Aston Villa 1-4 West Ham Utd (31/10/21)

[mushy]

That's it mushy... the Dove race/bet is said to have taken place in 1898/99, when West Ham were still the Ironworks.

And the extensive research of the aforementioned KUMBers concluded West Ham didn't wear claret and blue shirts in their current format until 1903/04 (IIRC).

By which time Dove had long since departed (last game 1901), our colours of Claret and blue had already been established, first of all an all light blue top, white shorts with a claret stripe running on the side, then the following season a light blue shirt with one broad claret stripe claret across the chest. neither of these kits were ever worn by Villa though. The 1903 kit (the traditional claret and blue sleeves) was very similar to the one worn by Villa in 1900. I suppose they could have been kept in a bag for three years somewhere but it seems very unlikely to me.

[irving boleyn]

Bowen really put in the miles - iirc he was near the Villa box when their keeper took possession. Ran all the way back to defend outside our box, and broke quickly as shown in the video.
Fantastic effort.

Terrific effort but again a wrong decision by him to shoot when Fournals had an open goal and was in the same position as Bowen was when Lanzini crossed to him. Gut bursting run from Fournals to get there.

[SiO]

Just rewatched the Villa red card(s)... I'm wondering how hacked off a Villa supporter would have felt if they'd both gone. It seems that the first ought to have been a red, but had the ref stopped it there and then, the second offence wouldn't have happened by definition. Is there an argument that if you bring back play for a 1st offence, the subsequent ones shouldn't count. A double red, on an advantage call, seems a controversial one to me although I can defo see the logic behind it.

Am I alone in this? I expect so

[Hampshire Hammer]

Just rewatched the Villa red card(s)... I'm wondering how hacked off a Villa supporter would have felt if they'd both gone. It seems that the first ought to have been a red, but had the ref stopped it there and then, the second offence wouldn't have happened by definition. Is there an argument that if you bring back play for a 1st offence, the subsequent ones shouldn't count. A double red, on an advantage call, seems a controversial one to me although I can defo see the logic behind it.

Am I alone in this? I expect so

To be honest the same thought had crossed my mind, I still can't believe that the VAR official didn't call the ref's attention to the first offence as every time I've watched it it looks like a clear straight red. The rules seem to imply that the second can't be denial of a goal scoring opportunity if the first is given but, as the ref seemingly played advantage, he could have sent both off I believe (I don't honestly think that a ref would have done it though).

[Up the Junction]

Is there an argument that if you bring back play for a 1st offence, the subsequent ones shouldn't count.

According to the letter of the law, both should've gone.

Mark Halsey thinks so too.

http://www.kumb.com/story.php?id=136387

[SiO]

So, does poor refereeing (missing first offence) when there was less of an advantage potentially cost Villa or any other team for that matter, twice? Seems a little strange. I guess of two physical assaults happened on the pitch that'd be more logical but a professional foul in a phase of play that ought not to have existed seems, somehow, slightly more contentious to my mind.

[Estuary]

So, does poor refereeing (missing first offence) when there was less of an advantage potentially cost Villa twice?

Wasn't just the poor reffing, the VAR guy must be blind if he can replay that forearms smash as much as he did and still think its not an automatic red.
I think both should have gone. Villa tried to equalise the gulf in quality with rough housing all game, look at our third goal, Antonio got slam dunked after heading on for Bowen to go through during the build up.
The OPV is full of utter bilge about Bowen pushing a player over and not getting a red card, it is clutching at tsraws in agme they could have ended with 8 men and nobody outside Brum would think it was unfair. They totally ignore things like Targett on Antonio which was an amazing assault, in fact there's more confirmation bias in this weeks edition than usual, it seems many are yet to awaken to the fact that they have been a one man team for years, and that they looked to get more from games by that player diving at any given opportunity so they could retain the ball. The reality will dawn on them come Feb when they are fighting not to accompany Norwich and Newcastle into the Championship. (Yes I think they are that bad)

[Up the Junction]

They totally ignore things like Targett on Antonio which was an amazing assault.

Yes. Another 'assault' that deserved sanction.

