Manchester Utd v Aston Villa Post-Match Thread

[Russ aka Big Nose]

Yes because they'd have broken a rule rather than make a mistake.

Sorry, not sure I understand your point.

My post was that some people are making the point ‘everyone makes mistakes, players, coaches, and officials’ and rather than the consequence of mistakes are different (poor selection impacting performance vs. poor decision meaning a gift to the opposition vs. changing the outcome of the game) I was saying that VAR should only exist to support match officials get to the right outcome.

But, it doesn’t, it diminishes the reputation of match officials by backing on field decisions at the expense of getting to the right outcome.

And I think ‘outcome’ is more relevant than ‘decision’ as we all want ‘natural justice’ (for the want of a better description) over some pedantic application of rules that don’t help because they can never adequately cover every situation in a football game.

[paul_e]

It's massively frustrating, and shouldn't have happened. But none of us have experienced that pressure of making a split second decision in a massive game. Emi is far more experienced but also fucked up in the heat of the moment. He shouldn't have made a challenge akin to Boris Johnson in that charity match.

I agree, but the assistance he has to help with those decisions relies on him not blowing up early. If he'd let it go and then given a foul a few seconds later no one would be blaming him (and the discussion would be about VAR allowing/disallowing the goal). Both the ref and Emi made poor split second decisions but the difference is that Emi didn't have a backup option.

[Dave]

Yes because they'd have broken a rule rather than make a mistake.

Sorry, not sure I understand your point.

My post was that some people are making the point ‘everyone makes mistakes, players, coaches, and officials’ and rather than the consequence of mistakes are different (poor selection impacting performance vs. poor decision meaning a gift to the opposition vs. changing the outcome of the game) I was saying that VAR should only exist to support match officials get to the right outcome.

But, it doesn’t, it diminishes the reputation of match officials by backing on field decisions at the expense of getting to the right outcome.

And I think ‘outcome’ is more relevant than ‘decision’ as we all want ‘natural justice’ (for the want of a better description) over some pedantic application of rules that don’t help because they can never adequately cover every situation in a football game.

It didn't "back" anything in that decision. It wasn't given the opportunity to have a say one way or the other.

That's the whole issue.

[Beard82]

It's massively frustrating, and shouldn't have happened. But none of us have experienced that pressure of making a split second decision in a massive game. Emi is far more experienced but also fucked up in the heat of the moment. He shouldn't have made a challenge akin to Boris Johnson in that charity match.

But he didnt need to make the decision - thats the point.  Theres a whole backup system to prevent him from having to make split second decisions like that.

[Dave]

It's massively frustrating, and shouldn't have happened. But none of us have experienced that pressure of making a split second decision in a massive game. Emi is far more experienced but also fucked up in the heat of the moment. He shouldn't have made a challenge akin to Boris Johnson in that charity match.

But he didnt need to make the decision - thats the point.  Theres a whole backup system to prevent him from having to make split second decisions like that.

I think everyone is one hundred percent on the same page with that.

Unless I've misunderstood, the disagreement is whether you think the game stopping is a reason that you can't just give the goal anyway because it should have been a goal.

I mean, obviously it is a reason you can't give it. Because the game has stopped.

[Toronto Villa]

Is the decision not to make a decision, actually a decision?

[Russ aka Big Nose]

Sorry, but an inexperienced referee is getting hammered for a poor decision, but I think many are missing a more important point.

In every game, some ‘latitude’ or ‘flexibility’ is applied, and for the majority of the time it improves the spectacle/the game.

The issue for me is that none of the officials, on field or VAR, said “hold on, take a moment, that might a goal”. If that happens, no-one worries if the ref goes to the monitor and changes his decision.

Instead, they (presumably) decide we have a novice here, we need to back him up.

[cdbearsfan]

They couldn't do any of that, the decision was made from the moment he blew his whistle.

[Fin Feds Dad]

An era defining no show - against a record breaking bag of bollocks - this week was the first time since 1976 since a Manchester United player wasn’t named in an England squad .
We never laid of glove on them - too negative from minute 1.
They’ll be in Dubai by the time I post this - I’ll be trying to work out how I get to Lithuania - wankers

[Dave]

The issue for me is that none of the officials, on field or VAR, said “hold on, take a moment, that might a goal”. If that happens, no-one worries if the ref goes to the monitor and changes his decision.

I completely guarantee that if they had allowed a goal that was scored while the game was stopped, if would be a much bigger story than it currently is.

[Beard82]

It's massively frustrating, and shouldn't have happened. But none of us have experienced that pressure of making a split second decision in a massive game. Emi is far more experienced but also fucked up in the heat of the moment. He shouldn't have made a challenge akin to Boris Johnson in that charity match.

But he didnt need to make the decision - thats the point.  Theres a whole backup system to prevent him from having to make split second decisions like that.

I think everyone is one hundred percent on the same page with that.

Unless I've misunderstood, the disagreement is whether you think the game stopping is a reason that you can't just give the goal anyway because it should have been a goal.

I mean, obviously it is a reason you can't give it. Because the game has stopped.

He whilsted - so it cant be a goal and Im ok with that.  But the whistle shouldnt have happened.  I think the ruiles are fine - they just werent applied correctly.  Those fine calls are whats VAR is there for but the referee decided not to follow the process.

[Brazilian Villain]

They’ll be in Dubai by the time I post this - I’ll be trying to work out how I get to Lithuania - wankers

I'd wait to see if we draw Kauno Žalgiris before making plans.

[VillaTim]

Guys , we didn't turn up , forget the one ref decision, we should have been 0-2 by HT and 0-3 before that. We were shit today . Please stop blaming the ref .

[Dave]

He whilsted - so it cant be a goal and Im ok with that.  But the whistle shouldnt have happened.

Indeed. But I don't think anyone on here (or anywhere, for that matter) is saying anything different to that.

[Beard82]

He whilsted - so it cant be a goal and Im ok with that.  But the whistle shouldnt have happened.

Indeed. But I don't think anyone on here (or anywhere, for that matter) is saying anything different to that.

Sorry - what was the question :-)