Nottingham Forest v Aston Villa Post-Match Thread

[tomd2103]

On the penalty, it's the inconsistency that absolutely boils my piss.  We seem to be the only team that has had any decisions on the in/out of play thing - the only other case I can remember being remotely similar was the one a few years back where Manure scored at West Ham.  There the ball was clearly a couple of metres beyond the touchline in the air before swinging back in, yet everyone was told that VAR couldn't intervene on that one.

Football doesn't have 'hawkeye' technology on the touchlines yet, and my understanding is that in/out is still currently the decision of the on field officials.  The linesman clearly indicated for a goal kick as soon as it happened, so I don't know why VAR even intervenes at that stage.

If VAR is going to overrule officials on this, then it also needs to start being used for goal kicks and corners.  Or just f*ck the whole thing off and make the game much more enjoyable.

VAR intervenes because of a potential penalty due to Digne deciding to call for "our ball" with his hand over his head whilst it is a still in play, and I mean 2 ft in play when he starts to call for it. He doesn't do that and VAR wouldn't be having to judge if it was out and we get the goal-kick (assuming they didn't score from the pullback before the ref blows his whistle.)

As for the West Ham example, the ball was 30 feet in the air and curling, there was no way VAR could judge if it went out, the same with our Brentford one which was a guess and shouldn't have been changed with the angles they didn't have. But in this case with the camera level with the line it is a simple and valid call to say it didn't go out so penalty.

Don't want to labour the point, but surely the process you mention in the first paragraph is not right?  The initial decision was clearly given as a goal kick and therefore how can VAR overturn that?  Think of the Rogers decision at Old Trafford last season - replays clearly showed it wasn't a foul, but we were told the decision couldn't be overturned once it had been made.  Struggling to see the difference.

Two semi-finals against two Marinakis teams and some highly questionable officiating in both.  Just saying.

The Rogers goal couldn't be given because the whistle had blown and the ball was officially dead before it rolled over the line.

The referee hadn't blown a whistle last night. He'd need very quick reactions to have done so

Hed clearly given a goal kick last night though, so the ball was dead at that point?

[Somniloquism]

Don't want to labour the point, but surely the process you mention in the first paragraph is not right?  The initial decision was clearly given as a goal kick and therefore how can VAR overturn that?  Think of the Rogers decision at Old Trafford last season - replays clearly showed it wasn't a foul, but we were told the decision couldn't be overturned once it had been made.  Struggling to see the difference.

Two semi-finals against two Marinakis teams and some highly questionable officiating in both.  Just saying.

The difference is when the ref blew his whistle. Pretty simple concept really. The ball might have appeared to go out of play but the ref can only make the onfield decision it went out AFTER the handball happened. If he had blown and made his GK decision and THEN Digne had caught it, bounced it around the area and then volleyball served it into the goal, there would be nothing VAR could have done because it all happened AFTER the whistle.

VAR couldn't get involved with Rogers goal because the ref stopped play before we put the ball into the net. Now if the GK had fouled Rogers after Rogers had gone around him and before the ref had blown the whistle, then VAR could have looked at that as it was within their remit. If the ref had waited until the goal was scored, then VAR could have looked at that. But play was called dead before the goal and so there was no goal to rule on, hence nothing VAR could check. (And pre-empting people now responding with "Manure had a penalty after the final whistle", that was because the judgement was on play that had happened before the final whilstle was blown. In that case if the penalised foul had occured just after the whistle was blown, then nothing would have been judged on).

VAR's awful decision last night was not calling the ref to review the foul on Watkins, I don't blame the ref for it as most thought it was fine in real time, including our bench and Emery as per their reactions at the time, but that is what VAR is for. The handball was not an awful officating decision but an awful decision by Digne to call for "our ball" with his arm straight up and over his head whilst the ball was still a foot inside the line.

[Bully2345]

Hed clearly given a goal kick last night though, so the ball was dead at that point?

There was about 0.3 seconds between the ball going "out" and the ball hitting Digne's hand. He'd have to have physically blown the whistle in that 0.3 seconds for the ball to be dead.

And I think Somniloquism has explained it far better than I could

[Smithy]

On the penalty, it's the inconsistency that absolutely boils my piss.  We seem to be the only team that has had any decisions on the in/out of play thing - the only other case I can remember being remotely similar was the one a few years back where Manure scored at West Ham.  There the ball was clearly a couple of metres beyond the touchline in the air before swinging back in, yet everyone was told that VAR couldn't intervene on that one.

Football doesn't have 'hawkeye' technology on the touchlines yet, and my understanding is that in/out is still currently the decision of the on field officials.  The linesman clearly indicated for a goal kick as soon as it happened, so I don't know why VAR even intervenes at that stage.

If VAR is going to overrule officials on this, then it also needs to start being used for goal kicks and corners.  Or just f*ck the whole thing off and make the game much more enjoyable.

VAR intervenes because of a potential penalty due to Digne deciding to call for "our ball" with his hand over his head whilst it is a still in play, and I mean 2 ft in play when he starts to call for it. He doesn't do that and VAR wouldn't be having to judge if it was out and we get the goal-kick (assuming they didn't score from the pullback before the ref blows his whistle.)

As for the West Ham example, the ball was 30 feet in the air and curling, there was no way VAR could judge if it went out, the same with our Brentford one which was a guess and shouldn't have been changed with the angles they didn't have. But in this case with the camera level with the line it is a simple and valid call to say it didn't go out so penalty.

Don't want to labour the point, but surely the process you mention in the first paragraph is not right?  The initial decision was clearly given as a goal kick and therefore how can VAR overturn that?  Think of the Rogers decision at Old Trafford last season - replays clearly showed it wasn't a foul, but we were told the decision couldn't be overturned once it had been made.  Struggling to see the difference.

