Arsenal Vs Bournemouth
- Thread starter Ori
- Start date
Auto correct does some really weird things . . .
Taking the alternative view again?!?
Former Premier League referee Mark Halsey believes there are three reasons why William Saliba should not have been sent off against Bournemouth.
The Cherries made use of their advantge to claim victory over Arsenal, as the Gunners dropped points after going down to 10 men for the third time this season. The north London side had to play for an hour without Saliba's services after the Frenchman was given his marching orders in the opening period.
Ex-ref Halsey does not believe that VAR should have intervened however. The retired official believes that Saliba's challenge did not even meet three of four criteria required to award a red.
"It’s a subjective decision, so I didn’t think VAR Jarred Gillett needed to get involved," Halsey told the Sun. "For the denial of a goalscoring opportunity, we look at four key criteria. And I had doubts over three of those.
"The distance between the offence and the goal was lengthy, the general direction of play saw the ball coming across Evanilson and not in front of him and also the location and number of defenders was questionable.
"The likelihood of him keeping or gaining control of the ball would have probably been in the favour of the Cherries forward because David Raya was back-pedalling towards his own goal."
Former Premier League referee Mark Halsey believes there are three reasons why William Saliba should not have been sent off against Bournemouth.
The Cherries made use of their advantge to claim victory over Arsenal, as the Gunners dropped points after going down to 10 men for the third time this season. The north London side had to play for an hour without Saliba's services after the Frenchman was given his marching orders in the opening period.
Ex-ref Halsey does not believe that VAR should have intervened however. The retired official believes that Saliba's challenge did not even meet three of four criteria required to award a red.
"It’s a subjective decision, so I didn’t think VAR Jarred Gillett needed to get involved," Halsey told the Sun. "For the denial of a goalscoring opportunity, we look at four key criteria. And I had doubts over three of those.
"The distance between the offence and the goal was lengthy, the general direction of play saw the ball coming across Evanilson and not in front of him and also the location and number of defenders was questionable.
"The likelihood of him keeping or gaining control of the ball would have probably been in the favour of the Cherries forward because David Raya was back-pedalling towards his own goal."
I had an argument with him on Twitter during the last World Cup because he was spouting that Messi should have been cautioned for this handball, for 'denying a promising attack'
My god it’s a one way device. Like saying news readers are conspiring with a shadowy force when they wear ear pieces
There also much being made of him having his hand over his ear, but football stadium are noisy places. What do you tend to do when trying to head and there is noise, yes you put your hand over your ear.
Exactly and it’s obvious why he may have chosen that moment to listen in!
Runner Ref
Well-Known Member
But…….. what if HW putting his right hand over his ear is a secret signal to the referee to send off the nearest Arsenal player?
Joe Harrison
Member
Kind of expected though right? An insightful analysis of why the decision is correct would not generate enough engagement. There needs to be an angle to generate that engagement and what better angle than the referee is 'wrong'. Guarantees clicks by the 'wronged' party for sure.
Related to this, I have noticed when Sky call on Mike Dean (and he backs the referees call), he gets so much less airtime (unless one of the other guests/pundits violently disagree) than when he calls something as incorrect. All feeds into the narrative of the referee being the 'pantomime villain'.
Going back on point. Regardless on if we agree or not on it being a red card offence.
How does it meet the obligations of clear and obvious error when so many people here disagree?
I believe there was something similar in the Chelsea game and it wasn’t given as a red card
How does it meet the obligations of clear and obvious error when so many people here disagree?
I believe there was something similar in the Chelsea game and it wasn’t given as a red card
Because ultimately these aren't decisions made by referendum, it's one experienced top level referee making a judgement call on whether he believes the referee has got it wrong on-field.
As for the Liverpool-Chelsea game - yes it was similar, and watching it back I think I'd go red, but can see why VAR didn't recommend a review, as it was 10 yards further from goal, and there is a defender chasing back who is much closer than the Saliba incident.
I see nothing wrong with it - just not to have a mobile on or speaking into it at the same time. There are coaches of the Referees who also listen in during the live game. Using comms kits is a skill so to aide development a coach listens in. The coach can’t be expected to attend the game and then afterwards spend another 90 mins plus to review the comms (even if is recorded). Same for HW.
Last edited:
Martin Keown was on talkSPORT today and was initially going on about how Howard Webb had clearly made the decision and told VAR what to do. Presumably a producer or someone more senior then got in his ear as he fairly quickly apologised. Not sure why they have him on as every single decision that goes against Arsenal he claims was wrong.
Speaking of which, predictably Hackett joined in with Halsey and said that it wasn't a red card. It really is absolutely pathetic and they are both embarrassing themselves week after week.
Speaking of which, predictably Hackett joined in with Halsey and said that it wasn't a red card. It really is absolutely pathetic and they are both embarrassing themselves week after week.
Amazing football pundits would even dare say something like that yet at least 2 of them have now. Really unacceptable.
Obviously we know Halsey and Hackett have got beef with the PGMOL but I don't think you can call them out here. Some people do think it's a yellow because he's not in possession of the ball and is a long way from goal and Ben White whilst some distance away is almost level so could make up ground perhaps? If the ball was at the attackers feet and a bit closer to goal, I would understand the red card more for sure.
No problem with them thinking it's a yellow card. The issue is that they constantly come out disagreeing with decisions that the KMI panel then back which ruins their credibility, and saying 'it's a yellow card for me' is very different to saying 'a red card is wrong'.
I've only just watched the YouTube highlgiths
I've said before that Referees get too wedded to the 'considerations' and end up making the wrong decision because they get clever with those 'considerations'. I think the Lehman is better at identifying an obvious goal scoring opportunity because they can just 'say what they see'. Often our common sense is more dependable that trying to put considerations into words. Therefore considerations, should be limited to considerations, they shouldn't override what the game expects, but the considerations should still be used to support a decision
On that basis, in Lehman's terms, I think this is a clear DOGSO, it's only when we get dirty with the considerations that doubt creeps in.
The yellow card is a poor on-field decision IMO. I've absolutely no idea whether VAR should have got involved. Depends which way the wind was blowing.
All the TV ex-Referees are poor ambassadors. Maybe they need more 'media training', but they do nothing to bridge the gap in knowledge of the LOTG . Many NLS Observers would do a miles better job in terms of explaining decisions to Joe Public
Hackett & Halsey are nothing more than a joke
I've said before that Referees get too wedded to the 'considerations' and end up making the wrong decision because they get clever with those 'considerations'. I think the Lehman is better at identifying an obvious goal scoring opportunity because they can just 'say what they see'. Often our common sense is more dependable that trying to put considerations into words. Therefore considerations, should be limited to considerations, they shouldn't override what the game expects, but the considerations should still be used to support a decision
On that basis, in Lehman's terms, I think this is a clear DOGSO, it's only when we get dirty with the considerations that doubt creeps in.
The yellow card is a poor on-field decision IMO. I've absolutely no idea whether VAR should have got involved. Depends which way the wind was blowing.
All the TV ex-Referees are poor ambassadors. Maybe they need more 'media training', but they do nothing to bridge the gap in knowledge of the LOTG . Many NLS Observers would do a miles better job in terms of explaining decisions to Joe Public
Hackett & Halsey are nothing more than a joke
Last edited: