DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 42246--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: TVOS
Date: January 2, 2022, 6:04 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]
Read it again without your referee's hat on. I never mentioned
anything to do with Laws.
I was just disagreeing with your point that Rodri's actions
weren't inflammatory.
There's more to football than a referee's perspective, you know.
#Post#: 42248--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: January 2, 2022, 6:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DublinRef link ---
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
Superb post Dublinref - definitely one of the best posts this
year!
For once, I thought Peter Walton was insightful on BT in making
a distinction between the two. It is rare that two incidents are
directly comparable and for those arguing inconsistency, I
wonder if they would have said the same if the two incidents had
happened in separate games or both been potential penalties for
Man City?
I sometimes think people place too much emphasis on their own
opinion. Of course everyone will have their own views and should
express them but I think there are many instances when you can
personally think you'd have made a different decision but
consider that the VAR's judgement was a credible and reasoned
one. In such cases, I would generally give benefit to VAR.
As someone who can no longer see incidents myself, and therefore
have no direct opinion, I have heard people across football
arguing for all 4 possible scenarios - both clear penalties,
both clearly not penalties, Arsenal clearly a penalty but Man
City not, Man City clearly a penalty but Arsenal not. In cases
where there is a clear consensus such as the tackle by Ederson V
Newcastle or the Kane tackle a few weeks ago my presumption is
that VAR got it wrong. In instances like yesterday, I am happy
to accept the professional judgement of the officials on the
day.
#Post#: 42270--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: Microscopist
Date: January 2, 2022, 9:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps a footnote but 3 minutes after the Ederson and Ødegaard
collision there is a quite similar incident at the other end of
the pitch just outside the Arsenal penalty area. Tomiyasu
slides in on De Bruyne clearly taking out De Bruyne and a corner
is given. Tomiyasu looks surprised at the award of a corner and
is probably justified in doing so as it appears De Bruyne put
the ball out of play. However, as with Ederson it is not clear
whether Tomiyasu actually gets a touch of the ball first or not
. A difference between the incidents is that De Bruyne stumbles
to his knees and recovers to see the ball out of play and does
not launch himself in the same manner of Ødegaard. Not in the
penalty area so no question of VAR being involved but, I would
say, the same thought processes from Attwell being applied in
both cases.
#Post#: 42280--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: DublinRef
Date: January 2, 2022, 12:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Readingfan link ---
>
> [quote author=DublinRef link=topic=3230.msg42224#msg42224
date=1641078771]
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
Superb post Dublinref - definitely one of the best posts this
year!
For once, I thought Peter Walton was insightful on BT in making
a distinction between the two. It is rare that two incidents are
directly comparable and for those arguing inconsistency, I
wonder if they would have said the same if the two incidents had
happened in separate games or both been potential penalties for
Man City?
I sometimes think people place too much emphasis on their own
opinion. Of course everyone will have their own views and should
express them but I think there are many instances when you can
personally think you'd have made a different decision but
consider that the VAR's judgement was a credible and reasoned
one. In such cases, I would generally give benefit to VAR.
As someone who can no longer see incidents myself, and therefore
have no direct opinion, I have heard people across football
arguing for all 4 possible scenarios - both clear penalties,
both clearly not penalties, Arsenal clearly a penalty but Man
City not, Man City clearly a penalty but Arsenal not. In cases
where there is a clear consensus such as the tackle by Ederson V
Newcastle or the Kane tackle a few weeks ago my presumption is
that VAR got it wrong. In instances like yesterday, I am happy
to accept the professional judgement of the officials on the
day.
[/quote]
That is very kind of you Readingfan - much appreciated!
I agree about the differentiation between ones own opinion and
the manner in which VAR operates. I suppose the definition of
clear and obvious is almost trying to interject a factual 'line'
into the realm of opinion but I do think one can disagree with
the decision but agree with VAR not changing it.
#Post#: 42333--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: TVOS
Date: January 3, 2022, 10:43 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 ---
Oh!
HTML https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/59854131
#Post#: 42334--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: bmb
Date: January 3, 2022, 11:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: TVOS 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 ---
Oh!
HTML https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/59854131
[/quote]
Surprised they are allowed to keep the caps on. AFCB remove the
caps on entry search to the ground and any bottles sold in the
ground have the caps removed as well. They've been doing so
since bmb jr was a baby, I figured it was standard practice. I
had to get a letter from the club allowing me to take him in a
toddler beaker with the top on it when he was really little or
that would be confiscated as well.
#Post#: 42336--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: TVOS
Date: January 3, 2022, 11:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: bmb link ---
>
> [quote author=TVOS link=topic=3230.msg42333#msg42333
date=1641228221]
> [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 ---
Oh!
HTML https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/59854131
[/quote]
Surprised they are allowed to keep the caps on. AFCB remove the
caps on entry search to the ground and any bottles sold in the
ground have the caps removed as well. They've been doing so
since bmb jr was a baby, I figured it was standard practice. I
had to get a letter from the club allowing me to take him in a
toddler beaker with the top on it when he was really little or
that would be confiscated as well.
[/quote]
Not as surprising as someone throwing one away given the prices
they charge for them!
#Post#: 42337--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: rustyref
Date: January 3, 2022, 12:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've never been given a bottle with a cap in a professional
football game, certainly not in the last 20 years anyway. I
suspect he'd smuggled the bottle in.
#Post#: 42340--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: bmb
Date: January 3, 2022, 1:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: rustyref link ---
>
> I've never been given a bottle with a cap in a professional
football game, certainly not in the last 20 years anyway. I
suspect he'd smuggled the bottle in.
>
--- End Quote ---
Or just the cap!
All of the Mums in the family stand would have half a dozen
different bottle caps in their bags in amongst the baby wet
wipes, nappies, plasters, emergency sewing kit, female sanitary
items, half eaten apples etc. Once the stewards got to know you
and knew who were and were not likely to cause issues the checks
were pretty cursory for those of us on the good list and if you
did end up with your bottle caps confiscated someone else would
have one! Funny though we could take in a large thermos flask
with no problems but not a bottle of pop, even the little 100ml
size, with the cap - never made sense to me. I'm pretty sure a
large stainless steel flask, even empty, would do more damage if
thrown.
#Post#: 42470--------------------------------------------------
Re: S Attwell - Ars v M City
DIR By: Microscopist
Date: January 5, 2022, 5:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
FA Spokesperson
@FAspokesperson
Regulation and Discipline update on @Arsenal:
Arsenal FC has been charged with a breach of FA Rule E20.1
following its Premier League game against Manchester City FC on
Saturday [01/01/22]. It is alleged that Arsenal FC failed to
ensure its players conducted themselves in an orderly fashion
during the 59th minute and the club has until Friday [07/01/22]
to respond.
10:59 AM · Jan 5, 2022
HTML https://www.ayradvertiser.com/sport/national/19825454.arsenal-charged-fa-following-red-card-complaints-defeat-man-city/
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page