Aston Villa (home) 2.00pm Sunday 17th March

Slacker

Villa we’re a different team second half and showed why they are where they are this season.
They’re a good side.

buffybegood

Brother_Sledge said:

Still fuming about the time it took VAR to rule out the late goal but it looked the right decision. Made myself feel better by replaying the Emerson handball we got away with early in the game.

Must admit I'm surprised that wasn't given, even though it looked like the Villa player just tried to hit the arm; it shouldn't have been out according to the current interpretations.

MrsGrey

Jorderz_Moyes_will_be_Moyes said:

I know that naturally happens sometimes in football,

It was also a reaction to the way Villa changed their tactics (made subs at half time etc). It was a game of two halves ;-)

thornburyiron

It is confusing. Take the scenario of Bowen and Cash going for a cross in the area, (a) the ball hits Cash on the back and then his arm, Soucek following up smashes it in. Law should say goal as there was no handball. (b) ball hits Bowen in exactly the same way and Soucek smashes it in. Law would say no goal as Bowen handled it and it led directly to a goal.
I have absolutely no idea what decisions would actually be made.

alderz

I think that, having watched the decisions back, I don’t have a problem with either of them individually. I think it’s the cumulative effect of several 50/50 calls going against us in a short space of time. That said, I think the Emerson ones a 50/50 too and we got that one go our way. We

MrsGrey

thornburyiron said:

It is confusing. Take the scenario of Bowen and Cash going for a cross in the area, (a) the ball hits Cash on the back and then his arm, Soucek following up smashes it in. Law should say goal as there was no handball. (b) ball hits Bowen in exactly the same way and Soucek smashes it in. Law would say no goal as Bowen handled it and it led directly to a goal.
I have absolutely no idea what decisions would actually be made.

it would depend if ref judged Cash handball to be a handball OFFENCE (ie, deliberate). It's likely if it bounced off another part of his body, it wouldn't be judged a handball offence - might be, depending on what else happened in the movements, where he was looking, how quick, position of armetc. But that's a judgement call.

(b) scenario, if ref does his/her job, no goal. And no argument.

thornburyiron

That’s the problem, the judgement call. The laws were tightened by IFAB for 23/24 season because the PL were kind of using their own interpretation and they insist that VAR is used consistently in every league.
In my examples above both would be correct. For goals handball is handball however it happens but for defenders it is still being open to interpretation and so is not consistent as to how the “in unnatural position or body being made bigger” allowance is viewed. The where on the arm it hits still seems randomly determined even though IFAB and the PL actually issued a graphic showing what part of the arm is not handball and it looks as if it’s about 3-4 inches below the shoulder which is not much of the arm considering the size of the ball.
The Antonio and Soucek goals were correctly disallowed in any event.

Lukerz

The inconsistency is the worst bit. Zouma v Everton & Emerson today? Surely they are either both penalties or neither are?

claretandbluesky

We still sadly lack discipline regard cards as we had three today that were two reactions and one for kicking the ball away. I think Alveraz is now out for the next two league matches and the first leg at Levurkusen due to accumulated yellow cards.

I thought the substitution of Antonio for Johnson was a bit negative. Phillips must be really surplus to requirements now it seems if Johnson is being preferred. We will miss Alvarez as he is the main DM at present and is looking more like a top DM with every passing game, he and Kudus were incredible signings and great value as well now. I would have thought Phillips would get some game time but it looks like Moyes may go for Johnson instead.

Slacker

Antonio took a bang on his shoulder and was er…. exhausted.His substitution meant Bowen was back up top where he’s played for 3-4 months so not really negative at all.

OutcastLondoner

I don’t think bringing Johnson on was negative. He’s looked much better in his couple of performances in midfield than Phillips. The only thing I’d say is I think the switch of him to the left to allow Kudus to play from the right should’ve happened earlier.

I was really impressed by the press in the first half. We forced them into lots of mistakes when they tried to play out from the back. I want to see more of that. Obviously we couldn’t keep it up the whole game but they’re a really good side and it does take a lot of work to keep the round of press up.

chicagohammer

I have been impressed with Antonio since he came back, he injects pace and power and gives defenders something to think about, taking him off, for whatever reason, and replacing him with Johnson is a step back imo.

Bowen has run the line admirably in his absence but it is not the same and having both of them available, being fully capable of running at defenders with Kudus in support is an exciting prospect to see.

I agree that Johnson looks more effective in midfield than in the back four but the switch, even if it was forced upon us, looked like a negative one to me and Villa seemed to take the initiative back from us.

For the record, I have seen Antonio’s disallowed goal and revised my opinion as the ball clearly hit his arm and not his shoulder before going in and dems the rules, he was still unlucky though as his arm was against his body and I do not know where else he was expected to put it.

Ho hum

claretandbluesky

I agree, however we re arrange the players we have still taken off an attacker for a DM.

I have also been impressed with Antonio and although he doesn't have the skill of finishing of Kudus or Bowen he is such a handful that he will always make a chance for Bowen and Kudus more likely by the havoc he can cause in that final third.

alderz

I don't feel that Johnson for Antonio is overly negative, personally, but it did coincide with Villa getting a lot more of a stranglehold on the game, so I can see why others feel that way.

IronHerb

Antonio went off, Paqueta went forward and Johnson filled in AM role was the way I saw it. It changed following the Cresswell and Ward-Prowse substitutions.

Lukerz

Ultimately, what did Moyes have available? We let Benrahma & Fornals go in the winter window. The side he had out, other than Ings, all options were defensive ones.

MrsGrey

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/live/cyxzqy96zxdt

Our game featuring heavily in Match Officials Mic’d Up with Howard Webb

3 handball questions, 2 v Villa and 1 v Burnley