Ratings & Reactions: West Ham v Villa

[limpid]

11 minutes ago, allani said:

Didn't he play advantage on the second one?  And I believe (but might be mistaken) that he waved a finger in the direction of Paqueta to indicate "last one".  One of those where if he hadn't been booked already he would probably have been carded when that move ended and yet because he had it was treated as a final warning.  Which I think is fair enough.

Just ignore the laws of the game then?

The ref has no discretion for serious foul play. If it was bad enough for a card, it's a card. No finger waving, because that's what leads to calls of inconsistency and them inventing their interpretation arbitrarily.

[Zatman]

31 minutes ago, ender4 said:

Will there be any curses left by the end of the season?

Beating United in the cup

[allani]

51 minutes ago, limpid said:

Just ignore the laws of the game then?

The ref has no discretion for serious foul play. If it was bad enough for a card, it's a card. No finger waving, because that's what leads to calls of inconsistency and them inventing their interpretation arbitrarily.

But there are "bad" yellows (bordering on red) and "soft" yellows - for example when the ref has had enough of repeated offences.  So there always has been and always will be a level of "interpretation".  If the ref is just giving decisions based on the laws of the game (which are often not completely clear cut) then we could have some really poor outcomes.  I think it's why the debate about whether referees need to have played the game at a fairly serious level comes up so often.  Intent is one of those things that is often hard to rule on and where a strict interpretation of the law doesn't always work.  We've all seen genuinely dangerous tackles waved on because the player caught a tiny bit of the ball first but was always intending to take the man and others where a player's been sent off having made a genuine attempt to play the ball and just been unlucky that in slow motion it has looked a lot worse than it really was.  They are the kind of situations where an element of human interpretation absolutely should be applied and a strict application of the laws might not result in the correct outcome.  

However, I agree that the wording of some of the post-match "rulings" sometimes has the opposite impact and add more confusion / a sense of inventing an excuse to defend a decision than should be the case.  I think this is one of those areas where actually taking a more grown up approach to the whole thing would make more sense - so firstly, play the audio of the discussion, secondly use the discussion as a genuine way of seeking advice rather than defending or overruling a decision and thirdly have closer links with the refereeing body.  I do think referees asking for VAR assistance should also be encouraged - "I think this happened but I didn't have the best view so I'd like to see it from another angle".  I do think football could take a leaf out of rugby's book in this regard - sure not everyone will agree on every decision but the fact that the players, coaches / managers and fans better understand them would be a step forward.  Nigel Owens has also done a great series of videos (semi-official I think) where he reviews big decisions - why they've been made, what the rules state and his view on either what he would have done / whether he thinks the rules were correctly applied.  That's never done with the intention of blaming an official for getting a decision wrong, it's never done to try and defend a poor / controversial decision but it's done with the genuine intention to either explain why the decision isn't always a straight "right one" or "wrong one" or to try and improve decision making in the future. 

It still feels to me like fans / players / managers are too quick to blame results on officials rather than the other patterns of the game and that the officials are too "secretive" about their decision making and more worried about the impact of getting things wrong rather than seeking to improve their decision making / consistency.  I've heard that several referees actually watch his shows to listen to his explanations and take them into consideration - rather than worrying about what he's said about them.

I've slightly strayed into more generic points around refereeing rather than specifics about Saturday's officiating so apologies about that!

Edited August 18 by allani

[Ouchmefoot]

We were brilliant at times and deserved to win but I thought that the best player on the pitch was Kudus. They have got themselves a gem there! Going straight into my FPL team

[allani]

5 hours ago, limpid said:

Perhaps you could debate them about why they feel it is. Personally the lack of consistency and accountability is telling. They appear to know they are doing a poor job and rather than dealing with it, pretend to change their interpretation of the rules making the problem worse.

And for this game, even the beeb described the penalty as "adjudged to have fouled" and the new "no more long injury time" was 8 minutes.

