Joe Williams

[Henry]

9 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Tackles get the crowd going, he made a few tonight.

Was delighted when we signed him…such a shame his first two years were blighted / wasted.  Imho he played pretty well last season too, but had minutes managed.  That’s allowed him the opportunity to gradually build that robustness up.

His recent performances have been very good.  Certainly gonna make for some interesting discussions re contracts!

He must be really enjoying this spell, nice one Joe.

~~~~~

oh, yeah, and Matty James wasn’t far behind tonight either.

I know big tackles (Oo-er) will always get the crowd going. I think you’re the first person to mention Matty James. He had a great game sat in, which allows Williams to go and menace further forward

[DaveF]

20 minutes ago, Harry said:

I agree. For me it’s not a red. 
I actually even think it may not be a red with VAR. 
Usually to satisfy a red there are a few things that need to happen  

A) Is the player out of control  

B) Are there 2 feet off the ground  

C) Are the studs up  

D) Is it a straight leg 

E) Is it over the top of the ball 

None of those definitions are met with Williams’ tackle. 
Its 1-footed, when contact is made with the ball he doesn’t have a straight leg, his studs aren’t showing and it’s not high  

He contacts the ball low, it’s just the angle his foot comes off of the ball which takes his foot higher and into Ings  but the velocity of the tackle has already been taken out of the challenge as the ball was contacted first and took all of the ‘power’ out of the tackle. That wouldn’t have hurt the opponent. 

They compared it to Gusto’s challenge for Chelsea on the post-match analysis. 
For reference, Gusto’s was a yellow. Gusto has a straight leg, studs up and makes no contact with the ball. 
 

Williams’ tackle was a hard but fair one. And I don’t think VAR sends him off as it hasn’t met any 1 of the 5 thresholds above. 
Both pics below are the point of contact …… 

It's definitely a red these days...

[Coxy27]

Most of the time that would be a red card with VAR - they're not entirely consistent, but there have been 4/5 pretty identical tackles this season, and all but one (the Gusto one this weekend) have been reds.

[reddogkev]

Joe Williams was a monster last night, the sort of display that gets your blood pumping and fires up the crowd.

He was lucky though not to get a red card, in the modern game, it was a minor miracle!

[johnheadbcfc]

1 hour ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

I wonder if both he and TGH will get a retro ban. Prob not Williams as the ref saw it but TGH was ridiculous, I would discipline for that internally, he could have cost us the game. You have to keep your cool.  

Christ

[Harry]

21 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Point of contact is irrelevant.  His foot goes over the top.  It’s dangerous.  It’s a red.

I’m not sure sure. 
If you take that view then you are refereeing the consequences of the event and not the event itself. 
The consequences of the event are that the foot contacts the opponents shin pad. But how it got there is relevant as to whether the tackle itself is considered reckless.  
It doesn’t meet any of the thresholds I mentioned. It’s not high, it’s not studs up, it’s not two footed, it’s not a straight leg, he’s not out of control. 
If it meets even 1 of those thresholds then I’d agree it should be a red, but it doesn’t meet any of those. 

We can’t have refs making decisions based on the consequences of the tackle. They just judge the tackle itself. 
Yes, there ends up being contact, but that’s due to the way the foot slides off the ball. The consequences could have been bad but the tackle itself would not be deemed reckless or out of control. 
 

 

[1960maaan]

Both challenges Williams is aggressive but he plays the ball. I think it was last week a similar one in the Prem was deemed Yellow. The one on Benrahma is harder to see , but he plays the ball and I don't think he catches the man. The one on Ings he is aggressive, plays the ball but momentum takes his foot over the top of the ball. I think yellow for both, but I doubt he makes the 2nd one if he's booked for the earlier one. 
Ref could have prevented that by giving the obvious foul on Tanner seconds before. 

The problem is you can't say for definite what VAR are thinking, we've seen some very strange decisions and very little consistency . The Ings could easily be Red but we've seen them not upgraded from a yellow, and this wasn't even deemed a foul. 

[MarcusX]

43 minutes ago, Harry said:

I agree. For me it’s not a red. 
I actually even think it may not be a red with VAR. 