[SiO]

Couldn't agree more Estuary... Looked like an old WWFstyle bulldog on Antonio for Bowens goal, and the tactics revolved around roughing us up, but still shouldnt make the second incident even happen to warrant a red as, as you intimate, the ref should have blown up immediately. I think if we had two players out for 3 matches, albeit correctly by letter of law, we'd be fuming at ref for allowing game to be dragged back twice. By the way, I think the 2nd was a little harsh anyway. I'd have been angry at that being a clear goal scoring opportunity

[blahblahblah]

Terrific effort but again a wrong decision by him to shoot when Fournals had an open goal and was in the same position as Bowen was when Lanzini crossed to him. Gut bursting run from Fournals to get there.

In the clip below, I do not see any point at which Bowen could have passed the ball to Fornals. He could've led him, but I think the defender would have intercepted any pass. As someone pointed out earlier, Fornals only scores because he goes wide of the goal in anticipation of a save or off the post.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/HappygoluckyG ... mobile.mp4

[mushy]

In the clip below, I do not see any point at which Bowen could have passed the ball to Fornals. He could've led him, but I think the defender would have intercepted any pass. As someone pointed out earlier, Fornals only scores because he goes wide of the goal in anticipation of a save or off the post.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/HappygoluckyG ... mobile.mp4

Agreed, Bowen has every right to shoot.

[Estuary]

Couldn't agree more Estuary... Looked like an old WWFstyle bulldog on Antonio for Bowens goal, and the tactics revolved around roughing us up, but still shouldnt make the second incident even happen to warrant a red as, as you intimate, the ref should have blown up immediately. I think if we had two players out for 3 matches, albeit correctly by letter of law, we'd be fuming at ref for allowing game to be dragged back twice. By the way, I think the 2nd was a
little harsh anyway. I'd have been angry at that being a clear goal scoring opportunity

Mate, Tony Gale was deemed to be stopping a clear goal scoring opportunity and he was 30 yards out and Crosby was going towards the touch line not the goal, if that can be given at Villa Park the Bowen one is a nailed on red!!

[SiO]

Mate, Tony Gale was deemed to be stopping a clear goal scoring opportunity and he was 30 yards out and Crosby was going towards the touch line not the goal, if that can be given at Villa Park the Bowen one is a nailed on red!!

Ah yeah, the work of Hackett!!! Still gets my blood up, although the singing that proceeded it was and remains a stand out moment in following the club. Pride doesn't begin to describe the support that day...

... so yeah **** them. 2 reds it is. Some small payback even if it's the retribution is against Villa Park and not Forest.

[Eggchaser]

The OPV is full of utter bilge about Bowen pushing a player over and not getting a red card,

What makes me laugh about that is that the ref yellow carded both Bowen and McGinn for the pushing, so if Bowen had been red carded, McGinn would have had to be too as they were guilty of the same offence.
I'm at a loss as to how that would have helped Villa

[mushy]

The rules as regards sending off for denying a goal scoring attempt are as follows -:
The following must be considered:
distance between the offence and the goal
general direction of the play
likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
location and number of defenders.


So it's the general direction of play and NOT the direction the ball was travelling. I say this because Dean Smith suggested afterwards that his guy shouldn't have been sent off because the ball wasn't travelling directly towards the goal. This was also mentioned by a few TV and radio pundits.
Its clearly little to do with that for obvious reasons (for instance if a player rounds the keeper and brings the ball backwards In an attempt to slide it into an empty net for instance if he was wide of the goal at the time)
They don't know the rules..

[Vic_Watson]

They don't know the rules..

Nor do all those on here who said Konsa was unlucky. Two more blatant reds you will never see.

[Up the Junction]

Nor do all those on here who said Konsa was unlucky. Two more blatant reds you will never see.

There is no reason why it cannot be both a red card offence and unlucky. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[SiO]

Nor do all those on here who said Konsa was unlucky. Two more blatant reds you will never see.

As Estuary points out above, the incident on Antonio was pretty blatant. So there's one.

[S-H]

I don't think the Konsa one was a red, purely because Bowen was heading away from goal.

I can, though, see why it was given, but would understand if it hadn't of been.

Kortney Hause' forearm smash on Pablo, was a clear red card though.

[Up the Junction]

I don't think the Konsa one was a red, purely because Bowen was heading away from goal.

It was given, and rightly so, because DOGSO.

DOGSO doesn't mean the player has to be running directly towards the area between the goal posts.