DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 84310--------------------------------------------------
C KAVANAGH - Villa v AFCB
DIR By: TheThingFromLewes
Date: October 26, 2024, 10:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Haven’t seen any footage but 12 yellows this afternoon at Villa
Park. It didn’t sound a tempestuous match watching the Soccer
Saturday.
Looking forward to the succinct analysis from bmb later.
#Post#: 84311--------------------------------------------------
Re: C KAVANAGH - Villa v AFCB
DIR By: Hendo
Date: October 26, 2024, 11:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: TheThingFromLewes link ---
>
> Haven’t seen any footage but 12 yellows this afternoon at
Villa Park. It didn’t sound a tempestuous match watching the
Soccer Saturday.
>
> Looking forward to the succinct analysis from bmb later.
>
--- End Quote ---
13 according to the BBC site
#Post#: 84312--------------------------------------------------
Re: C KAVANAGH - Villa v AFCB
DIR By: bmb
Date: October 26, 2024, 11:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hendo link ---
>
> [quote author=TheThingFromLewes
link=topic=6380.msg84310#msg84310 date=1729958377]
> Haven’t seen any footage but 12 yellows this afternoon at
Villa Park. It didn’t sound a tempestuous match watching the
Soccer Saturday.
>
> Looking forward to the succinct analysis from bmb later.
>
--- End Quote ---
13 according to the BBC site
[/quote]
12 correct and there can be no complaints for any of them. Only
1 I disagree with was the one on Semenyo, he was booked for
simulation but the replay shows he was clearly kicked on the
foot. Wasn't a penalty, imo, but not simulation either.
#Post#: 84320--------------------------------------------------
Re: C KAVANAGH - Villa v AFCB
DIR By: Claretman
Date: October 26, 2024, 5:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
7 yellows for Villa 6 for the cherries plus one for a cherries
bench member just after the equaliser.
Kavanagh looked right in the zone from getting out of the car.
A very entertaining game despite Kavanagh having arm ache at
full time.
It was quite free flowing, most of the cards were issued for
fouls resulting after player mistakes.
Good performance by Kavanagh, always in control, fitness levels
good, foul detection consistent as were the sanctions.
Carded Onana in the fourth minute and the players ensured it
didnt end there.
The only questionable cards were as bmb says for Semenyo and
possibly for Unal when he was carded for delaying the restart.
Good teamwork from Scholes/Kavanagh/Var when Mcginn ‘scored’ but
the ball had gone out of play over the goal line before it was
passed to McGinn.
Kavanagh immediately stayed close to the penalty area, arms out
stretched telling the players to hang on, no doubt Scholes had
told him over the comms the ball had gone out of play which
would have been relayed to var to check.
The goalkeeper in the shirt colour not to be mentioned (away)
was the man of the match with a string of very good saves.
Villa faded in the latter stages, gave far too many fouls away
and Cherries just about deserved the equaliser from the free
kick awarded for the last of the fouls, due their never say die
attitude.
Think Kavanagh can be happy with his efforts despite bmb being
able to knit a sweater from the amounts of yellow brandished.
#Post#: 84327--------------------------------------------------
Re: C KAVANAGH - Villa v AFCB
DIR By: ARF
Date: October 27, 2024, 4:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: bmb link ---
>
> [quote author=Hendo link=topic=6380.msg84311#msg84311
date=1729958547]
> [quote author=TheThingFromLewes
link=topic=6380.msg84310#msg84310 date=1729958377]
> Haven’t seen any footage but 12 yellows this afternoon at
Villa Park. It didn’t sound a tempestuous match watching the
Soccer Saturday.
>
> Looking forward to the succinct analysis from bmb later.
>
--- End Quote ---
13 according to the BBC site
[/quote]
12 correct and there can be no complaints for any of them. Only
1 I disagree with was the one on Semenyo, he was booked for
simulation but the replay shows he was clearly kicked on the
foot. Wasn't a penalty, imo, but not simulation either.
[/quote]
I'd disagree with you disagreeing with the caution for
simulation - definitely looked like he had already started
throwing himself to the floor before any incidental contact!