Usually to satisfy a red there are a few things that need to happen  

A) Is the player out of control  

B) Are there 2 feet off the ground  

C) Are the studs up  

D) Is it a straight leg 

E) Is it over the top of the ball 

None of those definitions are met with Williams’ tackle. 
Its 1-footed, when contact is made with the ball he doesn’t have a straight leg, his studs aren’t showing and it’s not high  

He contacts the ball low, it’s just the angle his foot comes off of the ball which takes his foot higher and into Ings  but the velocity of the tackle has already been taken out of the challenge as the ball was contacted first and took all of the ‘power’ out of the tackle. That wouldn’t have hurt the opponent. 

They compared it to Gusto’s challenge for Chelsea on the post-match analysis. 
For reference, Gusto’s was a yellow. Gusto has a straight leg, studs up and makes no contact with the ball. 
 

Williams’ tackle was a hard but fair one. And I don’t think VAR sends him off as it hasn’t met any 1 of the 5 thresholds above. 
Both pics below are the point of contact …… 

It’s a fair argument, but we’ve all seen many instances now where the follow through (intentional or just momentum) has gone high and that’s got the player in trouble.

I don’t necessarily agree with it, because I think it’s impossible to make a tackle like that and not have any follow through - if you really want to stamp that out you’d have to remove slide tackles which is silly.

 

[Coxy27]

14 minutes ago, Harry said:

I’m not sure sure. 
If you take that view then you are refereeing the consequences of the event and not the event itself. 
The consequences of the event are that the foot contacts the opponents shin pad. But how it got there is relevant as to whether the tackle itself is considered reckless.  
It doesn’t meet any of the thresholds I mentioned. It’s not high, it’s not studs up, it’s not two footed, it’s not a straight leg, he’s not out of control. 
If it meets even 1 of those thresholds then I’d agree it should be a red, but it doesn’t meet any of those. 

We can’t have refs making decisions based on the consequences of the tackle. They just judge the tackle itself. 
Yes, there ends up being contact, but that’s due to the way the foot slides off the ball. The consequences could have been bad but the tackle itself would not be deemed reckless or out of control. 
 

 

VAR look at the incident slowed down, we've all seen it, they look at slo-mo and still images (they shouldn't, but they do)

If you shows the referee on the field this image below, on a screen at the side of the pitch (which they would) then it's an instant red:

FWIW I think it meets several of your criteria... It is high (half way up the leg), it is studs up, evidence is in the picture. How can he be in control when he's full off the ground? So not in control either. Glad it isn't a red, but in today's rules, it is.

[Harry]

9 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

It’s a fair argument, but we’ve all seen many instances now where the follow through (intentional or just momentum) has gone high and that’s got the player in trouble.

I don’t necessarily agree with it, because I think it’s impossible to make a tackle like that and not have any follow through - if you really want to stamp that out you’d have to remove slide tackles which is silly.

 

I must admit I don’t have the evidence to present here and now, but those instances where reds have been given based on the follow through / momentum, how many of those had 1 or more of the thresholds I mentioned. Even if 1 of those is met then a red would be given. It may be that in many of the ‘momentum’ cases, they may have deemed a straight leg or a studs up etc… 

Edited January 17 by Harry

[Harry]

10 minutes ago, Coxy27 said:

VAR look at the incident slowed down, we've all seen it, they look at slo-mo and still images (they shouldn't, but they do)

If you shows the referee on the field this image below, on a screen at the side of the pitch (which they would) then it's an instant red:

FWIW I think it meets several of your criteria... It is high (half way up the leg), it is studs up, evidence is in the picture. How can he be in control when he's full off the ground? So not in control either. Glad it isn't a red, but in today's rules, it is.

They don’t just show the still pic though. They do show the lead up to it as well. 
Let’s take the Calvert Lewin one last week. It was a straight leg and the studs were showing. It got rescinded. 
There are 2 elements there (straight leg, studs up) which the original decision was influenced by. 
Joe’s tackle doesn’t have any of the required thresholds. Yes, it does have a minimal consequence, but decisions aren’t based on consequence. 

