this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Football / Soccer / Calcio / Futebol / Fußball
142 readers
3 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Somehow the Kai Havertz is a unanimous sending off by the panel, but the Bruno Guimares elbow/forearm to the back of the head is not deemed a red card by 2 people. Make it make sense
completely undermines any credibility this "independent" panel might have had.
Yeah if Kai should've been sent off but Bruno's is questionable, I'm very much questioning the "independence" of this panel.
It's not meant to make sense, it's meant to distract from what was a very blatant case of match fixing.
Objectively VAR and the refs ruin games all the fucking time, we've had absolute howlers too. It's not a conspiracy that you got shafted by the ref, you played shit didn't create any chances and compounded bad decisions from the ref helped us win.
The whole "saudi paying the refs" thing is ridiculous, they'd just murder the refs and their families and replace them with their own.
No question about Willock hitting Gabriel in the face after he lost the ball as well
I swear Arsenal fans invent a new foul in the game that should have been a clear red in each thread.
Your first mistake is taking a panel about refereeing decisions hosted by ESPN seriously.
So basically it turns out Newcastle were the ones most disadvantaged by the referee considering Havertz send off would have been early in the game.
The sentiment around the refs is correct, just from the wrong angle.
They got paid.
So, they basically said "how can we make the result look more legimate". Tbh looks like they've done the opposite.
PGMOL needs to be ripped to the studs and rebuilt. It is beyond repair or renovation at this point. It is a tear down.
And who would be responsible for refereeing PL games in the meantime?
🛢️🛢️💷💷
Mak€$ p€rf€ct s€n$€
Now imagine xhaka doing what Bruno did....
Or Havertz
I read it as they were split 3-2 on whether VAR should have intervened. It's not clear what the split was on the actual incident itself
Surely a vote for VAR not to intervene is the same as a vote saying it isn't a red card
That’s not how anything works. Lots of legal cases are dismissed or lost on pure procedure and not the actual objective truth.
Process is a part of justice as well.
That's still ridiculous.
The worst part for me is that the ref on field didn't even see it when it happened, because it was after the ball was gone. So they decided not to intervene on the reasoning that the ref's on-field decision not to call it a foul wasn't a clear and obvious error when he never actually made that decision (because he didn't see it). What kind of logic is this? They missed a call, have him go look at it ffs. Why does VAR have to be so complicated in England? It's really not like this in other countries, certainly not at this rate at least where we have 3-4 baffling decisions every matchday.
And no I'm not claiming conspiracy, just incredible incompetence.
That doesn't make it any better lol. How could anybody think that VAR shouldn't intervene? It's violent conduct pure and simple. Semantics aren't going to change that.
You didn’t read closely enough, champ. That’s not what the article says.
A lot of people have decided that Arteta's comments were out of line, and are twisting their brains into pretzels to make his complaints look unhinged. I'm so over the entire thing honestly, the bootlicking of referees is astonishing.
Nobody is bootlicking referees (outside of like one City fan I've had the pleasure of).
People dislike Arteta's petulance. And his rant was an example of that. The goal also was not that controversial, and especially compared to the shit other teams have been getting this season.
So to blow up over that just seems like a sore loser. He could have blown up over the Bruno G incident and would have likely been better received (though that would have drawn more attention to Havertz).
No. The article suggests everyone on the panel personally thought that the elbow was a red card offense. But only 3 out of 5 thought it was a clear and obvious error to not give a red. Meaning that 2 out of 5 believed there was a gray area where some refs could plausibly judge the offense to only be a yellow.
Ok Anthony Taylor
I don't get how you can reconcile that.
This isn't a grey area red card. And the ref didn't give it a red card.
If that's not the definition of clear and obvious, then what is?
People really could do with a lesson in anatomy, because it was a forearm, not an elbow.
To answer your question: the one is a leg-breaking and potentially career ending tackle. The other one is childish and petulant, with less severe consequences to the player's health (because it's the forearm, not elbow).
"although Joelinton does have his hands on Gabriel, there isn't enough to award a foul as Gabriel had made an action to play the ball before any contact”
That’s a laughable excuse. If he hadn’t been shoved in the back he would’ve easily headed that ball away, as he was preparing to do. Absolute fucking clowns.
See you don't realize! Eddie Howe didn't shit on the ref standards! Arsenal bad Newcastle not so bad.
The panel think that the team with the most money is right.
Get used to it.
Man City only not seeing sanctions because the UAE government would be raging about it is just another example.
What about the billions UAE has spent on Arsenal? Waste of money?
Same panel said Eddie Nketiah sliding on Vicario was just a yellow when that was much worse than Havertz. "Independent panel" my ass when Jon Moss and Martin Atkinson are part of it.
The Havertz challenge was a lot more dangerous
I'm more shocked that many people like you that don't think it's an absolute red card tackle.
Just a few centimeters difference between a certain leg breaker.
Havertz is at least trying to block a clearance down the line, there is absolutely nothing about the Bruno incident that belongs in a football match
Intention doesnt matter. He jumps in, studs up and get full contact. He got away with a red there.
Yes it was a dangerous, arguable red. At least he's playing the ball and playing football though. Bruno just assaults Jorginho with no intention of anything other than hurting him.
I don’t think it was a few centimeters though, he catches him with his trailing leg. He is like a foot away from any spikes on leg contact.
It's clear that he catches Dan Burn's left leg with a glancing blow with studs up, them he buckles his right ankle with his trailing leg. Certainly not a foot away.
So what you're saying is if it was a worse tackle then it would have been a worse tackle? There is not a tackle in football that wouldn't be a leg breaker if the foot was in a different position than it actually was.
What I find funny about this whole episode is that there are many people on both sides of the argument, each saying the other side is complete idiots.
This kind of shows that each decision in the match was actually quite close, more like a 50/50 decision on is it a red, is it not; is it a goal, is it not.
Ben foster on his show the other day was saying how shit VAR was, and then it turned out he was adamant there was no foul on Gabriel while the others disagreed.