Arsenal H Sunday 10th May 4:30pm

1234568»

Comments

  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    Thornbury... if programmed correctly.

    That's the sticking point, imo.
  • FortuneseekerFortuneseeker
    Read the full transcript of the discussion about the (non) goal & the bit that is on Mr Kavanagh is him saying I don't think there's much in that at all, I'm happy with that.when discussing Troussards foul on Pablo. Only really focused on a reason to disallow the goal and had to be directed to look at the infringements committed by the Arsenal players.
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    edited May 12
    It’s obvious that officials have absolutely no idea how to deal with what goes on at set pieces and clubs like Arsenal know it and take it to the extremes. It needs the authorities to either clarify the laws or give stricter instructions to the officials.
    I think the suggestion that as soon as the ball is placed in the quadrant it’s live and refs can take appropriate action is a reasonable one. I’d even make it that once it’s in the quadrant if the player touches it with his hand eg replacing it, which they do quite often, it’s handball and a card.
  • BubblesNeverDiesBubblesNeverDies
    edited May 12
    Alderz
    "Do I get praise for a six syllable word too?"
    No.
    Contemporaneous vs professionalise?
    No contest 1 - 0 =)

  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    edited May 12
    Fortune, Kavanagh was told to look at Trossard on Pablo and Rice on Mavro. He decided Trossard was ok (HOW) and Rice was after Pablo on Raya so foul on Raya was first offence so disallow.
    Any sane person or ref with bottle would say not happy with Trossard so foul on Pablo and penalty but goal scored so stick with on field decision.
    VAR couldn’t have been entirely happy with Trossard on Pablo or he wouldn’t have referred Kavanagh to look at it. Begs the question how two experienced refs looking at exactly the same pictures can come to a different conclusion. If they’re going to take ages to come to a decision then at least talk about what they both see rather than just VAR to Ref “Look at Trossard”, Ref to VAR “I’m happy with that” VAR to Ref “OK”. I’d at least have said “Are you sure?”

    When you see VAR in use in rugby they all at least seem to have something about them.
  • LukerzLukerz
    edited May 13
    It’s almost like VAR doesn’t work; you can’t have something subjective reviewing something subjective, & expect an accurate outcome.

    It needs to be used for offsides only (even that is not foolproof, they have to decide when to pause for initial contact on the ball & sometimes you get offsides where somebody is impeding or blocking & have to be seen as involved or not. We will have this issue forever & it can’t be resolved in its current form.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited May 13
    Lukerz said:

    It’s almost like VAR doesn’t work; you can’t have something subjective reviewing something subjective, & expect an accurate outcome.

    I disagree with this.

    If a decision requires a subjective judgement, as so many in the game do, then of course sometimes (VAR or not) people will disagree with the refs decision. VARs job isn't to provide 'correct' decisions in these cases. Instead, it's to enable better subjective decisions to be made by taking into account additional information (slow-mo, different angles, etc)

    The problem is with people's expectations.
  • alderzalderz
    thornburyiron said:

    When you see VAR in use in rugby they all at least seem to have something about them.

    Whilst this is true, the culture of both sports is wildly different. The ramifications of poor / wrong / unpopular decision making are far, far greater in football than in rugby. I think it's a much harder job in football. Particularly when you throw in the complexity of what is a 'foul' these days.
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    I think most of the decisions are about whether it's a foul they wish to apply.

    They do have clear rules around what is a foul but the furore over the weekend is that it highlighted a position in which among many fouls they will choose to call foul about one in particular and leave others, but at each corner they will often allow fouling, but then sometimes randomly decide apply one.

    The easiest rule to give VAR officials and Referees and make it easiest for them is to say we want you to apply the same rules in all areas of the pitch. Ask yourself If I saw this anywhere else on the pitch would I give a foul. Ok so now don't decide for yourself that as it's from a corner or in the penalty area that you will decide to apply the rules differently.
  • alderzalderz
    claretandbluesky said:

    I think most of the decisions are about whether it's a foul they wish to apply.

    They do have clear rules around what is a foul but the furore over the weekend is that it highlighted a position in which among many fouls they will choose to call foul about one in particular and leave others, but at each corner they will often allow fouling, but then sometimes randomly decide apply one.

    The easiest rule to give VAR officials and Referees and make it easiest for them is to say we want you to apply the same rules in all areas of the pitch. Ask yourself If I saw this anywhere else on the pitch would I give a foul. Ok so now don't decide for yourself that as it's from a corner or in the penalty area that you will decide to apply the rules differently.

    Whilst I broadly agree, I do think that that doesn't solve the issue of "which one of the fouls do I give as a foul?"
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    edited May 13
    I guess we can only go on the first foul to occur. If we applied this to the match at the weekend we have three candidates which are hard to separate, but none are a foul by Pablo.

    Arsenal player on Pablo
    Tadibo on Arsenal player
    Soucek on Arsenal player

    If I had to come down on one without benefit of VAR pausing and timeframes it's probably Todibo on an Arsenal player.

    The correct refereeing decision on Sunday was for the ref to blow the whistle when the ball is in the air or prior to being taken when noting the absolute mess taking place and sort it out before allowing the corner be retaken. Then to warn all that if he sees a foul this time he WILL give a foul.

    This is the first line of stopping this shambles, stop the kick being taken and dish out yellow cards before it's taken. Allow teams to know VAR is now being used to police corners and yellow cards for a foul before the kick is taken and then more fouls given after the corner is taken.
  • FortuneseekerFortuneseeker
    Any kind foul is a foul, simple. Tired of all this there isn’t enough contact nonsense. Was Havertz trying to impede Soucek that is why he appears to be wrestled to the ground. VAR should be able to see that but it’s the old six & two 3’s! Pablo was fouled & off balance went into Raya that is want is being completely ignored by the “no one likes us” Arsenal brigade & the we must protect the official at all cost mob.
  • KuchinghammerKuchinghammer
    MIAHammer said:

    Having watched this numerous times, Pablo never moved towards Raya. Raya moved into the area where Pablo was. Pablo’s jersey was also being pulled by Trossard and Gabriel. So if we’re going in order of sequence shouldn’t that foul be called before the foul on Raya?
    Not that it changes anything. We just have to win our next 2 games and hope Spurs falters.
    Could have been another story if Fernandes had put away his chance.

    Only just seen the game, and that was my take exactly. Pablo was also being pushed by Trossard. If var can identify offsides by the millimetre and microsecond, they should have called the Arsenal fouls as the corner was taken. But...Darren England, so predict able.
  • chicagohammerchicagohammer
    I also just got home and watched the game last night, my take is that we gave them far to much respect during the opening 20mins and were fortunate not to find ourselves behind but more than held our own during the remaining 70mins against the probable league champions.

    What a goal Taty’s header would have been and Fernandes really should have scored before their opener.

    My opinion on the controversial “equalizer” has not changed, the proximate cause of the mess was Trossard on Pablo, he was not looking at the ball whatsoever and impeded his ability to attack it, as a result Pablo inevitably falls against the keeper thus preventing him from claiming the ball and it eventually falls to Wilson who crashes it in.

    Ideally the goal should have been chalked off and a penalty awarded.

    Oh and Mavro would have been my MOTM vote - he is reading the game so much better and saved Tobido on numerous occasions
Sign In or Register to comment.