Rightdm00

Do they realize they are compounding their error if they persist with this bogus interpretation of the Watkins goal. My goodness the amount of words that have to be uttered to cover up for what would have been a one sentence mea culpa. 

Why is it reporters have to write these articles second hand from a PMGOL spokesman. Why can't they just come out and clearly explain it themselves. It just further clouds everything. 

4 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

That does seem ludicrous to me, making it so a defender has to work out whether someone behind him is just about on or offside and decide whether to try and intercept it.  I think Watkins was just about onside but it was very tight, if he was actually offside when the cross came in and got played onside by the defender trying to cut out the cross it would be almost as daft as the decision over the Rodri tackle imo.

As for our goal against Sheffield United last season, that was an error with technology, not stupid human interpretation of the laws of the game.  I guess it's just used by other fans to troll us and to be fair we would probably do the same to other fans.

Exactly. They can't be serious. Schar only plays the ball because Watkins is behind him. That's a text book definition of affecting play. 

21 minutes ago, Tommo_b said:

Just read it, still an absolute piss take, just admit Moss **** up.

And claiming we benefited from the new rule on Wednesday... NO WE DIDNT!!! 
 

Christ it’s so infuriating. 

What is this madness!  It's like Trump has broken truth in 2021. Does Sky think people are that dumb? It's clear why the Watkins goal stood and it wasn't because of desperate deflection from a Newcastle defender. 

Just admit you got it wrong. Dean is a class manager. He will accept the apology and move on. Enough said. 

This team is so young I would be hesitant to assume any of them have finished developing. Also, I absolutely adore every member of this squad. They all get along swell and the performances on the pitch have been the best I've seen from Villa in over a decade. 

So my answer, none of them can leave.

1 minute ago, darrenm said:

Not that it matters now but I'm still thinking that if they drew the lines on Watkins' goal against Newcastle they would've got his knee offside

Should be the leading edge of the ball. Why is the line on Targett?

4 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Shocker

 

The language in this tweet is hilarious. "Alter their interpretation..." In other words as many have said on here John Moss screwed up and they still won't admit it . 

This game right here is when my man crush for Dean developed. Brentford destroyed us 3-0 and that was after we took Hogan off of them.  Brentford looked so good, well coached and organized. 

Didn't even know he was a Villa fan til we signed him. That sealed it right there. I was riding with Dean hell or high water. 

Side note, has Dean ever lost to Bruce?  I went back as far as 2016 and it's nothing but wins and draws. 

21 minutes ago, Muriel said:

You can't be serious? Those situations are not even remotely close to being the same? The Burnley defender gets the ball kicked onto him from about 2 meters away, and does not in any way attempt to play the ball.

You see the level of silliness if you try to use the interpretation of Schar "deliberately" playing the ball. To my eye the Burnley player reached to cut out the cross. That's a delibrate play. 

Of course it's garbage just like saying a slide tackle from a defender is a delibrate play. You can't go there it completely changes the game. 

Traore lacks the raw pace of Gabby during his hey day but he is very fast on the ball, like Jack.  When either of them skin an opponent they are 20 yards down field before the poor sap has even turned around to get back on D. 

Fulham Burnley FA cup match same thing just happened (18th minute) and it was correctly ruled offside. Burnley player cut out a cross from a Fulham attacker, deflection took the ball to an offside Fulham player and he was correctly adjuged to be offside. 

• gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
• rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
• been deliberately saved by any opponent
• A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent. 

A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area).

Schar has deflected the ball. No one would call what Schar did a pass. Under the offside rule a deflection is not considered a delibrate play. Also, based on the definition of a save in this law you could argue what Schar did was a save and a save doesn't reset an offside player. 

43 minutes ago, Adam2003 said:

I think it’s sensible planning. Get in a good CM now in case Barkley doesn’t come permanently and/or City buy Douglas Luiz. If we end up keeping all of them then fantastic.

I'd put my money on us keeping 1 of the 2. If we got both on deals to start next season that would be great news. 

1 minute ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

How do they define that?

In the most vaguest manner possible

Some of things that start a new phase include:

Ball going into touch

An attack deciding to play back to the keeper 

Fouls

Their are some more out there but I wasn't able to find a definitive list. 

19 minutes ago, Delphinho123 said:

This made me lol. 

He genuinely is. To the point where he tries mad skills and if they don’t come off, he’ll blame someone else. 

On a serious note, he’s brilliant against the lesser teams - Palace, Albion, Newcastle etc. I just worry about his work rate and defensive abilities against the better sides. I think I’d prefer Trez in those games. 

I just love how he dominates the poorer teams in the division. Can you imagine a team like Sheffield United look at our team sheet. Grealish on the left and Traore on the right. You almost have to feel bad for them at that point. 

