Utd v villa

[DavidObs]

Agree that the outcome of the decision would have been unchanged, however, the controversy surrounding it would, almost certainly, have been minimised.

Imho he was in a no win situation. On one hand we want Referee’s to make decisions without having to rely on VAR and on the other, it is considered that had he allowed play to continue then the controversy could have been minimised - though perhaps not with RustyRef suggesting that the incident may not have even been referred to VAR. If this was the case, then I suggest it could have even looked messier if he had allowed the ball to have been placed into the goal net before bringing play back to award a free kick.

 

[Russell Jones]

Agree that the outcome of the decision would have been unchanged, however, the controversy surrounding it would, almost certainly, have been minimised.

In no way convinced by this argument. Reality is that this decision, like so many others in football, was an incredibly marginal call. It would have been controversial either way, doubly so given the importance to Villa of this game. The controversy would simply have switched to ‘why on earth has VAR not intervened?’. Especially in a world where understanding of GK control of the ball is patchy at best.

 

[Big Cat]

"Delaying the flag/whistle for an offence is only permissible in a very clear attacking situation when a player is about to score a goal or has a clear run into/towards the opponents’ penalty area"

It doesn't matter how convinced, if this situation arises, then it's a case of delaying the whistle until play stops or moves into a neutral zone.

Refereeing is difficult enough given the crypto rules and EVERYTHING else. Can you imagine factoring extra crap like all that. Ultimately, we're all losers as a result of this outcome and we're collectively complicit because we do what gets us promoted rather than what it intuitively right

 

[Wolf_Ref]

Why is the law there? To protect GKs. I think referee does a fast whistle, looks very much like he has control of the ball in real time.

I feel for both sides of the argument but to call this a howler I think, is harsh.

GKs put their faces/bodies in the line of fire and if we don’t protect them, these are the injuries that can be very nasty.

 

[Big Cat]

Why is the law there? To protect GKs. I think referee does a fast whistle, looks very much like he has control of the ball in real time.

I feel for both sides of the argument but to call this a howler I think, is harsh.

GKs put their faces/bodies in the line of fire and if we don’t protect them, these are the injuries that can be very nasty.

I don't agree. Genuinely respectfully though as we've gotten on ok for many years
When i talk about my own dejection with refereeing, this safe disease is one of the core issues. I can't represent. It's only right in Law because the weak culture has leaned that way

Whenever a referee tells me he'll take soft decensive fouls all day but wants 110% on offensive fouls, i know that what that referee is. Usually CORE and choking on promotion. I totally ignore the instruction and give fouls either way when it's a foul. My brain will not accomodate such nonesense

 

[socal lurker]

Why is the law there? To protect GKs. I think referee does a fast whistle, looks very much like he has control of the ball in real time.

I feel for both sides of the argument but to call this a howler I think, is harsh.

GKs put their faces/bodies in the line of fire and if we don’t protect them, these are the injuries that can be very nasty.

For the games most of us do, where we don't have VAR, this is correct. But at the professional level, the expectation isn't the same.

I think the ball was sufficiently loose that VAR should have reversed the call (if it had been subject to review). But whether or not that is true, the protocol is that the whistle should not have been blown quickly when there is an immediate chance to score

 

[socal lurker]

TB is convinced the goalkeeper has touched the ball (& not a save), so from his point of view, no requirement to allow play to continue.

Has touched isn't the standard for possession. Is touching is the standard in the poorly worded mismash of language.

Unlike some others here, I do think it should have been reversed by VAR--pretty clear the the GK is not touching the ball when the attacker does. (Should and would, of course, are very different in the world of VAR, particularly in the PL.)

 

[Wolf_Ref]

I think it is a wrong decision in hindsight. Agree with comments here.

But. The law is there to protect GKs and I understand (not necessarily agree) with the whistle.

 

[Lucarelli99]

Honestly in one of my games I'm giving this every time because it's what everybody playing expects, as for the professional game though it's up for debate.....

 

[pankaye]

Why is the law there? To protect GKs. I think referee does a fast whistle, looks very much like he has control of the ball in real time.

I feel for both sides of the argument but to call this a howler I think, is harsh.

GKs put their faces/bodies in the line of fire and if we don’t protect them, these are the injuries that can be very nasty.

THIS.

to stop overehuberant strikers smashing keepers hands. Cannot fault referee for this

 

[Big Cat]

Agree that the outcome of the decision would have been unchanged, however, the controversy surrounding it would, almost certainly, have been minimised.

VAR would have disallowed it. Prob just as well it didnt go to them. Would've just made it worse. VAR is the primary disease. Theyd have found forensics to stay safe
Keep in mind im black and white. Shows i can be entrirely impartial.