I don't know that they do know they are doing a poor job.  But I think they are desperate to be able to claim that they are doing a great job.  It reminds me of a firm that I worked at many years ago who would routinely churn out stats suggesting that they were achieving Customer Satisfaction values of +90%.  I remember asking them what the point of the CS surveys were - was it to improve the way we engaged with customers (and how happy they really were) or was it to get great CS stats - because that would have a dramatic impact on the way that you write the CS survey questions.  I think the issue the referees have is that a huge percentage of their "customers" think that they are only interested in showing how many times they make the right decision (even when many people think that decision is wrong!) rather than about improving their decisions and / or improving the definition of the laws so that they are more precise / easier to apply.

[Vive_La_Villa]

It must be quite rare for 3 subs to combine to score a winner. Our squad strength is encouraging.

[sheepyvillian]

I'm liking the new Champions League song. 

[troon_villan]

None of Bruce, Smith or Gerrard in recent times were very good (imo) at utilising subs, however, it's another string to Unai's bow as shown yesterday.  3 subs combing 3 touches for a goal must be pretty rare if not a first ever?

[troon_villan]

5 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

It must be quite rare for 3 subs to combine to score a winner. Our squad strength is encouraging.

Damn, you beat me to it!!

[Zatman]

11 hours ago, troon_villan said:

None of Bruce, Smith or Gerrard in recent times were very good (imo) at utilising subs, however, it's another string to Unai's bow as shown yesterday.  3 subs combing 3 touches for a goal must be pretty rare if not a first ever?

I used to love the Deano 67th minute Trezeguet for El Ghazi sub or vice versa

[CLARETANDBLUEFOXY]

1 hour ago, Zatman said:

I used to love the Deano 67th minute Trezeguet for El Ghazi sub or vice versa

Oh how far we’ve come haha 

[El Segundo]

20 hours ago, FLVillan said:

I think much of the "outrage" you speak of is exacerbated by the absolutely ridiculous explanation that was sent out by PGMOL, something to the effect off Cash "played the ball but didn't intend to play the ball."  So the VAR official is a flippin' mind reader now....?  If the statement is true (which it is literally impossible to know) then the ref would have carded Cash. About 95% of tackles result in physical contact/collisions....

Sousek was clearly intending to lean into the challenge and create contact, knowing that he had no chance of scoring due to the defensive cover and World's Best Goalkeeper.  That's my explanation as a mind-reader myself.... 

Absolutely.  Any "explanation" that mentions "intention" is automatically nonsensical unless mindreading is involved.  I remember years ago Liverpool away at Sheffield United and Gerrard ran into the area, a defender went to challenge but Gerrard knocked it beyond him then dived, with the defender still half a foot away.  The ref gave a pen (It may have well have been the infamous Graham Poll but I'm not sure) with the justification given that the defender had "intended to foul Gerrard".   Utter madness.   I can see why the pen was given, but it definitely has nothing to do with Cash's intention or not to play the ball.  I think blatant arse covering bullshit like this is one of the main reasons why people have little or no faith in PGMOL.

[6065_Villa]

Great win for the boys at a venue we always struggle at. Thought we looked good, debut goal for Onana and creating chances with West Ham hardly troubling us.

Then the ref who I thought was poor all day gave a pen that never was. In real time I thought Cash got the ball and their player looked for contact and threw himself down.

What was VAR looking at, as never a pen. Then they come out with the latest rubbish about Cash not Meaning to play the ball.

Same as the Man City game when Mings was tackled by an offside player, the rule they came out with lasted a day then changed back sharpish. The refs and VAR are diabolical

And could have cost us this game.

Anyway chuffed with the win and sets us up nicely for Saturday against the Arsenal.

 

[TRO]

21 hours ago, John said:

I popped onto KUMB this morning to see how their fans reacted to the game. Rather interesting, here are a few comments (at 0-1, the penalty, 1-2 and post match):

New Season, New Manager, Same old West Ham

Ripping through us like pound shop bog roll

Emery is a decent gaffer isn't he

Bad time to play Villa. Need to meet them fatigued up after two games a week for a few months! Fresh, they look excellent

****ing " ell We can't live with ,"em at the moment

 

No chance that's a pen

Getting overruled. Never a penalty.

Be furious if that was against us.

 

Got to laugh, we all knew it would be him.

Duran in 10 mins has looked everything you want as a striker. We have missed the a big opportunity there.

