DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 42159--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: ajb95
Date: January 1, 2022, 7:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The most dumb and confusing thing ever brought into football is
the “clear & obvious” . What a farcical disgrace VAR is that
should never have been brought in. Ruining football. Never a
penalty in any era of football.
They talk about not re refereeing but what is that decision if
not re refereeing?
#Post#: 42160--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: GingerReferee
Date: January 1, 2022, 7:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Atwell has lost his head now, booking saka for moaning about a
clear missed yellow
I'm not moaning about the red because that is stupid behaviour
from Gabriel, deserved to be red carded
If one is a pen both is, but both are not penalties
#Post#: 42161--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: ARF
Date: January 1, 2022, 7:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Affy_Moose link ---
>
> Another very interesting decision.
>
> Xhaka very clearly has a handful of Silva’s shirt. His leg is
also brought across. Both of which could constitute a foul, but
neither brought Silva down.
>
> Silva most definitely threw himself to the ground, which - in
isolation - would be simulation. The problem is the shirt pull
is blatant and probably can’t be ignored. A penalty feels
‘unfair’ because of the manner in which Silva fell, but equally,
he probably wouldn’t have got it if he simply stopped - which
also always feels wrong. Therefore, penalty correct for me.
>
> The red card for Gabriel is inexcusable. Two absolute stick-on
cautions. Childish.
>
--- End Quote ---
"Holding offence
A holding offence occurs only when a player’s contact with an
opponent’s body or equipment impedes the opponent’s movement"
Can't argue he wasn't holding his shirt, but it definitely
hasn't impeded the attacker's movement.
#Post#: 42162--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: Tweed
Date: January 1, 2022, 8:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Atwell is holding on to control but only just. The two
penalties are very different - the Arsenal one is an
interpretation whether man or ball is played first, even with a
video it is inconclusive so deferring to the onfield decision is
correct. The second one, Silva is fouled by Xhaka - had he
tried to run he could not. In my wonderful world of football,
I'd have booked him as well for diving but it doesn't change he
was fouled. Gabriel was a complete tube. Saka's booking seems
harsh because he was complaining about an error, but you can't
speak to a ref the way he did and Holding cynically stopped a
counter. Between Martinelli's unbelievable miss and a total
lack of discipline from Xhaka and Gabriel, the only people
Arsenal can blame if they don't win this are in red and white.
#Post#: 42163--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: GingerReferee
Date: January 1, 2022, 8:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes we've missed chances, but Atwell and Co have ruined a
perfectly amazing game and I wouldn't have minded that pen bring
given if they were consistent but again no.
5 arsenal bookings to city's none when Rodri should easily have
one if not 2 depending on your harshness.
#Post#: 42164--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: Affy_Moose
Date: January 1, 2022, 8:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: GingerReferee link ---
>
> Yes we've missed chances, but Atwell and Co have ruined a
perfectly amazing game and I wouldn't have minded that pen bring
given if they were consistent but again no.
> 5 arsenal bookings to city's none when Rodri should easily
have one if not 2 depending on your harshness.
>
--- End Quote ---
I have to disagree. The whole 5v0 cautions doesn’t show
anything. Every one of the Arsenal cautions, with perhaps the
exception of the subjective dissent for Saka, are all 100%
technical cautions that are unavoidable.
Rodri’s fouls are careless fouls, and don’t qualify for denying
a promising attack.
I’m not sure Atwell could have done much different - the game is
a tricky one to manage. The commentators are lamenting “lost
control”, but besides giving soft free kicks, and soft cautions,
there isn’t much he can do. One subjective penalty decision
aside, everything in this game has been straight forward.
#Post#: 42165--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: ajb95
Date: January 1, 2022, 8:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is City’s penalty a clear and obvious error. I think we all know
the answer
#Post#: 42166--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: Affy_Moose
Date: January 1, 2022, 8:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ajb95 link ---
>
> Is City’s penalty a clear and obvious error. I think we all
know the answer
>
--- End Quote ---
If Atwell doesn’t see the shirt pull and says so to VAR, then
yes, it could be - so long as VAR sees something that is
objectively different. That appears to have happened.
If Atwell says he’s seen the shirt pull and doesn’t think it’s
enough, it doesn’t get reviewed.
Edit: I’m not sure what’s being disagreed with. I’m stating a
factual position that would allow VAR to recommend a review. If
the referee states something that doesn’t match what VAR sees
AND VAR believes there to be a penalty, then it’s getting
reviewed. That’s not a comment on the decision, but it’s a
factual description of how the process can work.
#Post#: 42167--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: Tweed
Date: January 1, 2022, 8:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ajb95 link ---
>
> Is City’s penalty a clear and obvious error. I think we all
know the answer
>
--- End Quote ---
I think it depends. If Atwell saw the tug but decided not to
give it because Silva was on his way down, I'd disagree with him
but I'd accept his call and I don't think VAR should intervene
in that scenario.
If, on the other hand, Atwell didn't see the tug, it is a clear
and obvious error and he was right to allow Gillett to overrule
him.
#Post#: 42169--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: Mackem ref
Date: January 1, 2022, 8:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In real time, Attwell clearly felt there wasn’t enough to
justify a penalty and having seen the replay I believe he was
correct not to give it.
Once sent to the monitor, it’s inevitable that the decision will
be changed. Why? I can only remember two occasions where the
referee has viewed the monitor and stuck with their original
call (Graham Scott and Andre Marriner). Is it the expectation
from PGMOL that you stick with VAR’s call? Or are referees
scared that should they go against VAR that we might not see
them in the PL again for a few weeks?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page