this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Football / Soccer / Calcio / Futebol / Fußball

149 readers
2 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (35 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

completely undermines any credibility this "independent" panel might have had.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah if Kai should've been sent off but Bruno's is questionable, I'm very much questioning the "independence" of this panel.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not meant to make sense, it's meant to distract from what was a very blatant case of match fixing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

🛢️🛢️💷💷

load more comments (30 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (10 children)

If the goal was disallowed because of the foul. This doesn’t get spoke about 30 seconds after the incident.

It’s far from controversial to say that that’s a foul… because it is one. Sometimes you have to look at how it may of been handled had it gone the other way. I don’t think Newcastle would of said a word had it been a foul.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I'm done listening to all the mental gymnastics needed to conclude that Joelinton didn't foul Gabriel

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

The ball falls through the gap between Joelinton's arms and Gabriel's neck that's being forced down. The only reason that gap exists is because Joelinton is forcing Gabriel's head down, but that doesn't matter because an "action" by Gabriel already occurred? It's nonsense, they wanted to give the goal, it's that simple.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Who actually is the independent key match incident panel? Are they a bunch of ex referees, players, fans, lawyers?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

A player with two arms on the back of another player, pushing them downwards, not looking at the ball but looking at the player they are fouling.

Any other circumstances it would be a foul.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

We’re not even mentioning that the first point of contact with the ball was that arm, clearly not in a natural position.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

“Independent”

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

"We've actually found ourselves to be completely innocent."

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Anyone else find it worrying that two of five people looked at the Bruno G incident and thought "Nah that's all fine"?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (16 children)

Bruno Guimarães' arm to the head of Arsenal's Jorginho in the 45th minute was also a missed red card, but on a split 3-2 decision.

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (9 children)

"Gabriel had already made a movement to play the ball before any contact" what the fuck kind of reasoning is that? How does that make it not a foul?

???

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I don't agree with it fully but they're saying Joelintons actions had no/ little impact on Gabriel as he had already went to make that header.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Let me get this straight, they were unanimous that Havertz was a red as it was "a very dangerous challenge and the type of tackle that needs to be eradicated".

They then say that all the decisions in the Spurs game were correct so they are happy with a two footed challenge and that it didn't fall into the above category?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's more annoying that a couple of seasons ago, Martinelli had a goal ruled offside against Brighton because the officials weren't sure where to draw the line accurately. On-field decision was goal, but was chalked off after a review.

If they couldn't find conclusive evidence for the offside on this one, why give it?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

You know, when 2/5 panel members don't believe an intentional forearm to the head away from the play is not worthy of a red, it kind of takes away their credibility.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Scrap VAR, just do robot offsides like the world cup n scrap the rest.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

So the panel judged the club that was screwed over by the refs at the weekend was Newcastle. The goal was correct and Bruno's red card was a split decision but Havertz's red card was unanimous that he should have been off. This is just too delicious. Got to wonder how much we paid the panel.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Complete and utter bullshit

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Does anyone care what this panel says ever?

btw op Samurai Champloo is goated good on you

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

No reason to usually - but Arsenal are actually the only team ever to have a decision go against them. So that’s why this is such a big deal

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Fair enough, that's how it seemed.

Shame it took the best part of a week of hot air about it first.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

This js what I don't get. It was a marginal call. It wasn't even the most controversial call of that game. It certainly wasn't the most controversial call directly leading to a goal in the orem this weekend either!

How the hell has it rumbled on this long. And the answer to that is obviously Artetas reaction and the club statement.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They release a report going over the previous matchweek's decisions every Thursday.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Good can we all move on from this so.

This whole thing from Arteta is a play to pressure refs to give contentions decisions their way in future.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Lol. Like a black man in KKK country getting an independent jury! Don’t fuck with us. Pissing in our pockets and telling us it’s raining. Whose on the inpendent panel? No motherfuckers are neutral about Arsenal.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I thought Arsenal were annoyed with the Bruno elbow.

I didn't think anyone had serious concerns about the goal.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can't be serious. Arteta spoke at length about the goal calling it a disgrace and the club released a statement saying he was right.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Text:

Panel says Newcastle goal vs. Arsenal was correct decision

"The Premier League's Independent Key Match Incidents Panel has ruled the referee and the VAR were correct to award Newcastle United's winning goal against Arsenal on Saturday -- but the officials missed two red cards.

Arsenal boss Mikel Arteta was furious that Anthony Gordon's winning goal was allowed to stand by referee Stuart Attwell, with three separate VAR checks for the ball being out of play, a foul on Gabriel by Joelinton and offside against the goal scorer. On all three checks the VAR, Andy Madley, could not find conclusive evidence of an offence.

Arsenal as a club doubled down on their criticism of referee on Sunday, issuing a statement in support of Arteta.

The panel's findings, seen by ESPN, said on a 4-1 vote that "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," while also upholding the view there wasn't enough proof to cancel the goal on the two factual offences.

However, the panel was unanimous that Kai Havertz should have been sent off for Arsenal in the 36th minute for his challenge on Sean Longstaff as it was "a very dangerous challenge and the type of tackle that needs to be eradicated" -- a decision which would have altered the direction of the game.

Bruno Guimarães' arm to the head of Arsenal's Jorginho in the 45th minute was also a missed red card, but on a split 3-2 decision.

The panel has five members, made up of three former players and/or coaches, plus one representative each from the Premier League and PGMOL. It was set up at the start of last season to give an independent assessment of decision-making rather than relying on the views of PGMOL or the clubs themselves. The judgement is intended to provide an arm's-length assessment of all major match incidents.

Elsewhere, the decision to award a mach-winning injury-time penalty to Sheffield United against Wolverhampton Wanderers was also unanimously viewed to be incorrect -- the second time the VAR has incorrectly failed to overturn a spot kick against Gary O'Neil's side in consecutive weeks.

All other refereeing decisions last weekend, including those in the Tottenham Hotspur vs. Chelsea game, were assessed as being correct."

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

If Arsenal were the team that scored that goal at SJP, they would 100% disallow it

Fucking joke

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This goal is never giving against other teams

Day light robbery

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We literally had a goal disallowed against Palace because they pushed Willock into their own goalkeeper. The notion that we get preferential treatment from referees is hilarious.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

‘I don’t watch any football games other than YouTube highlights of my own and here’s my opinion’

Have you seen a single wolves game this season lmao Man United too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

For context 2/5ths of this panel apparently think it’s not a red card to elbow players as retaliation so I’m gonna not take the rest of their takes seriously 👍

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›