 

[transfer reader]

26 minutes ago, Coxy27 said:

VAR look at the incident slowed down, we've all seen it, they look at slo-mo and still images (they shouldn't, but they do)

If you shows the referee on the field this image below, on a screen at the side of the pitch (which they would) then it's an instant red:

FWIW I think it meets several of your criteria... It is high (half way up the leg), it is studs up, evidence is in the picture. How can he be in control when he's full off the ground? So not in control either. Glad it isn't a red, but in today's rules, it is.

The still you're showing is after his foot has gone up over the ball though.

So not a judgement on what the actual tackle was, but a judgement on the outcome of an unfortunate bounce off of the ball.

Edited January 17 by transfer reader

[Natchfever]

Joe is showing us why he was signed in the first place.

Rotten luck with injuries now has half a season to win a new deal here or somewhere else (apologies if he has more on his contract)

He may of course fancy a move back up the M6 and he will surely have suitors.

Based on recent form we should snap him up if possible but the staff will have a better idea of his ability to play at that level say 3 out of 4 matches than us.

Lastly, would be a red with VAR imo.

[Coxy27]

14 minutes ago, Harry said:

They don’t just show the still pic though. They do show the lead up to it as well. 
Let’s take the Calvert Lewin one last week. It was a straight leg and the studs were showing. It got rescinded. 
There are 2 elements there (straight leg, studs up) which the original decision was influenced by. 
Joe’s tackle doesn’t have any of the required thresholds. Yes, it does have a minimal consequence, but decisions aren’t based on consequence. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

The still you're showing is after his foot has gone up over the ball though.

So not a judgement on what the actual tackle was, but a judgement on the outcome of an unfortunate bounce off of the ball.

You're both using logic and rational reasoning - something which referees are discouraged from using.

We'll never know - but I'm pretty confident 80% of the time (as there's never total consistency) - the referee would have just looked at a few replays and that still image and sent him off.

I don't disagree with either of you - but I just think a referee would.

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

The still you're showing is after his foot has gone up over the ball though.

So not a judgement on what the actual tackle was, but a judgement on the outcome of an unfortunate bounce off of the ball.

It doesn’t matter.  Did you see Bobby Thomas (Cov) v KDH (Leicester) last week?  Follow through / what happens next is very relevant.

[Harry]

3 minutes ago, Coxy27 said:

 

You're both using logic and rational reasoning - something which referees are discouraged from using.

We'll never know - but I'm pretty confident 80% of the time (as there's never total consistency) - the referee would have just looked at a few replays and that still image and sent him off.

I don't disagree with either of you - but I just think a referee would.

I agree. It’s definitely one which could have gone either way if var reviewed. 
However, regarding logic and rationale. Thats exactly why it wouldn’t be a red for me. It’s almost robotic, hence why we always say that they are taking the emotion out of it. If the Var reviewer looks at that and does his job properly (ie following the exact protocols and removing any emotion or consequence) then they’d say “not high upon initial contact, 1 foot, not studs up, not a straight leg and not out of control”.

Of course, I can 100% understand the argument FOR a red here. But I just think it doesn’t meet the robotic process they would consider. 

[Harry]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

It doesn’t matter.  Did you see Bobby Thomas (Cov) v KDH (Leicester) last week?  Follow through / what happens next is very relevant.

 But that wasn’t a red. 
On that Thomas tackle, it does appear a silly decision at first. But when you look again, there are a number of the thresholds I’ve described. 
He’s off the floor (ie out of control), it’s high, it’s studs up and it’s a straight leg. 
in this case, regardless of him contacting the ball first, he was out of control and endangering an opponent. 
There are 4 of the thresholds met. Williams had none of those met. 

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Harry said:

But that wasn’t a red. 

Fair, although that might’ve been a bit of double-jeopardy.  My points is about follow through.

[Harry]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Fair, although that might’ve been a bit of double-jeopardy.  My points is about follow through.

Yes. That probs was double jeopardy rule. 
Re the follow through though. The very fact that Bobby Thomas was off the floor, high, studs up means the follow through is out of control. 
Williams follow through is merely a consequence of ball contact - he was never deemed out of control on the tackle itself. 

[transfer reader]

22 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

It doesn’t matter.  Did you see Bobby Thomas (Cov) v KDH (Leicester) last week?  Follow through / what happens next is very relevant.

