far back do you go though to find a reason to disallow a goal?

It's a perfectly valid question in the abstract, but six passes and sixteen seconds is definitely fine.

Says who? And even if it was, it had to be deliberate hand ball to be ruled out.

Me. I said it. Look, it's right there in the post that you quoted.

[Dave P]

The crazy thing is if a defender gets a foot to the ball and knocks it back out to a Villa player and that attack continues it probably gets deemed a "different phase" and the goal allowed.  Fine margins.

This didn't happen against Sheffield Utd at home last season.

[Drummond]

The Onana handball was clear and the ref should have seen it. He didn't, play continued as per the rules, and then it was checked by VAR when we scored. It's disappointing but completely right, and had it been the other way around we'd have been seething and calling corruption if it hadn't been given.

It's a shame, and one of the reasons VAR is annoying but ultimately it's the right call. Just because we have a patient build up, involving more passing and more players doesn't mean the rules don't apply the same way.

As for Watkins' disallowed one, I can only summise that VAR had a completely different angle that's not available to everyone else. Because you couldn't tell from the angle we could see.

[Percy McCarthy]

The Onana handball was clear and the ref should have seen it. He didn't, play continued as per the rules, and then it was checked by VAR when we scored. It's disappointing but completely right, and had it been the other way around we'd have been seething and calling corruption if it hadn't been given.

It's a shame, and one of the reasons VAR is annoying but ultimately it's the right call. Just because we have a patient build up, involving more passing and more players doesn't mean the rules don't apply the same way.

As for Watkins' disallowed one, I can only summise that VAR had a completely different angle that's not available to everyone else. Because you couldn't tell from the angle we could see.

You think the Onana one was deliberate then? Personally, I don’t.

[Dave]

The Onana handball was clear and the ref should have seen it. He didn't, play continued as per the rules, and then it was checked by VAR when we scored. It's disappointing but completely right, and had it been the other way around we'd have been seething and calling corruption if it hadn't been given.

It's a shame, and one of the reasons VAR is annoying but ultimately it's the right call. Just because we have a patient build up, involving more passing and more players doesn't mean the rules don't apply the same way.

As for Watkins' disallowed one, I can only summise that VAR had a completely different angle that's not available to everyone else. Because you couldn't tell from the angle we could see.

You think it was deliberate then? Personally, I don’t.

But "deliberate" means something different when talking about handball in football. Onana obviously didn't think "I've miscontrolled this here, I'm going to get the ball back under control by sticking my arm out to get it back", but the current rule is this:

It is an offence if a player...touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised

Onana has big arms and so when they are flapping around in the air he's going to be at risk of the above happening. The above is more used for blocking opposing shots / passes by waving your arms around, but Onana also did that when the ball hit his hand yesterday.

[Drummond]

Yep he was deliberately moving his arms, and the one it hit was outstretched.

It doesn't mean he was reaching out for the ball, but did gain an unfair advantage as a result of it hitting the outstretched arm.

[Somniloquism]

They don't just look at deliberate but on whether there is an un-natural position. A defender jumping into a blocked shot would not have a chance to move his arm/hand to or away from a ball, but if he jumped with them well outstretched from the body, then they would give a pen.

Onana's arm being well above his head could be construed as natural for a jump but ref decided un-natural (although the slight move to the ball would have swung it).

[Percy McCarthy]

Fair enough chaps. Ta.

[Risso]

Great start to our Champions league adventure. Such a shame Durans goal got ruled out as others have said how far back do you go though to find a reason to disallow a goal?

It's a perfectly valid question in the abstract, but six passes and sixteen seconds is definitely fine.

Says who? And even if it was, it had to be deliberate hand ball to be ruled out.

Me. I said it. Look, it's right there in the post that you quoted.

Ah, I thought you worked in financial services rather than at IFAB. My mistake.

[eamonn]

The ref should have clocked Onana's handball straight away. Poor Durán, the lad was blessing himself and pointing to God in the sky. The ref must have been a heathen.

I still can't see conclusive proof that Ollie handled his, but he didn't seem to complain at all when it was ruled out.

[Bully2345]

I didn't celebrate the Watkins goal. I just assumed it must have hit his hand at some point and he looked sheepish in celebration.

[simon ward 50]

Well, well, well!

Thank you Villa for making my night!