Two semi-finals against two Marinakis teams and some highly questionable officiating in both.  Just saying.

The Rogers goal couldn't be given because the whistle had blown and the ball was officially dead before it rolled over the line.

The referee hadn't blown a whistle last night. He'd need very quick reactions to have done so

Hed clearly given a goal kick last night though, so the ball was dead at that point?

The ball isn't dead until the ref blows his whistle, and after Hutchinson tried to cross it, he looked to his linesman to see what the decision was, THEN he gave the goal kick. That all took a few seconds. So you play to the whistle. Always. It's almost the first thing you learn playing as a kid (beyond put the ball in the net). 

If the ref had blown because the linesman signalled out, but Hutchinson actually kept the ball in, facing away from goal, and then turned and Digne hacked him down in the most obvious penalty ever, it WOULDN'T be a pen because the ball would be dead ONCE the whistle was blown.

Don't think of 'dead' as whether it's crossed the line or not, think of it as only being dead because the ref blows his whistle.

[Somniloquism]

I looked at the stills of pen - none of them show that the ball at the point of contact - and in the ones I have seen - which must be either slightly before or after contact it is very close.

If you don't trust the stills, just watch the slo-mo on the TNT replay, then tell me between which frames you think the ball moved 4 inches over the line at, then moved 4 inches back the other way so it was still level with the line.

On a PC, @2:53 in, pause the video then press Full Stop key to frame forward and Comma key to frame back.

[Sexual Ealing]

It looks like we're all taking it well then.

[dave.woodhall]

Anger is an energy.

[kippaxvilla2]

Let the road rise with you.

[tomd2103]

Don't want to labour the point, but surely the process you mention in the first paragraph is not right?  The initial decision was clearly given as a goal kick and therefore how can VAR overturn that?  Think of the Rogers decision at Old Trafford last season - replays clearly showed it wasn't a foul, but we were told the decision couldn't be overturned once it had been made.  Struggling to see the difference.

Two semi-finals against two Marinakis teams and some highly questionable officiating in both.  Just saying.

The difference is when the ref blew his whistle. Pretty simple concept really. The ball might have appeared to go out of play but the ref can only make the onfield decision it went out AFTER the handball happened. If he had blown and made his GK decision and THEN Digne had caught it, bounced it around the area and then volleyball served it into the goal, there would be nothing VAR could have done because it all happened AFTER the whistle.

VAR couldn't get involved with Rogers goal because the ref stopped play before we put the ball into the net. Now if the GK had fouled Rogers after Rogers had gone around him and before the ref had blown the whistle, then VAR could have looked at that as it was within their remit. If the ref had waited until the goal was scored, then VAR could have looked at that. But play was called dead before the goal and so there was no goal to rule on, hence nothing VAR could check. (And pre-empting people now responding with "Manure had a penalty after the final whistle", that was because the judgement was on play that had happened before the final whilstle was blown. In that case if the penalised foul had occured just after the whistle was blown, then nothing would have been judged on).

VAR's awful decision last night was not calling the ref to review the foul on Watkins, I don't blame the ref for it as most thought it was fine in real time, including our bench and Emery as per their reactions at the time, but that is what VAR is for. The handball was not an awful officating decision but an awful decision by Digne to call for "our ball" with his arm straight up and over his head whilst the ball was still a foot inside the line.

On reflection, accept the point about the Rogers goal not being the same as the ref blew his whistle.  It's just the whole process rather than actually being aggrieved at the decision at this point.  So anything within a phase of play (or even before that, as shown with our disallowed goal against Brentford) can be checked by VAR even if they cannot make a definitive decision?  Just raises the question then though of why just check when there is an incident and not every time?

[eamonn]

[Beard82]

I still maintain that whether that was out or not is subjective - and your overriding one subjective decision with another.  They cant tell 100% that is wasnt out, so shouldnt override an on pitch offical.

[Somniloquism]

On reflection, accept the point about the Rogers goal not being the same as the ref blew his whistle.  It's just the whole process rather than actually being aggrieved at the decision at this point.  So anything within a phase of play (or even before that, as shown with our disallowed goal against Brentford) can be checked by VAR even if they cannot make a definitive decision?  Just raises the question then though of why just check when there is an incident and not every time?

Brentford was bad as the camera angles could not show it was out definitely and was a bad call (even if later fan footage showed it to be correct), but pretty much yes that in theory anything between whistle blows can be checked IF it leads up to a VAR remit decision (goal, penalty, sending off). There is mention of a "change of possesion" which I suspect means if the defending team foul the attacker (under non VAR review conditions) but play continues, then they win the ball legitimately and go up the other end and have a VAR remit decision, VAR doesn't take the non-called foul into decision. I suspect the cut-off is arbituary though.

Of course it also depends on "Clear and Obvious error" and what the ref states to VAR at the time. If the ref stated "My lino is calling the ball out, however I also will not be calling a penalty as although it struck his hand, it was natually up to call for ownership of possesion and hence not deliberate block", then VAR probably would not have gotten involved.

[kippaxvilla2]

Gabby saying it’s because the VAR was Portuguese and therefore in cahoots with Pereira.  Haha

[kippaxvilla2]

Lots of negativity on social media.  I think it’s because a lot of people have seen us bottle these occasions so many times there’s an expectation we’re already out.  And you can understand why.  One or two posts about the extent of forest fans and players celebrations last night though.  That should act as extra motivation.

[Somniloquism]

Gabby saying it’s because the VAR was Portuguese and therefore in cahoots with Pereira.  Haha

Gabby must post on here then as someone mentioned that in Pre-match.