DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 42196--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: January 1, 2022, 11:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: GingerReferee link ---
>
> 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
>
--- End Quote ---
I can't see incidents myself but there seems to be an important
distinction between the two. The first sounds like a tackle
where there was an element of subjectivity and uncertainty over
whether the goalkeeper had cleanly played the ball.
The second seems to have been a more factual shirt pull - that
obviously doesn't automatically mean a foul but can be more
conclusively proven than the first.
BT said the VAR referred to the shirt pull so it sounds to me
like Attwell probably had missed that the first time - I'd say
that would generally increase the likelihood of a VAR
intervention.
#Post#: 42198--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: tef
Date: January 1, 2022, 11:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
First post from a long time lurker. I was lucky enough to be
invited to the game today as a guest of an Arsenal fan.
Some good posts above, although being there ‘live’ in the
stadium I never felt he had the game completely under control.
Just my feeling of the game. If I was him reviewing the game I’d
feel a bit miffed with Jarred Gillett with his inconsistent VAR
interventions. For what it’s worth I felt both were penalties
albeit of the soft variety (especially Arsenal).
He seemed determined from the off to let the game flow between
two good footballing teams, and the higher bar for fouls made
for a good game, but felt it ran away from him in the second
half. was surprised at the low foul count for City as there were
certainly a few missed from my view.
He handled the ridiculous dissent from Arsenal very well and it
was nice to see the yellows used. Very good for the red card
too.
Maybe the very late changes to the AR team weren’t ideal either
- perhaps a ‘distraction’ he could’ve done without in such a big
game for him. Enjoyed watching Friend run the line for a half
though!
Overall an ok performance from Attwell in a testing encounter
overshadowed by more unwelcome VAR inconsistency/controversy.
#Post#: 42224--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: DublinRef
Date: January 1, 2022, 5:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I can't comment on the overall control as did not watch the
whole game but on the big incidents this would be my take -
The Arsenal penalty claim I favour a penalty, I think he just
gets the foot before the ball. However, this in not at all
clear, from one goal line angle it does look like he gets the
ball first, VAR cannot intervene here in my view it is in my
view an almost perfect example of not being clear and obvious.
The Man City penalty to me is totally different. Clear leg on
leg contact impeding the opponent and the shirt holding is also
clear. I get the argument that it has to be decided if the shirt
holding impedes the opponent but for me the whole picture here
is a penalty. No contact on the ball, only on the opponent and I
think it is impeding contact. Yes simulation by the attacking
player in the aftermath but for me a foul by the defending
player first. Clear and obvious foul a correct VAR intervention
IMO.
The RC I think is spot on, silly YC for dissent and then a silly
challenge for the second YC, no issue there IMO.
To be honest I am amazed at the description of inconsistency by
VAR Gillett. The two incidents are totally different. The only
real similarity is the location they took place on the pitch! In
one case there is an argument of whether there is contact on the
ball first or not in the second I am not really sure what the
debate is. The argument seems to be if VAR is used for a penalty
incident for one team then it must be used for the other?
Forgive me if I am missing something but to me they are not at
all similar incidents.
#Post#: 42225--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: guest320
Date: January 1, 2022, 5:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Mackem ref link ---
>
> 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?
>
--- End Quote ---
Attwell himself was another who didn't change his decision when
sent to the monitor last season for a Hudson-Odoi handball in
the Chelsea vs Manchester Utd. I actually thought he was wrong
on that occasion and should have changed his decision to a
penalty. But Attwell does has form for sticking with his
decision.
#Post#: 42227--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: PhiltheRef
Date: January 1, 2022, 6:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Question put to me this evening .
Rodri removes shirt having scored....mandatory Yellow Card?
Having done so he runs, in an arguably inflammatory act, toward
the Arsenal supporters.....Again a mandatory Yellow Card
#Post#: 42230--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: RCG
Date: January 2, 2022, 1:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For "technical" offences such as those, which are happening
concurrently, only one yellow would be expected. If he removes
his shirt, receives caution and then next time he is in vicinity
of the fans is provocative, 2nd yellow, no issues.
#Post#: 42231--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: Affy_Moose
Date: January 2, 2022, 2:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: PhiltheRef link ---
>
> Question put to me this evening .
>
> Rodri removes shirt having scored....mandatory Yellow Card?