Of course it's him . Bollox

It’s deserved they have missed ridiculous chances

How the hell did we not pay asking for Duran. To miss out on him for the sake of a couple of million looks insane.

 

Villa are. Cracking team, impressive performance. Especially in the first half.

Playing Villa this early certainly wasn’t ideal and they outclassed us and could have been a hatful up by half time.

Amadou Onana is a great player by the way. So composed, imposing performance in Villa's midfield.

As is Tielemans Martinez a superb keeper They are a very good side tbf and will be in the top 6

Link: https://www.kumb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=188958&start=680

They were all fair comments John.....funny after pre-season they thought it was a bad time to play us.

I have to say, I was a bit spooked, by Pre-season and subsequently shocked, by some of our slick play in that game......shows those that think Pre-season is no indicator, was right.

outside of the headline grabbers....Tielemans, Pau and Konsa were impressive.

[TRO]

22 hours ago, Aston_Villan4 said:

No they were clearly commenting on the state of the squad and many people were worried we’d get blown out by west ham based on the preseason results. And you’re right, context is important. Emery said at least once that he was experimenting and messing around with the squad, trying new things out. Then you include missing players, new players, players returning from injury... With that context people should’ve been more understanding of odd results instead of the bed wetting that occurred.

I must be honest....I couldn't see a win either, maybe I was hoodwinked too, by pre-season.

I take your point, it is dubious to take any notice of pre-season, but I don't full comprehend what managers do in those preparations, or for that matter what happens on the training ground. I guess if I went down to watch them in training I wouldn't know what to look out for...sure I would see things, but would they be the significant things?

I suspect many fans are like me, their trained eye is for match day, that's where our experience has been gleaned from over the years.....that's why pre-season is difficult watch for some of us, as we can end up getting the wrong picture....I know I did and not proud of it.

Edited August 19 by TRO

[limpid]

Hopefully another bunch of people will now stop thinking that pre-season results mean anything.

[TRO]

21 hours ago, FLVillan said:

I think much of the "outrage" you speak of is exacerbated by the absolutely ridiculous explanation that was sent out by PGMOL, something to the effect off Cash "played the ball but didn't intend to play the ball."  So the VAR official is a flippin' mind reader now....?  If the statement is true (which it is literally impossible to know) then the ref would have carded Cash. About 95% of tackles result in physical contact/collisions....

Sousek was clearly intending to lean into the challenge and create contact, knowing that he had no chance of scoring due to the defensive cover and World's Best Goalkeeper.  That's my explanation as a mind-reader myself.... 

I agree

From another angle, it looks like Soucek shoves his backside in to Cash, and then went down like a sack of spuds....so he knew what he was doing.

If that was the other end, there would have been outrage.

[TRO]

1 minute ago, limpid said:

Hopefully another bunch of people will now stop thinking that pre-season results mean anything.

I was one of them....not proud, learnt my lesson.

I will just stick to "Unai knows what he is doing, even when the results go against us".

 

 

[TRO]

16 hours ago, allani said:

Yep.  I personally thought the ref was OK - he kept play moving pretty well.  He was pretty fair to both teams on most free kicks, etc.  I don't think we should have had a penalty with the SJM incident.  If the Cash thing had happened at the other end then I would have been screaming for a penalty.  For me Cash's angle is all wrong and whether he touched the ball or not is largely irrelevant - even if he did touch it the ball stayed within the reach of the opponent who was then prevented from playing the ball by Cash taking him down.  If Cash's touch had been solid enough to play the ball out of reach, into touch or into the area of someone else then he might have had a much better case.  But it wasn't. 

