Leeds vs Aston Villa

[NOM]

Sportsmanship by Leeds or should you play to the whistle I don’t think there is any obligation to put the ball out or to stop play unless deemed by the ref
Personally I’d be fuming to have to watch the opposing team walk the ball into the net
Thoughts?

[F*ck The Poor & Fat]

Nice gesture, sportsmanship at its finest. But it could cost them. Tbh I don’t really care other than it’s nice to see Villa do well for their manager.

[RientO]

Play to the whistle. The referee decides if the game needs halting not the players. I hate uncontested drop balls, throwing/kicking the ball back to the opposition and now this nonsense. Just encourages players to lie down and disrupt the flow of the game.

[NOM]

Play to the whistle. The referee decides if the game needs halting not the players. I hate uncontested drop balls, throwing/kicking the ball back to the opposition and now this nonsense. Just encourages players to lie down and disrupt the flow of the game.

I’m in your corner on this one

[tuffers#1]

Play to the whistle. The referee decides if the game needs halting not the players. I hate uncontested drop balls, throwing/kicking the ball back to the opposition and now this nonsense. Just encourages players to lie down and disrupt the flow of the game.

Players can & will stop a game .

Nonsense to think only a referee can stop a game.

If any player decides to pick up a ball or stop the game due to proper reasoning the Referee must accept it.

In any sport it is the same.

[Max B Gold]

Play to the whistle. The referee decides if the game needs halting not the players. I hate uncontested drop balls, throwing/kicking the ball back to the opposition and now this nonsense. Just encourages players to lie down and disrupt the flow of the game.

Correct

[RientO]

Play to the whistle. The referee decides if the game needs halting not the players. I hate uncontested drop balls, throwing/kicking the ball back to the opposition and now this nonsense. Just encourages players to lie down and disrupt the flow of the game.

Players can & will stop a game .

Nonsense to think only a referee can stop a game.

If any player decides to pick up a ball or stop the game due to proper reasoning the Referee must accept it.

In any sport it is the same.

I understand the Di Canio incident the goal keeper was impacted and the attacking team chose to stop playing, but with the Villa one, a player was down in the middle of the field and Villa should have played on rather than stand around waiting for Leeds to stop playing. I remember a few years ago Arsenal went and scored a goal against Sheffield United to win a cup game when Sheffield expected the ball to be thrown back. In the end it resulted in a re-match. I think teams should always be prepared to defend. If the opposition play fair, great, but they are not obliged to. And letting teams score in response like Leeds did affects the integrity of the game.

[BoniO]

It wasn't as simple as that. A few minutes before the foul which downed the Villa player a Leeds player had been injured and Villa had kicked it out so he got attention. Consequently, when the Villa player was down Villa players were calling for the ball to be kicked out as a reciprocal action. Leeds players played on for a few seconds then the Leeds player in possession slowed as if he was going to kick it out. Then he suddenly pinged it forwards for the Leeds guy to run through and score. It seemed a deliberate attempt to unfairly take advantage (although no rules were broken).
All hell broke out and Bamford like a complete c**t decided to add fuel to the fire by doing a dying swan as though he'd been poleaxed by a Villa player - then the dumbarse ref having been advised by the dumbarse lino - wrongly sent the Villa player off.
It was all good fun to watch as a neutral (well as neutral as you can be when it's Leeds - the tossers) but Bielsa's decision calmed it all down and given that all the Leeds players (with the exception of Jansson....) fully accepted the decision to let Villa have a gimme, then I think we should respect Bielsa's call tbh.
As for Leeds, it won't cost them at all. They were never going to overtake the Blades anyway.

[tuffers#1]

Play to the whistle. The referee decides if the game needs halting not the players. I hate uncontested drop balls, throwing/kicking the ball back to the opposition and now this nonsense. Just encourages players to lie down and disrupt the flow of the game.

Players can & will stop a game .

Nonsense to think only a referee can stop a game.

If any player decides to pick up a ball or stop the game due to proper reasoning the Referee must accept it.

In any sport it is the same.

I understand the Di Canio incident the goal keeper was impacted and the attacking team chose to stop playing, but with the Villa one, a player was down in the middle of the field and Villa should have played on rather than stand around waiting for Leeds to stop playing. I remember a few years ago Arsenal went and scored a goal against Sheffield United to win a cup game when Sheffield expected the ball to be thrown back. In the end it resulted in a re-match. I think teams should always be prepared to defend. If the opposition play fair, great, but they are not obliged to. And letting teams score in response like Leeds did affects the integrity of the game.

Villa players would have carried on if the leeds players were playing at proper speed & not slowing down as if to put the ball out.

As Villa had already put the ball out for an injured Leeds player earlier in the game it was onky RIGHT that leeds did to .

Difference betweenna decent club & a club that has always sailed close to the wind with what is legal & what is RIGHT.

[RientO]

I understand context is important, but if every team just played on and let the referee decide it would simplify matters. If the injury is serious then players and referee are normally aware of it pretty quickly and someone will kick the ball out. But far too often games are stopped and balls given back when players stay down when they aren’t badly hurt.

