Bournemouth v Aston Villa Pre-Match Thread

[Smithy]

You do wonder how many other weird and wonderful ways can be found to stop Villa winning matches from those, either a ref, a lino or VAR. It's no comfort a week later to see those in charge got it wrong once again...

I ask this. If we are playing the Europa League final and we concede a last minute goal that denies us and the ball had gone out of play in the build up what would you say? You don’t need to answer. We all know that we would never ever stop complaining about it.
I’d ditch VAR tomorrow (it has ruined the spectacle of football) but it was entirely correct on this occasion.

I don't think I've seen anyone saying the decision was incorrect, factually speaking.  I think everyone's (or at least most people's) complaint is that the information VAR had available to it didn't ALLOW them to be 100% certain. There was no definitive camera angle showing the ball 100% over the line.  Could they say it was probably out? Yes, of course. At the time on TV, in real time, I thought it had gone out.  But it wasn't given, so I waited for VAR to show a definitive angle proving it was out, and they didn't show that. 

Over the line, or not, isn't like a foul - it's not a subjective decision for the ref to make, or not, it's factual.  With offsides, we get lines drawn, with the goal line, we get goal-line technology, so for another definitive yes/no decision, I expect better evidence than a "it was probably out" shot.

Had the goal been given, and two days later that fan video gets released showing the ball was definitely out, there would be uproar about us getting away with one, and a discussion about the role of VAR in balls crossing the line, or not - which is how it should be.  But there is no discussion, because they got it right, despite it being impossible to be 100% certain it was out. For a factual decision, being 99% certain isn't enough.

Getting to the RIGHT decision, in the WRONG way, will only lead to further bad decisions.

(and of course, this completely ignores the phase of play argument and the fact that Bailey was defending when the ball went out, not attacking)

[paul_e]

You do wonder how many other weird and wonderful ways can be found to stop Villa winning matches from those, either a ref, a lino or VAR. It's no comfort a week later to see those in charge got it wrong once again...

I ask this. If we are playing the Europa League final and we concede a last minute goal that denies us and the ball had gone out of play in the build up what would you say? You don’t need to answer. We all know that we would never ever stop complaining about it.
I’d ditch VAR tomorrow (it has ruined the spectacle of football) but it was entirely correct on this occasion.

That really depends, did the ref see the ball on the line and wave paly on and was it by the oppositions corner flag?

Sure there'd be complaints, of course there would but trying to play the "don't be a hypocrite" card is a bit cheap and, as many have said, the argument is that 19 seconds is a fucking long time to go back and 4 1/2 minutes is a really fucking long time to decide that something is a 'clear and obvious' error where they're then so sure of their opinion that they didn't need the ref to review it.

[dorsetvillian]

If all the poor VAR and Ref decisions balance themselves out over a season, then we are due a few in our favour over the remaining games. A penalty would be a good start...

[Toronto Villa]

It was enitrely correct after visual evidence was produced way after the fact. In the time they had to review it during the game and even then they took ages, they couldn't prove it went out categorically. I mean, how much time do we need to give them? And if we are finding every minute infraction then VAR needs to have 100's of cameras all over the ground to find faults in the build up to a goal. Certainly then cameras following every player. There needs to be a reasonable maximum time for reviews and it won't be perfect but it will address clear and obvious errors because in 30-45 seconds we can all determine that.

[taylorsworkrate]

2-0 defeat I would bet on if I had to for this game.

The season feels quite "fizzly outey" at the moment with the injuries to the key midfielders.

[ChicagoLion]

It was enitrely correct after visual evidence was produced way after the fact. In the time they had to review it during the game and even then they took ages, they couldn't prove it went out categorically. I mean, how much time do we need to give them? And if we are finding every minute infraction then VAR needs to have 100's of cameras all over the ground to find faults in the build up to a goal. Certainly then cameras following every player. There needs to be a reasonable maximum time for reviews and it won't be perfect but it will address clear and obvious errors because in 30-45 seconds we can all determine that.

They will just make bad decisions quicker.

[Toronto Villa]

It was enitrely correct after visual evidence was produced way after the fact. In the time they had to review it during the game and even then they took ages, they couldn't prove it went out categorically. I mean, how much time do we need to give them? And if we are finding every minute infraction then VAR needs to have 100's of cameras all over the ground to find faults in the build up to a goal. Certainly then cameras following every player. There needs to be a reasonable maximum time for reviews and it won't be perfect but it will address clear and obvious errors because in 30-45 seconds we can all determine that.

They will just make bad decisions quicker.

It would just default to the on field decision quicker like it does in the NFL. So in this case in 30-45 seconds no way at all they could determine if the ball was completely out. So it's a goal.

[ROBBO]

If there had been a break in play such as a throw in before the goal would they have still referred back to the out of play? I think not, I thought the camera's were to be used for off sides and goalmouth incidents not a line call deep in defence.