>
> Having done so he runs, in an arguably inflammatory act,
toward the Arsenal supporters.....Again a mandatory Yellow Card
>
--- End Quote ---
Celebrating in front of the opposition team’s fans isn’t
“inflammatory” - especially in an away game. Fans just need to
accept that one - he did nothing untoward.
If he ran the length of the pitch to celebrate in front of the
away fans (see Adebayor), then yes, perhaps.
Otherwise, as noted above, for technical offences such as these
you are only cautioning for one.
#Post#: 42233--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: TVOS
Date: January 2, 2022, 3:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
While I agree fans must accept that opposition players will
celebrate in front of them (and it's part of all the 'fun' of
being at the game), to say it isn't inflammatory shows a
remarkable lack of understanding.
Of course, his passion and enjoyment at scoring the winner maybe
saw Rhodri lose control for a second or two, but he could have
just as easily gone to his own fans, who were behind the same
goal, albeit at the other corner of the stand.
Also, given how far the fans are from the pitch at the Emirates,
he ran far enough, didn't he? Not Adebayor proportions, but that
was an exception.
What if one of those objects thrown by the fans had seriously
injured a player or another fan? Yes, the fans should show
restraint, but in a highly passionate game and situation like
that, people do things they ordinarily wouldn't.
#Post#: 42240--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: Affy_Moose
Date: January 2, 2022, 4:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: TVOS link ---
>
> While I agree fans must accept that opposition players will
celebrate in front of them (and it's part of all the 'fun' of
being at the game), to say it isn't inflammatory shows a
remarkable lack of understanding.
>
> Of course, his passion and enjoyment at scoring the winner
maybe saw Rhodri lose control for a second or two, but he could
have just as easily gone to his own fans, who were behind the
same goal, albeit at the other corner of the stand.
>
> Also, given how far the fans are from the pitch at the
Emirates, he ran far enough, didn't he? Not Adebayor
proportions, but that was an exception.
>
> What if one of those objects thrown by the fans had seriously
injured a player or another fan? Yes, the fans should show
restraint, but in a highly passionate game and situation like
that, people do things they ordinarily wouldn't.
>
--- End Quote ---
Sorry, I’m not for having that. If you want to amend the Law, or
use it - on what grounds? Players shouldn’t celebrate near
opposition fans? There was no safety or security issue caused,
and if any adult can’t stop themselves throwing objects at a
person on a football field, they should not be there.
‘Security or safety issue’ is already a mandatory caution, and
that would be a very liberal interpretation of the Law.
I’m all for sensible law application, but that’s just
infantilising football fans.
#Post#: 42243--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: Acme Thunderer
Date: January 2, 2022, 5:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Affy_Moose link ---
>
> [quote author=TVOS link=topic=3230.msg42233#msg42233
date=1641117301]
> While I agree fans must accept that opposition players will
celebrate in front of them (and it's part of all the 'fun' of
being at the game), to say it isn't inflammatory shows a
remarkable lack of understanding.
>
> Of course, his passion and enjoyment at scoring the winner
maybe saw Rhodri lose control for a second or two, but he could
have just as easily gone to his own fans, who were behind the
same goal, albeit at the other corner of the stand.
>
> Also, given how far the fans are from the pitch at the
Emirates, he ran far enough, didn't he? Not Adebayor
proportions, but that was an exception.
>
> What if one of those objects thrown by the fans had seriously
injured a player or another fan? Yes, the fans should show
restraint, but in a highly passionate game and situation like
that, people do things they ordinarily wouldn't.
>
--- End Quote ---
Sorry, I’m not for having that. If you want to amend the Law, or
use it - on what grounds? Players shouldn’t celebrate near
opposition fans? There was no safety or security issue caused,
and if any adult can’t stop themselves throwing objects at a
person on a football field, they should not be there.
‘Security or safety issue’ is already a mandatory caution, and
that would be a very liberal interpretation of the Law.
I’m all for sensible law application, but that’s just
infantilising football fans.
[/quote]
Sorry, but I'm with TVOS on this one. Rodri could just have
easily have celebrated in front of the City fans who were behind
the same goal as he scored at (and he must have known that). And
as for 'infantilising football fans', well I think you've
answered your your own point by suggesting that sensible adults
wouldn't throw objects at players celebrating in front of them.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page