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.

[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.

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.

The problem I have is that these idiots have preconceived ideas about the outcome.
I just don’t trust them. I think there is more integrity with NFL officiating.

[BoVillan esq]

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)

This is in part correct, so the decision was based on APP that is the attacking phase of play, so bailey had the ball he was running to his own touch line or base line so in a million years can not be attacking, it could also not be deemed defensive phase of play because we was in possession, plus the decision was based on an attacking decision, it could also not be deemed as a counter attacking decision because again Bailey was going back in defence not countering anything, then you take into account the time passes so it wasn't even the same phase of play, it was a goal, I would also add to that Chico Henry fouled Bailey dragging him to the ground you can see he does it, its clear as daylight, pulling bailey down caught him off balance leading to the ball going out.

Verdict, their is no way in a million years that ref either seen the incident, (ball going out) was up with play to see the incident or able to see the ball go out, he instantly made the correct decision by instinct, that is to let play flow, Villa scored and then we got robbed.

[Toronto Villa]

From Jacob Tanswell

Amadou Onana, Alysson and Ollie Watkins trained on Thursday ahead of #AVFC's trip to Bournemouth. Alysson's return had been scheduled this week, with the timeline duly followed - meanwhile Onana and Watkins hope to be fit for Saturday.

[PaulWinch again]

Let’s bloody hope so.

[SaddVillan]

Some positive injury news from The Athletic

ASTON VILLA’S OLLIE WATKINS AND AMADOU ONANA EXPECTED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR BOURNEMOUTH GAME

Amadou Onana and Ollie Watkins trained on Thursday ahead of Aston Villa’s trip to Bournemouth on Saturday.

The pair featured in Unai Emery’s session, having missed Villa’s 1-0 home defeat to Brentford the previous week.

Watkins sustained a hamstring issue in the first half of the Europa League tie against RB Salzburg a week ago. Villa decided against taking the risk of the England international playing against Brentford, with Tammy Abraham starting up front and making his second debut for the club.

Onana, meanwhile, was a curious absence and remained on the bench for the duration of the defeat. With key injuries to Boubacar Kamara, Youri Tielemans and John McGinn, Onana’s importance has grown.

Emery said after that the Belgium international had suffered “muscle tiredness” which restricted his involvement. Onana has struggled with fitness since arriving for a club record £50million fee from Everton in 2024, but had been in excellent form before missing against Brentford.

Villa will train again on Friday before travelling to Bournemouth, with the expectation of both Watkins and Onana being available. January signing, Alysson, also returned to training this week and aims to be in contention for the match.

Watkins endured a slow start to the season, but has scored eight goals in 23 Premier League games this season. Onana has dealt with hamstring issues of his own but has appeared 21 times in all competitions for Villa.