Another Refereeing gaff.......did this cost Villa a place in the Champions League?

[Ronners]

What's it matter the world keeps spinning! I once lost bout 3/4 of a bet I should have got back on the horses cause ours was a tin pot bookies got a rule when you bet first past the post. My horse won the race amended result placed 2nd. Had to accept it.

And that is relevant to this thread because??? UTM

[RU66]

And that is relevant to this thread because??? UTM

It cost me money! Was only the same a decision that didn't go my way or because of VAR.

[Brin]

Also Brin regarding what you have said about penalty decisions being overturned, if a Ref blows for a penalty but the ball breaks to another striker who puts the ball into the net, neither the ref or VAR can give the goal because when the ref blows the whistle during open play it automatically stops the game and any advantage that may have been had cannot be given, but VAR will then still look at the penalty decision and talk to the ref if they think he may have made a mistake. That is also why a linesman will wait to flag for offside if a player is played through on goal to see if they score, which when they put the flag up and if the goal has been scored, it can then be looked at by VAR. UTM

Ronners, that's my whole point pal. Ref blew when he thought the player had fouled the keeper thereby disallowing the goal. VAR could have and should have intervened irrespective of him blowing and informing him he got that one oh so wrong.

I'm trying to recall the Prem game from last season, Newcastle?, where the Ref blew for a penalty thereby again stopping the game. However, VAR instantly intervened, checked and told the Ref to go to the screen as he had got it wrong. By VAR's intervention of the Ref stopping the game by blowing his whistle, the situation was no different to the Villa incident therefore they can and should have over ruled the Ref with that situation and the Villa goal would have stood.

Here's another controversial example of last weekend. Probably the most respected ex official ever, Kieth Hackett was interviewed today and after giving a very comprehensive explanation of what occurred between Sheff Utd v Sunderland he concluded had he been the Ref on the day, he would have awarded the goal as the keeper had a full view of the ball irrespective the Blades player being in an offside position as he wasn't interfering with play when the ball went in. Work that one out

[Ronners]

Ronners, that's my whole point pal. Ref blew when he thought the player had fouled the keeper thereby disallowing the goal. VAR could have and should have intervened irrespective of him blowing and informing him he got that one oh so wrong.

I'm trying to recall the Prem game from last season, Newcastle?, where the Ref blew for a penalty thereby again stopping the game. However, VAR instantly intervened, checked and told the Ref to go to the screen as he had got it wrong. By VAR's intervention of the Ref stopping the game by blowing his whistle, the situation was no different to the Villa incident therefore they can and should have over ruled the Ref with that situation and the Villa goal would have stood.

Here's another controversial example of last weekend. Probably the most respected ex official ever, Kieth Hackett was interviewed today and after giving a very comprehensive explanation of what occurred between Sheff Utd v Sunderland he concluded had he been the Ref on the day, he would have awarded the goal as the keeper had a full view of the ball irrespective the Blades player being in an offside position as he wasn't interfering with play when the ball went in. Work that one out

Brin, the ref didn't disallow the villa goal, it hadn't been scored when he blew the whistle for what he thought was a foul. You keep mentioning about penalties being overturned, which they are, but the referees in those instants have given a decision on something that has actually happened before the ref blows the whistle for the penalty, and that's why VAR can look at it, and also why the villa disallowed goal couldn't have been overturned because,as I said, it hadn't been scored at the time the referee stopped the game. Once the referee has blown to stop the game, nothing counts until he blows to restart the game. UTM

[Ronners]

Here's another controversial example of last weekend. Probably the most respected ex official ever, Kieth Hackett was interviewed today and after giving a very comprehensive explanation of what occurred between Sheff Utd v Sunderland he concluded had he been the Ref on the day, he would have awarded the goal as the keeper had a full view of the ball irrespective the Blades player being in an offside position as he wasn't interfering with play when the ball went in. Work that one out

I thought the sheff utd disallowed goal was a close call but the right decision. Hackett is right that the goalkeeper had a full view of the ball as it was struck, but I thought the blades player who was in an offside position was just too close to the keeper and possibly impeded his attempt to stop the ball going in. UTM

[GlennMiller]

My immediate judgement was that the Burrows' goal should have stood as Patterson had clear sight when the shot was struck and the offside Blades' player didn't impede his ability to get to the ball. That said, it would have been controversial and VAR went for the safe option.

On the Villa disallowed goal, Ronners is spot on. Once the whistle is blown the game stops and anything that happens afterwards is irrelevant - hence no goal. Tough, but them's the rules.

[Brin]

My immediate judgement was that the Burrows' goal should have stood as Patterson had clear sight when the shot was struck and the offside Blades' player didn't impede his ability to get to the ball. That said, it would have been controversial and VAR went for the safe option.

On the Villa disallowed goal, Ronners is spot on. Once the whistle is blown the game stops and anything that happens afterwards is irrelevant - hence no goal. Tough, but them's the rules.

Glenn I concede, after further reviewing it, in the fact the Ref did blow before it hit the net but it was a shocking decision in the end.

I'll be having a word with that bloody Ronners when I see him next

[Ronners]

My immediate judgement was that the Burrows' goal should have stood as Patterson had clear sight when the shot was struck and the offside Blades' player didn't impede his ability to get to the ball. That said, it would have been controversial and VAR went for the safe option.

On the Villa disallowed goal, Ronners is spot on. Once the whistle is blown the game stops and anything that happens afterwards is irrelevant - hence no goal. Tough, but them's the rules.

I did think the Burrows goal was a close call Glenn but whereas you thought he didn't impede the keeper I thought that he maybe did, not that he definitely did, that's how close a call it was for me and I wouldn't have been that surprised if the goal had been given.
Now we just have to make Brin realise the rules of the game, and what happens when the referee has blown his whistle to stop the game. I remember Welsh referee Clive Thomas in the 1978 world Cup in Argentina with Brazil playing Sweden, and Brazil got a corner in time added on with the score at 1-1. Clive Thomas blew the full time whistle whilst the corner was coming over and Brazil scored, but the goal couldn't be given as the referee had blown for full time, I think everyone on here will remember that. UTM

[Ronners]

Glenn I concede, after further reviewing it, in the fact the Ref did blow before it hit the net but it was a shocking decision in the end.

I'll be having a word with that bloody Ronners when I see him next

You'll need 3 words Brin......"You were right" 😆 UTM

[GlennMiller]

Clive Thomas blew the full time whistle whilst the corner was coming over and Brazil scored, but the goal couldn't be given as the referee had blown for full time, I think everyone on here will remember that. UTM

Ronners - it's an interesting point about when a Ref should blow for full time. To my knowledge, Refs are given some leeway to wait until an attack concludes before blowing the whistle. This always seems incongruous to me as once time is up, surely it should be up? A few seasons ago at NYS, I recall the Ref taking this rule to the extreme and letting play continue as long as it took the Owls to score - 11 minutes I think!!

Brin - you're correct - it was a shocking decision!