#Post#: 84332--------------------------------------------------
Re: C KAVANAGH - Villa v AFCB
DIR By: TheThingFromLewes
Date: October 27, 2024, 6:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps he was trying to counteract the vile orange he had on
with the cover of yellow cards! 😜
#Post#: 84359--------------------------------------------------
Re: C KAVANAGH - Villa v AFCB
DIR By: Mr Castilli
Date: October 27, 2024, 12:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
13 yellows but al seemed on the ball, Kavanagh has been on the
ball lately … really enjoyed watching his performance on
Saturday, he needs to keep this level up
#Post#: 84400--------------------------------------------------
Re: C KAVANAGH - Villa v AFCB
DIR By: bmb
Date: October 28, 2024, 2:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dale Johnson's VAR review:
Posted in full - no edits - text only no images.
HTML https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/41978432/man-united-west-ham-penalty-arsenal-liverpool-ten-hag-review-var<br
/>
Possible ball out of play: McGinn goal
What happened: Aston Villa took the lead in the 27th minute
through John McGinn. However, AFC Bournemouth players had
appealed for the ball being out of play in the buildup when
Ollie Watkins had attempted to keep it in. It was checked by
Matt Donohue, who was acting as VAR for the first time.
VAR decision: Goal disallowed.
VAR review: Arsenal fans will be triggered by the goal scored
against them by Newcastle United almost a year ago to the day.
In that match at St James' Park, there was uncertainty about Joe
Willock keeping the ball in play in the buildup to Anthony
Gordon scoring the only goal of the game.
So, why was the VAR in this game able to intervene and disallow
the goal, yet wasn't in Newcastle-Arsenal? It all comes down to
the position of the play and the available camera angle.
Willock was close to the corner flag, an area not covered by the
goal-line camera as, understandably, the primary focus is the
goal itself. So the VAR, Andy Madley, had to use a camera that
wasn't directly in line, and due to the curvature of the ball it
was difficult to be certain the whole of it was over the line.
Watkins was within the goal-line camera, so the VAR has the best
possible view. It was very close, but "daylight" looks to be
present between the ball and the line.
A more direct comparison comes from Manchester United vs.
Brighton & Hove Albion last September. Rasmus Højlund thought he
had equalised, but there was a check for the ball being out of
play before it was cut back by Marcus Rashford.
Just like Watkins, Rashford was within the goal-line camera and
the VAR was able to be certain that the ball was out.
Verdict: It was certainly a close call, but the evidence is
there that the whole of the ball was over the line ... just.
Possible penalty: Cash challenge on Semenyo
What happened: Bournemouth were on the attack in the 80th minute
when Antoine Semenyo went to ground when trying to go past Matty
Cash. Referee Chris Kavanagh blew his whistle, but to book
Semenyo for a dive.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: The VAR is looking at both the actions of the
attacker, and any contact from the defending player.
While Cash slides in to make a challenge, Semenyo is already
going to ground before there's any contact between the two
players.
If this had been awarded as a penalty, the VAR wouldn't have
intervened due to the contact from the defender (remember the
spot kick Newcastle United's Anthony Gordon won against
Manchester City), but at the same time the way the attacker goes
down means it won't be seen as a clear and obvious error not to
give and penalty.
And this is where VAR protocol gets very confusing for fans. You
can argue it's not a penalty, but also not truly a dive either.
So, is it a clear and obvious error to book Semenyo? And if so,
does that mean the overall decision should be reviewed? But VAR
cannot get involved in yellow cards, so will only send the
referee to the monitor if a penalty has been missed, and for no
other reason.
Verdict: Not enough for a VAR penalty.
Possible penalty: Handball by Bailey
What happened: Bournemouth won a corner in the 84th minute. As
it dropped over the head of Leon Bailey it hit the Aston Villa
player's arm. David Brooks, who was behind Bailey waiting for
the ball, appealed for a penalty.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: Had this incident happened last season, there's a
strong chance it would have been a VAR penalty. But this season,
the arm really does have to be fully extended. The only handball
penalty was given against Cash at Fulham last weekend when his
arm was pointing out from his body.
Both of Bailey's arms are in a similar position as he spins to
follow the dropping ball, and the argument is this is natural
movement and not a deliberate act.
We saw two similar situations not result in a handball penalty
earlier this season in a game between Nottingham Forest and
Wolverhampton Wanderers, including when the ball dropped the arm
of Jørgen Strand Larsen as Chris Wood waited to collect the
ball.
Verdict: Consistent with other handball decisions this season.
#Post#: 84402--------------------------------------------------
Re: C KAVANAGH - Villa v AFCB
DIR By: Claretman
Date: October 28, 2024, 2:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: bmb link ---
>
> Dale Johnson's VAR review:
> Posted in full - no edits - text only no images.
