A&H

Ars V Bou

T

Therealcjhill

Well-Known Member
Havertz Penalty.

Why do elite refs/VAR continue to award these. We can all see Havertz dived/dragged his leg. No fan wants these awarded. Football is garbage at times.
 
The Referee Store
Never a foul on Havertz, I called dive in real time and highly questionable "foul" on Raya for the disallowed Bournemouth goal as far greater contact has been ignored throughout the season, including the North London derby last week.

Christie should have been in the book in the first half after a succession of fouls followed by finger pointing and a rant at the referee.

As is the case with every Arsenal game, why is the 4th official not in Arteta's ear, telling him to get off the touchline and stay in his box? Now the Bournemouth manager is copying him!
 
Last edited:
Gabriel said:
Not sure who else agrees but I refuse to believe a referee can actually think this! Clear dive.
Click to expand...
Well the referee in charge of the game thought so, as did the referee in VAR duty (or at least that it wasn’t a clear and obvious error) and this referee also thought it was.
 
Hilly1618 said:
Well the referee in charge of the game thought so, as did the referee in VAR duty (or at least that it wasn’t a clear and obvious error) and this referee also thought it was.
Click to expand...
Does the challenge by the gk reach this threshold ? Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution. I would say so and did it occur in the penalty area, yes again so I feel it is the correct call and it’s a penalty.
 
Not a pen. Contact engineered by Havertz.

I also thing the 'foul' on Raya that resulted in their goal being disallowed was really soft. (I'm an arsenal fan.)

Coote missing the high foot on Saka in the first half was pretty poor too. I don't think the officials covered themselves in glory today.
 
Hilly1618 said:
Does the challenge by the gk reach this threshold ? Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution. I would say so and did it occur in the penalty area, yes again so I feel it is the correct call and it’s a penalty.
Click to expand...
Away from whether it's a dive or not, you seem to think it is reckless and also careless. If you're going to have an opinion, at least make a decision stick to it!
 
Hilly1618 said:
Does the challenge by the gk reach this threshold ? Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution. I would say so and did it occur in the penalty area, yes again so I feel it is the correct call and it’s a penalty.
Click to expand...
Change of heart! 10 mins ago you claimed it was reckless. I don't think it meets the threshold for careless imho. He is trying to play the ball and there is minimal contact. Havertz clearly brushes his leg on the ground to delay his movement and force contact.
 
Play nicely folks. One poster in this topic has already gone into the RefChat equivalent of the sin bin, don't be joining him in there. Remember it is a refereeing forum for referees, remove any fan colours before you enter.
 
Hilly1618 said:
Well I can assure you I am and such a response is totally unjustified.
Click to expand...
Out of interest, do you still only ref walking football? Serious question as this may help me to understand your point of view as walking football is played at a different pace.
 
Gabriel said:
Out of interest, do you still only ref walking football? Serious question as this may help me to understand your point of view as walking football is played at a different pace.
Click to expand...

It's also non-contact.
 
I think today was a perfect example of VAR is useless because of the people in charge.

Foul on Saka should have been a red. How that hasn't met the threshold, despite being just below the knee and a potential leg breaker is astonishing.

The penalty is a dive. Havertz initiated contact.

The goal, a little hand on the keeper, but it's not a foul.

All three should have been changed, with potentially the ref going to the screen. All were not changed because it wasn't 'clear and obvious'. I think most of the footballing world disagrees because all three were the wrong decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top