Gusto Chelsea Vs Fulham 

[Davefevs]

16 minutes ago, Harry said:

Yes. That probs was double jeopardy rule. 
Re the follow through though. The very fact that Bobby Thomas was off the floor, high, studs up means the follow through is out of control. 
Williams follow through is merely a consequence of ball contact - he was never deemed out of control on the tackle itself. 

We won’t agree on this one

[Merrick's Marvels]

Joe Williams turned it into a game the opposition didn't want. That's always a good thing.

But, by today's standards, he got lucky with the ref. In fact, we all got lucky with the ref - we got one who allowed a proper contest to develop and one who treated both sides as equals. Early in the game Cornet fell over under pressure trying to buy a cheap free kick and the ref just waved play on - i thought we might have half a chance when that happened. Fair play to him.

But for me, Matty James was our best player by a country mile.

"If you can keep your head while all about you..." wrote Mr Kipling as he baked his exceedingly good cakes.

Well James certainly did that - every other player spent the game giving the ball away, he didn't.

In the right place at the right time all the time, breaking up play, keeping it simple, always passing to a red shirt, cool, composed and committed. Not a foot out of place all night.

If the rest of our boys had his pass completion rate we'd be a heck of a team.

Edited January 17 by Merrick's Marvels

[mozo]

1 hour ago, Coxy27 said:

VAR look at the incident slowed down, we've all seen it, they look at slo-mo and still images (they shouldn't, but they do)

If you shows the referee on the field this image below, on a screen at the side of the pitch (which they would) then it's an instant red:

FWIW I think it meets several of your criteria... It is high (half way up the leg), it is studs up, evidence is in the picture. How can he be in control when he's full off the ground? So not in control either. Glad it isn't a red, but in today's rules, it is.

I'm pretty sure that if the shoe was on the other foot (boot on the other shin?) we would be outraged if Ings got away with that tackle. I think we got lucky with that one, and with the TGH one too. But you need a bit of luck and a lot of effort to beat a Prem team and that's what happened.

[Davefevs]

24 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Joe Williams turned it into a game the opposition didn't want. That's always a good thing.

But, by today's standards, he got lucky with the ref. In fact, we all got lucky with the ref - we got one who allowed a proper contest to develop and one who treated both sides as equals. Early in the game Cornet fell over under pressure trying to buy a cheap free kick and the ref just waved play on - i thought we might have half a chance when that happened. Fair play to him.

But for me, Matty James was our best player by a country mile.

"If you can keep your head while all about you..." wrote Mr Kipling as he baked his exceedingly good cakes.

Well James certainly did that - every other player spent the game giving the ball away, he didn't.

In the right place at the right time all the time, breaking up play, keeping it simple, always passing to a red shirt, cool, composed and committed. Not a foot out of place all night.

If the rest of our boys had his pass completion rate we'd be a heck of a team.

Yep, and refs have been told to let a bit more go this season (referring to Cornet incident).

[Kid in the Riot]

If there was VAR then it's highly probable Williams gets sent off for it, however both teams were fully aware before the game kicked off that there was no VAR.

Without it, players do have a bit more license to throw in some dark arts and be a bit more robust in the tackle.

West Ham could've come and had a scrap if they wanted, but they didn't. So that's their problem, not ours. 

[Robbored]

54 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

We won’t agree on this one

Tackles like the JW on Ings are subjective and to me it was a heavy tackle that initially got the ball with Williams foot sliding up from the ball and catching Ings who went down like he’d been shot - a mamby pandy reaction in my opinion. It was a good refereeing decision.

[Midred]

The decision shouldn't be based on the consequence of a tackle but judging by the "performances" that some "world class" players put on after a tackle I'm not entirely sure that referees aren't persuaded to go for the headlines!

[Super]

35 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Tackles like the JW on Ings are subjective and to me it was a heavy tackle that initially got the ball with Williams foot sliding up from the ball and catching Ings who went down like he’d been shot - a mamby pandy reaction in my opinion. It was a good refereeing decision.

No idea what you are on about that was a nasty one on Ings i doubt he was making the most of anything.

[Maltshoveller]

For the first 140 odd years of the FA Cup that was a great tackle

Season 2023/24 FA Cup wit VAR it is a red card 

I have to say imo the first 140 years got it right