>
HTML https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/41978432/man-united-west-ham-penalty-arsenal-liverpool-ten-hag-review-var
>
> Possible ball out of play: McGinn goal
>
> What happened: Aston Villa took the lead in the 27th minute
through John McGinn. However, AFC Bournemouth players had
appealed for the ball being out of play in the buildup when
Ollie Watkins had attempted to keep it in. It was checked by
Matt Donohue, who was acting as VAR for the first time.
>
> VAR decision: Goal disallowed.
>
> VAR review: Arsenal fans will be triggered by the goal scored
against them by Newcastle United almost a year ago to the day.
In that match at St James' Park, there was uncertainty about Joe
Willock keeping the ball in play in the buildup to Anthony
Gordon scoring the only goal of the game.
>
> So, why was the VAR in this game able to intervene and
disallow the goal, yet wasn't in Newcastle-Arsenal? It all comes
down to the position of the play and the available camera angle.
>
> Willock was close to the corner flag, an area not covered by
the goal-line camera as, understandably, the primary focus is
the goal itself. So the VAR, Andy Madley, had to use a camera
that wasn't directly in line, and due to the curvature of the
ball it was difficult to be certain the whole of it was over the
line.
>
> Watkins was within the goal-line camera, so the VAR has the
best possible view. It was very close, but "daylight" looks to
be present between the ball and the line.
>
> A more direct comparison comes from Manchester United vs.
Brighton & Hove Albion last September. Rasmus Højlund thought he
had equalised, but there was a check for the ball being out of
play before it was cut back by Marcus Rashford.
>
> Just like Watkins, Rashford was within the goal-line camera
and the VAR was able to be certain that the ball was out.
>
> Verdict: It was certainly a close call, but the evidence is
there that the whole of the ball was over the line ... just.
>
> Possible penalty: Cash challenge on Semenyo
>
> What happened: Bournemouth were on the attack in the 80th
minute when Antoine Semenyo went to ground when trying to go
past Matty Cash. Referee Chris Kavanagh blew his whistle, but to
book Semenyo for a dive.
>
> VAR decision: No penalty.
>
> VAR review: The VAR is looking at both the actions of the
attacker, and any contact from the defending player.
>
> While Cash slides in to make a challenge, Semenyo is already
going to ground before there's any contact between the two
players.
>
> If this had been awarded as a penalty, the VAR wouldn't have
intervened due to the contact from the defender (remember the
spot kick Newcastle United's Anthony Gordon won against
Manchester City), but at the same time the way the attacker goes
down means it won't be seen as a clear and obvious error not to
give and penalty.
>
> And this is where VAR protocol gets very confusing for fans.
You can argue it's not a penalty, but also not truly a dive
either. So, is it a clear and obvious error to book Semenyo? And
if so, does that mean the overall decision should be reviewed?
But VAR cannot get involved in yellow cards, so will only send
the referee to the monitor if a penalty has been missed, and for
no other reason.
>
> Verdict: Not enough for a VAR penalty.
>
> Possible penalty: Handball by Bailey
>
> What happened: Bournemouth won a corner in the 84th minute. As
it dropped over the head of Leon Bailey it hit the Aston Villa
player's arm. David Brooks, who was behind Bailey waiting for
the ball, appealed for a penalty.
>
> VAR decision: No penalty.
>
> VAR review: Had this incident happened last season, there's a
strong chance it would have been a VAR penalty. But this season,
the arm really does have to be fully extended. The only handball
penalty was given against Cash at Fulham last weekend when his
arm was pointing out from his body.
>
> Both of Bailey's arms are in a similar position as he spins to
follow the dropping ball, and the argument is this is natural
movement and not a deliberate act.
>
> We saw two similar situations not result in a handball penalty
earlier this season in a game between Nottingham Forest and
Wolverhampton Wanderers, including when the ball dropped the arm
of Jørgen Strand Larsen as Chris Wood waited to collect the
ball.
>
> Verdict: Consistent with other handball decisions this season.
>
--- End Quote ---
Extremely good insight and explanations from Dale. Thanks for
posting bmb
#Post#: 84418--------------------------------------------------
Re: C KAVANAGH - Villa v AFCB
DIR By: bmb
Date: October 29, 2024, 10:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: TheThingFromLewes link ---
>
> Perhaps he was trying to counteract the vile orange he had on
with the cover of yellow cards! 😜
>
--- End Quote ---
Was watching our fans Vlog earlier and they showed a clip from
last years fixture - team ref were in orange that day as well!
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page