1 minute ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Tell you what. That's a pretty damning statement of facts. I did not know that, but considering the amount of wrongly given goals I've seen this season, I'm rather baffled. Unless the VAR check purely involves the ball's movement across the chalked line. 

VAR checks the entire phase of play. Anything subjective is given an extra look. The Prem's poor usage of VAR and it's inability to communicate to it's paying customers how it's used has been quite the screw up. 

Here in the states every televised game has a rules official that will speak up when the refs do something that needs explaining. After the game, in the NBA, the league even releases a report detailing the errors made by the referee crew. The Prem definitely needs to bring some clarity to how games are officiated. The tools are there but for whatever reason they have chosen this path. 

7 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I think even if the ref flagged he would have to go for the ball as VAR would have checked the decision afterwards.  That’s what would have happened last season. 

Correct.  Flag or no flag Schar would need to play the ball because if Ollie scored VAR would check it. 

Doug poking at Grealish over his "tantrum" on the bench is so freaking cute. As a father of multiple sons I can get misty eyed at times when I see the younger generation engaging in the same shenigans I used to on the pitch. 

Playing on a team where chemistry is sky high and everyone clicks is right up there with winning in my books. 

I've played on teams where chemistry was awful and you wanted to win purely to avoid the fights and drama postmatch. Teams like that, if you aren't winning, even a small losing streak everything can go right to shit. 

This team plays for each other and I love every second of it. Dean has built such a cohesive unit that he could probably take a couple week vacation and the players would still be getting along when he returns. 

1 minute ago, Adam2003 said:

VAR is used for every goal. 

EVERY GOAL. I took this screen cap from the PL's own website. VAR checks everything related to the 4 incidents listed. It only radios down to halt play if it needs extra time to take a look.

If it's cut and dry, like Ollie being a whole step behind the ball then their is no extra time needed. 

Just now, blandy said:

It's not us arguing that a touch makes Ollie onside. It is the law and has been for a while.

Defenders or goalkeepers making a save is deliberate, but such a goal line clearance or save does no make an attacker onside. That has also been the case for ages (longer).

It doesn't have to be some type of goal line clearance. Anytime a defender attempts to play a ball with an active offside player around him, a miscontrol by the defender doesn't automatically make the attacker onside. 

For Ollie's goal, Schar attempts to play the ball purely because Ollie is behind him. Ollie is affecting play, something you specifically can't do as an offside attacker.  Steve Bruce and Newcastle would have been apoplectic if that had been the case. 

If you were watching the NBC Sports stream the announcers both commented that Ollie was onside due to being behind the ball when Targett played it. None of this nonsense over a deflection from a defender. Which just to be clear, is complete nonsense. 

People are looking at the Mings goal incorrectly. It wasn't mere fact that he touched the ball. It was his attempt to gain control by chesting it down. A "delibrate" play. Per the rules as written that would reset play. The problem is you have to ignore the fact that the entire time Rodri is actively moving towards the ball from an offside position. Just watch the replay, he makes a beeline for Mings. By the time Mings brings it down he is only a step or 2 away. Which during any normal game would be enough to flag him as offside due to the fact his is actively involving himself in the play from an offside position. 

Moss and his crew decided that Rodri didn't involve himself until Mings gained control which is farcical. It's a screwed up ruling that seems to have completely broken the state of discussion over the offside law  in the UK. Trust me no else is talking about that interpretation as being some new standard and we definitely aren't having pundits, people paid for their expertise on the game of football, going on TV and spouting dumb statements like Schar's touch was deliberate and therefore rendered Ollie onsides. 

Okay now I feel like I'm in the upside down or something. There is no way we are actually arguing that a deflection off Schar reset Ollie and made him onside. 

This is an elaborate troll, right?  It says right in the law that deflections and saves from keepers don't count as a delibrate touch. Someone just wink at me or something so I can be in on the joke too.

1 hour ago, Risso said:

The rules are quite clearly nonsense. As Dion Dublin said on MOTD, if Schär makes no attempt to play the ball and doesn’t touch it then Ollie is offside. Nonsensical as they are though, they were correctly applied tonight, but weren’t by Moss in the week.

Schar touching the ball has zero to do with Ollie being onside. Ollie is behind the ball when Targett strikes it therefore he is onside.  Can't be offside behind the ball or in your own half. A defender's action means f*ck all in situations like that. 

Interpreting the rule as they did against us versus City would break the game of football. The garbage reasoning was used by the Prem to explain away an obvious screw up by Moss and his linesmen.  I can promise you it won't be used again. 

People are confusing themselves with Ollie's goal versus Newcastle. Every goal is checked by VAR. Why they didn't draw the lines on the tv I have no clue but they definitely checked it.  Sometimes the check is so fast the ref doesn't have to hold up the kickoff. 

The goal stood because Ollie was onside when Targett played the original pass. He was behind the ball. Must have trimmed his shirt sleeves.