 

[Ganajin]

Incidentally, in the Law changes for 25-26 this Law has been altered. After talking about giving a corner if the keeper holds on to the ball for over 8 seconds it lists the times that the keeper has possession: and all the stuff about the ball being between hand and body or hand and any other surface is still there, but the line about touching the ball with any part of hand or arm has been taken out.

 

[one]

We live in a culture where the referee is blamed for any outcome that a player, fan or pundit doesn't like. Heck sometimes the just blame the referee no matter the outcome. Here are a the options the referee had

• Do what he did
• Wait for the goal to be scored and then blow the whistle
• Allow the goal without blowing the whistle

You can think of other decisions, but no matter which, and regardless of VAR involvement, if any, there would have still been controversy, if not bigger than the current one. And the referee would have been blamed the for loss of the team that didn't get ethe decision by all involved.

@Big Cat while I agree with you on the cowardliness of safe refereeing, I think this was more of the referee thinking he is making the right decision rather than the safe decision. When either side of the decision is a big outcome, there is no safety for the referee.

 

[JamesL]

In no way convinced by this argument. Reality is that this decision, like so many others in football, was an incredibly marginal call. It would have been controversial either way, doubly so given the importance to Villa of this game. The controversy would simply have switched to ‘why on earth has VAR not intervened?’. Especially in a world where understanding of GK control of the ball is patchy at best.

I said minimise not eradicate.

What then happens is instead of VAR can't intervene because play was stopped we at least get a proper explanation as to why the VAR intervened or not. So the decision itself, rather than the referees action of stopping play is the controversy, which I think is the lesser evil.

It may very well, and probably would have been controversial, as @one points out quite well in his post.

 

[JamesL]

Refereeing is difficult enough given the crypto rules and EVERYTHING else. Can you imagine factoring extra crap like all that. Ultimately, we're all losers as a result of this outcome and we're collectively complicit because we do what gets us promoted rather than what it intuitively right

I'm not going to argue with you. I was only replying to a comment saying he didn't continue play due to his own conviction, which whether we agree with the protocols in place, is not what would be expected in that scenario

 

[Russell Jones]

I said minimise not eradicate.

What then happens is instead of VAR can't intervene because play was stopped we at least get a proper explanation as to why the VAR intervened or not. So the decision itself, rather than the referees action of stopping play is the controversy, which I think is the lesser evil.

It may very well, and probably would have been controversial, as @one points out quite well in his post.

Very fair. I, of course, agree that following correct protocol would at least have avoided the harshest complaints. I think I just reacted to the word “minimise”, as a reduction from a 10/10 level of complaint to 8-9/10 wouldn’t change the overall unhelpful tone of the discussion

 

[El__Juez__]

Very interesting to see TBs record this season. His first game in charge was the National League game.

Without wading into the debate as to whether the decision was right or wrong, the question on my mind is why officials such as Attwell, Oliver, Tierney and Brooks were VARs in week 38 and not in the middle for the United v Villa match. What is the appointment criteria?

 

[DavidObs]

View attachment 8174

Very interesting to see TBs record this season. His first game in charge was the National League game.

Without wading into the debate as to whether the decision was right or wrong, the question on my mind is why officials such as Attwell, Oliver, Tierney and Brooks were VARs in week 38 and not in the middle for the United v Villa match. What is the appointment criteria?

TB has had a strange season as his appointments show and I

View attachment 8174

Very interesting to see TBs record this season. His first game in charge was the National League game.

Without wading into the debate as to whether the decision was right or wrong, the question on my mind is why officials such as Attwell, Oliver, Tierney and Brooks were VARs in week 38 and not in the middle for the United v Villa match. What is the appointment criteria?

TB has had a strange season shown from your stats both in terms of the Leagues he has been officiating on, as well as the number of appearances - Anthony Taylor has undertaken 42 appearances. It appears TB has been absent for periods of time, either from injury, personal circumstances, 4th official etc. However, it should also be taken into account that he was praised for his performance in a PL game prior to this one in question. To a large degree, we have to trust the appointment officers appointments - he/she knows what goes on more than any of us from afar imo.

 

[ladbroke8745]

Taking the law into account, why do you think TB was incorrect:

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:

• the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by ‘touching it with any part of the hands or arms’, except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
• holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
• bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).

This image, I think, shows the keeper is more in control of the ball as per the laws.
To me, this shows the ball between the keepers hands as Rogers goes to challenge him.

 

[Big Cat]

I think you're all missing something. If the goal had stood and VAR had remained quiet, the game would've got the expected decision and the controversy would've been minimal as we all know the pundits wouldn't know about the 'any contact' statement