Like I say I would have been really disappointed if it hadn't been awarded at the other end.  It reminded me quite a bit of a match a few years back when we were playing Brighton (I think) and if memory serves we were 2-1 down with about 2 minutes left to play when AEG (might be wrong on the player but I think he was on the pitch because I remember thinking that awarding a penalty was basically the same as giving us a goal) was running with the ball towards the box and he basically stopped the ball and changed direction 180 degrees cutting back behind the defender who was over-committed going the other way.  The defender didn't manage to apply the brakes and took AEG down but in slow motion the ball was shown to have brushed the defenders leg.  The defender was sliding in an uncontrolled way in the wrong direction - AEG was in control of the ball and would 100% of "won" the ball without having to make any alterations to his run and was about to be in masses of space - but the penalty wasn't given because the defender "touched" the ball.  It was an awful decision because the touch was accidental, it didn't change the path of the ball and AEG remained in complete control of it before he was taken out.  I am sure that I wasn't the only Villa fan who took that decision very badly and felt that we'd been robbed.

maybe, maybe not....but I have seen similar ones given.

The cash one, at the other end, everyone would have been screaming he touched the ball first....and in my opinion, it wouldn't have been given.

I know some folk cite the touching the ball first as the determining factor, and others don't......but I think the majority of the time, it stands, so you have to have a pretty compelling case for it to be ignored and other criteria to trump it.

Soucek Imo was as committed as Cash to the tangling of legs, so a " coming together " opinion, could easily be applied on another day.

I seem to vaguely remember one like this before, with us, and the defender got the faintest of touches, and our penalty call was denied.

It doesn't matter now, with the outcome, but that could easily have marred what was a very good display from us.

Edited August 19 by TRO

[TRO]

15 hours ago, allani said:

But there are "bad" yellows (bordering on red) and "soft" yellows - for example when the ref has had enough of repeated offences.  So there always has been and always will be a level of "interpretation".  If the ref is just giving decisions based on the laws of the game (which are often not completely clear cut) then we could have some really poor outcomes.  I think it's why the debate about whether referees need to have played the game at a fairly serious level comes up so often.  Intent is one of those things that is often hard to rule on and where a strict interpretation of the law doesn't always work.  We've all seen genuinely dangerous tackles waved on because the player caught a tiny bit of the ball first but was always intending to take the man and others where a player's been sent off having made a genuine attempt to play the ball and just been unlucky that in slow motion it has looked a lot worse than it really was.  They are the kind of situations where an element of human interpretation absolutely should be applied and a strict application of the laws might not result in the correct outcome.  

However, I agree that the wording of some of the post-match "rulings" sometimes has the opposite impact and add more confusion / a sense of inventing an excuse to defend a decision than should be the case.  I think this is one of those areas where actually taking a more grown up approach to the whole thing would make more sense - so firstly, play the audio of the discussion, secondly use the discussion as a genuine way of seeking advice rather than defending or overruling a decision and thirdly have closer links with the refereeing body.  I do think referees asking for VAR assistance should also be encouraged - "I think this happened but I didn't have the best view so I'd like to see it from another angle".  I do think football could take a leaf out of rugby's book in this regard - sure not everyone will agree on every decision but the fact that the players, coaches / managers and fans better understand them would be a step forward.  Nigel Owens has also done a great series of videos (semi-official I think) where he reviews big decisions - why they've been made, what the rules state and his view on either what he would have done / whether he thinks the rules were correctly applied.  That's never done with the intention of blaming an official for getting a decision wrong, it's never done to try and defend a poor / controversial decision but it's done with the genuine intention to either explain why the decision isn't always a straight "right one" or "wrong one" or to try and improve decision making in the future. 

It still feels to me like fans / players / managers are too quick to blame results on officials rather than the other patterns of the game and that the officials are too "secretive" about their decision making and more worried about the impact of getting things wrong rather than seeking to improve their decision making / consistency.  I've heard that several referees actually watch his shows to listen to his explanations and take them into consideration - rather than worrying about what he's said about them.

I've slightly strayed into more generic points around refereeing rather than specifics about Saturday's officiating so apologies about that!

I think referee's will always get somethings wrong, no matter how much help they get from technology....because the rules themselves have gaps, and are sometimes there to exploit, if the forensic eye has a desire to do so.

I sometimes think it's prudent to keep things as simple and concise as we can...complexity causes more confusion and ambiguity, not less.

I also think, with the odd bad decision aside, most folk know what 2 tier anything looks like....and when the slightest contact is lumped in with heavy handed intentional fouling, folk get vexed. I don't think you have to have been an ex player to know that, and even they don't always agree in punditry.