A&H

Arsenal vs Chelsea (Arsenal pen)

The Referee Store
Rather than deter cheating, they're now positively encouraging it
The PGMOL will mark it down as a correct KMI and move on. That's where we're at with the game
The pundits used words like 'clever'. Alas there's only one word for it
 
I'll be honest - and I'm aware this is not the prevailing view at the moment - I think it's a blatant penalty. Did he need to go down that theatrically? No. But there is clear contact on his left heel. Penalty for me.
 
Jtpetherick1 said:
I'll be honest - and I'm aware this is not the prevailing view at the moment - I think it's a blatant penalty. Did he need to go down that theatrically? No. But there is clear contact on his left heel. Penalty for me.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I just don't see that at all
 
Jtpetherick1 said:
I'll be honest - and I'm aware this is not the prevailing view at the moment - I think it's a blatant penalty. Did he need to go down that theatrically? No. But there is clear contact on his left heel. Penalty for me.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that he initiated the contact by drawing his leg back. Don't think you can blame the referee as he gets one quick look at it, and VAR can only overrule if they think it meets the definition of a clear and obvious error.
 
RustyRef said:
The problem with that is that he initiated the contact by drawing his leg back. Don't think you can blame the referee as he gets one quick look at it, and VAR can only overrule if they think it meets the definition of a clear and obvious error.
Click to expand...

Again, just my opinion - I disagree here. Its Tierney's left heel where there is contact, a foot which is about to make contact with the ball as he dribbles with it. I hold very little by screenshots but this is clumsy defending and a definite PK for me. [0:10].

1609094503858.png
 
Jtpetherick1 said:
Again, just my opinion - I disagree here. Its Tierney's left heel where there is contact, a foot which is about to make contact with the ball as he dribbles with it. I hold very little by screenshots but this is clumsy defending and a definite PK for me. [0:10].

View attachment 4720
Click to expand...

I actually don't think there is a right and wrong answer here. For me, just before that happened he moved his left leg unnaturally to the left so that it was in from of James and that caused the contact. Equally though, I don't disagree with you that it was clumsy from the defender.
 
Jtpetherick1 said:
I'll be honest - and I'm aware this is not the prevailing view at the moment - I think it's a blatant penalty. Did he need to go down that theatrically? No. But there is clear contact on his left heel. Penalty for me.
Click to expand...
Then you're part of the problem. More accurately, 'referees' are part of the problem. There's a culture of rewarding and encouraging cheating.
It's all part of The Soap Opera, keeps the 24/7 news bods busy and is therefore commercially beneficial
 
I've always been extremely polarised on this subject. Fed up with being locked down TBH
Even more grumpy than usual 😤
 
Big Cat said:
Then you're part of the problem. More accurately, 'referees' are part of the problem. There's a culture of rewarding and encouraging cheating.
It's all part of The Soap Opera, keeps the 24/7 news bods busy and is therefore commercially beneficial
Click to expand...

And yet you being unwilling to accept someone else has an opinion isn't part of the problem? Nice and condescending then - its an easy penalty. Have a good night.
 
Jtpetherick1 said:
And yet you being unwilling to accept someone else has an opinion isn't part of the problem? Nice and condescending then - its an easy penalty. Have a good night.
Click to expand...
Like I say... more grumpy than usual. I just hate this behaviour and the impression it has on our kids

Anyway, I'm betting that a ref that cautions for cheating, will find themselves higher in the merit tables than one who buys into this behaviour

Thankfully, we don't see it that much at grass roots. Aside from the dishonesty, I see it the other way round from you. An easy 'headache for any ref that condones it, rather than an easy spot kick

I guess I took your opinion into account when I stopped going to epl games. A form of acceptance
 
Last edited:
I do think the question hinges on

- whether there is contact between the feet
- whether than contact is sufficient to affect Tierney

Personally I don't think the replay is conclusive on the issue of contact. If there is contact it's even less conclusive that it's enough. So for me there is sufficient doubt - I don't think it's a penalty. (I'm an Arsenal fan.)

On the other hand it's definitely not a clear error by the referee, I think I would have given it had I been refereeing.
 
Trip said:
I do think the question hinges on

- whether there is contact between the feet
- whether than contact is sufficient to affect Tierney

Personally I don't think the replay is conclusive on the issue of contact. If there is contact it's even less conclusive that it's enough. So for me there is sufficient doubt - I don't think it's a penalty. (I'm an Arsenal fan.)

On the other hand it's definitely not a clear error by the referee, I think I would have given it had I been refereeing.
Click to expand...
During the match, you can see the ref saying VAR saw that James made contact with his knee.

As I said just before your post, soft and lack of consistency with VAR
 
Ryanj91 said:
During the match, you can see the ref saying VAR saw that James made contact with his knee.

As I said just before your post, soft and lack of consistency with VAR
Click to expand...

If it was given for the contact at knee level that is surely a mistake. Tierney is already going down when that contact happens.
 
It's a trend set by referees. If a player goes down and there is contact referees give a penalty. This basically means when players are in the PA, they wait for any contact and go down. I don't blame players, they want a pen, this is how referees give it and players oblige.
 
Looks like a very well executed dive to me. I don't see the contact definitively. But if MO did, then fine.

On repeated viewing I don't see any contact and it looks like a dive. So, with VAR, I am wondering why this wasn't overturned as a clear and obvious error.

On a related note, I think VAR is pointless tripe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top