[tuffers#1]

It wasn't as simple as that. A few minutes before the foul which downed the Villa player a Leeds player had been injured and Villa had kicked it out so he got attention. Consequently, when the Villa player was down Villa players were calling for the ball to be kicked out as a reciprocal action. Leeds players played on for a few seconds then the Leeds player in possession slowed as if he was going to kick it out. Then he suddenly pinged it forwards for the Leeds guy to run through and score. It seemed a deliberate attempt to unfairly take advantage (although no rules were broken).
All hell broke out and Bamford like a complete c**t decided to add fuel to the fire by doing a dying swan as though he'd been poleaxed by a Villa player - then the dumbarse ref having been advised by the dumbarse lino - wrongly sent the Villa player off.
It was all good fun to watch as a neutral (well as neutral as you can be when it's Leeds - the tossers) but Bielsa's decision calmed it all down and given that all the Leeds players (with the exception of Jansson....) fully accepted the decision to let Villa have a gimme, then I think we should respect Bielsa's call tbh.
As for Leeds, it won't cost them at all. They were never going to overtake the Blades anyway.

I think John Terry threatening to publicly call them out as Dirty Cheats helped him make his decision mind you , but am in agreement with what you say

[Fatbaz]

Play to the whistle. The referee decides if the game needs halting not the players. I hate uncontested drop balls, throwing/kicking the ball back to the opposition and now this nonsense. Just encourages players to lie down and disrupt the flow of the game.

Absolutely agree here.
If players and managers are allowed to override match officials, then dangerous precedents are set. I believe that Bielsa was wrong as was Di Canio all those years ago.

I understand context is important, but if every team just played on and let the referee decide it would simplify matters. If the injury is serious then players and referee are normally aware of it pretty quickly and someone will kick the ball out. But far too often games are stopped and balls given back when players stay down when they aren’t badly hurt.

Agree here, too.
Match officials are there for a reason. Leave all of the decisions to them. That way, there can be no argument after the fact about which team/player/manager did the 'right thing'.

[Beradogs]

It wasn't as simple as that. A few minutes before the foul which downed the Villa player a Leeds player had been injured and Villa had kicked it out so he got attention. Consequently, when the Villa player was down Villa players were calling for the ball to be kicked out as a reciprocal action. Leeds players played on for a few seconds then the Leeds player in possession slowed as if he was going to kick it out. Then he suddenly pinged it forwards for the Leeds guy to run through and score. It seemed a deliberate attempt to unfairly take advantage (although no rules were broken).
All hell broke out and Bamford like a complete c**t decided to add fuel to the fire by doing a dying swan as though he'd been poleaxed by a Villa player - then the dumbarse ref having been advised by the dumbarse lino - wrongly sent the Villa player off.
It was all good fun to watch as a neutral (well as neutral as you can be when it's Leeds - the tossers) but Bielsa's decision calmed it all down and given that all the Leeds players (with the exception of Jansson....) fully accepted the decision to let Villa have a gimme, then I think we should respect Bielsa's call tbh.
As for Leeds, it won't cost them at all. They were never going to overtake the Blades anyway.

That was the point. The Leeds manager only allowed the goal because it meant very little. He would not have done it in a meaningful game. Why he is getting so much praise I have no idea. It was an easy decision so he could get Leeds to come up smelling of roses despite Bamford acting like a tw*t and the players not kicking it out (although they did not have to but the villa players stopped playing). If he had not given villa the goal the club would have been crucified. He knew that.

[CreamofSumYungGai]

It’s nice that Leeds reminded the whole country what they’re like, in case people had forgotten or for those younger fans who won’t have stumbled across them.

[Sid Bishop]

Firstly, always play to the whistle......as the Os did when Dayton got injured against Sutton.
Also as others have mentioned, bit of a nothing game as the result was meaningless.

[BoniO]

It wasn't as simple as that. A few minutes before the foul which downed the Villa player a Leeds player had been injured and Villa had kicked it out so he got attention. Consequently, when the Villa player was down Villa players were calling for the ball to be kicked out as a reciprocal action. Leeds players played on for a few seconds then the Leeds player in possession slowed as if he was going to kick it out. Then he suddenly pinged it forwards for the Leeds guy to run through and score. It seemed a deliberate attempt to unfairly take advantage (although no rules were broken).
All hell broke out and Bamford like a complete c**t decided to add fuel to the fire by doing a dying swan as though he'd been poleaxed by a Villa player - then the dumbarse ref having been advised by the dumbarse lino - wrongly sent the Villa player off.
It was all good fun to watch as a neutral (well as neutral as you can be when it's Leeds - the tossers) but Bielsa's decision calmed it all down and given that all the Leeds players (with the exception of Jansson....) fully accepted the decision to let Villa have a gimme, then I think we should respect Bielsa's call tbh.
As for Leeds, it won't cost them at all. They were never going to overtake the Blades anyway.

That was the point. The Leeds manager only allowed the goal because it meant very little. He would not have done it in a meaningful game. Why he is getting so much praise I have no idea. It was an easy decision so he could get Leeds to come up smelling of roses despite Bamford acting like a tw*t and the players not kicking it out (although they did not have to but the villa players stopped playing). If he had not given villa the goal the club would have been crucified. He knew that.

Agree that Bielsa clearly knew it made no difference either way re giving them a goal. However, he is known as a very straight guy so whether he would have made that call if it could have made a difference to their season is unknown. Having watched it just to see how Deano's Villa were doing it turned out to be a really good game, not a dead rubber at all. I'd love to see Villa go up via the playoffs.

[bobo66]

It was funny though

[Howling Mad Murdock]

https://www.facebook.com/subbuteoonline ... 671258226/

[NOM]

https://www.facebook.com/subbuteoonline ... 671258226/

that made me laugh thanks

[Howling Mad Murdock]

https://www.facebook.com/subbuteoonline ... 671258226/

that made me laugh thanks

S'ok crap link but I liked it.