this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Football / Soccer / Calcio / Futebol / Fußball
144 readers
1 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This tells you everything you need to know about how brainless the panel is. Deliberately smashing your forearm into someone's head is not a red card according to 2 panel members.
Bruno should have seen red. Havertz should have seen red.
There's a question of whether Bruno would have done what he did, if the ref had made the correct decision on the Havertz challenge; but both incidents as they are deserved red cards.
Sadly though, far too many Arsenal fans still can't admit that Havertz's challenge was a dangerous one.
They’re absolutely not brainless this is part of a fight on multiple fronts intended to discredit arteta, Klopp and anyone who dares question the sovereignty of the PGMOL
Now compare that to Daizen Maeda's VAR overrule red card yesterday which was initially a yellow from the ref.
What’s crazy about that challenge is that the ball has already been passed by Jorgi, and Bruno comes up behind him and so obviously raises his elbow at his head. This happened not 5 seconds after he went in two footed on White and missed.
No he didn't go in two footed. He clearly brings his second foot through well after he's slid past White.
This is your "two footed" challenge
Looks a lot like the havertz tackle that was unanimously deemed a red card by the panel
It wasn’t two footed but a still image in that position doesn’t really tell the story accurately. He was clearly fuming and went in extremely recklessly, the only reason he didn’t make contact is because White pulled out of the challenge. If he connected it wouldn’t have been much different than the Havertz tackle.
Looks like the article has been corrected. It now says "but on a split 3-2 decision for the VAR to get involved." That suggests they all personally thought it was a red, but only 2 out 5 thought a yellow was a clear and obvious error
He didn't get a yellow for the elbow, he got a yellow in the 88th minute for shoving Vieira in the face.
So actually 2 of the 5 thought giving him nothing for purposely elbowing an opponent in the back of the head was not a clear and obvious error.
I forgot Guinarares didn't get a yellow, but that doesn't change the main point.
The fact that no yellow was given was (probably) because the on field ref didn't see it. However VAR can't intervene to give a yellow. So the question is whether it was a clear and obvious error to not give a red. And 2 out of 5 thought no.
Anyway, I've had enough of this discussion. Everything has been laid out, if you don't accept it, then you don't.
He didn't even give a foul let alone a yellow. If that's not clear and obvious I don't know what is. They need to let the VAR just talk to the ref more like in Rugby
I guess it depends on whether they thought it was deliberate. I don't know the breakdown of the rules, but usually an accidental forearm in the face, if it's light enough won't get a red, but definitely a foul.
I am fine with them saying the Havertz challenge is something they want out of football. Total striker’s challenge, he was lucky to stay on. But how can the same not be said about Bruno losing head. Man tries to slide tackle someone late, misses, and then clocks Jorginho in the head to make himself feel better. While different than the Havertz incident, it is violent conduct and a red card, but because it’s “emotional” it’s okay?
I thought Havertz was a clear yellow until you slow it down and see him make contact with the leading foot as well. Couldn't complain about a red really. That said Bruno should be a clear red made even worse with context. They just had a bust up and he missed a two footed challenge immediately before the elbow. Don't know if Jorgi said something or because he was the captain but Bruno seemed to have it out for him.
No dude. They all said red card. The vote is about whether VAR should have intervened. I disagree with the people who say it shouldn't have been used. But that's not the same as saying it wasn't a red card offense.
What’s brainless is the fact that you can’t read. All 5 agreed it was a red, go back and read it again.