Leicester - Arsenal

[Pmalinski83]

Very weak officiating in this game today. Leicester - 14 fouls but no yellow cards. The 14 doesn't include a studs on the bent knee challenge from Ndidi on Martinelli after the latter had scored. If he hadn't scored, it's a red and penalty so not sure why the incident wasn't reviewed. Saks pushed in the box when the ball was crossed towards him - easy penalty. Again, no decision, no VAR review.

On the plus side, Trossad's brilliant goal correctly disallowed after White obstructed the goalkeeper. These happen a lot and aren't normally given, but I guess the issue is with the other referees not the one that gave that foul.

 

[Mooseybaby]

Give it bloody rest! Yet another "Arsenal have been wronged again" post, seems to be the only time your name appears.

Are you actually a referee or a just fanboy from the comedy channel more commonly known as AFTV?

 

[Pmalinski83]

I would say that the mentality of a boy is displayed by someone who instead of engaging with the post chooses to be personally abusive.

 

[Josh the referee]

14 fouls doesn't mean there has to be yellow cards being shown

 

[santa sangria]

There is a problem in football with fouls during the act of shooting. They are just not given and not expected.

I think this would be a very easy area for IFAB etc. to clarify and encourage sanctions, which would discourage defenders and probably mean more goals.

In this case I was hoping for a yellow but the replay makes it look red.

(I had one mentor tell me it can’t be a foul if the defender is trying to block a shot. I love him but want to strangle him for that.)

 

[RustyRef]

I would say that the mentality of a boy is displayed by someone who instead of engaging with the post chooses to be personally abusive.

You are posting as an Arsenal fan again though, so if you do that on a refereeing forum you are going to get stick. You even refer to Saka as Saks, there are loads of Arsenal fans forums so if you want to moan about the refereeing go there. If you want to post constructively about the overall refereeing performance then you are OK here, but I am seeing little evidence of that happening.

The contact from Ndidi on Martinelli after the goal was completely accidental, his leg had to go somewhere and unfortunately it landed on the opponent. The lack of complaints from Arsenal players at the time strongly suggests to me that you are overreacting.

You talk about Leicester committing 14 fouls, but Arsenal themselves were guilty of 9, that is hardly a gulf that suggests one team was kicking the other off of the park. Trossard's goal wasn't disallowed because of obstruction, which hasn't been an offence for years, rather Ben White very clearly had hold of the keeper's arm. There was a reasonable shout for a foul on Saka, sometimes they are given sometimes they aren't, but it was certainly nowhere even close to being a clear and obvious error and therefore VAR were absolutely correct not to get involved.

 

[Ryanj91]

It all comes down to the inconsistency of VAR or in this case, officials.

Was it a foul? Yes he has clearly stopped the keeper making a simple catch.

Go back a few match days and spurs V Leeds, their keeper wiped out by two spurs players at a corner and Kane taps into an empty net.

One has 2 mins VAR investigation, the other the goal is awarded. That is what infuriates fans and probably referees.

What was most strange is the non-PK. Defender trips and then does a brilliant rugby tackle to bring Saka down. He is clearly a six nations fan. it was quite impressive. Both hands round Saka's waist and pulled him to the floor. Now how that wasn't given, especially 2 mins after a very soft (but correct) pull, is odd. One pull disallows a goal, one trip and pull to the ground combo isn't. Same VAR official.

The 'stamp' was unfortunate, but not a red card. Martinelli fell to the floor to shoot, the Leicester player is running as you'd expect any player to run. It was just unfortunate coming together.

 

[JamesL]

Having seen MOTD for the first time in a long time, I managed the arsenal Leicester highlights at least.
I was incredibly surprised to see the Ben White Holding sent down. Yes, it's a foul. But, it seems, to me at least, to sit well below the threshold that we have seen in recent weeks.
The Martinelli goal incident was just unfortunate, it certainly wasn't a red card offence and I'm certain it would have been checked.
The Saka penalty, is one where the ref gives it or not VAR does not get involved.

 

[DJIC]

For what it’s worth I think they are two good VAR decisions, a clear foul on GK, White has no reason to hold his arm, correctly disallowed. Second non-intervention imo correct, Saka moves back in to the defender & initiates the contact, so imo no c&o error. I think we should look at just the decisions in this match, not criticise these match officials for inconsistency.

 

[RustyRef]

Having seen MOTD for the first time in a long time, I managed the arsenal Leicester highlights at least.
I was incredibly surprised to see the Ben White Holding sent down. Yes, it's a foul. But, it seems, to me at least, to sit well below the threshold that we have seen in recent weeks.
The Martinelli goal incident was just unfortunate, it certainly wasn't a red card offence and I'm certain it would have been checked.
The Saka penalty, is one where the ref gives it or not VAR does not get involved.

I think the fact it was a foul on a keeper made it be seen as a clear and obvious error. In holding a keeper's arm you are stopping him from doing his job, so different to if it was a defender that was being held.

 

[Ryanj91]

For what it’s worth I think they are two good VAR decisions, a clear foul on GK, White has no reason to hold his arm, correctly disallowed. Second non-intervention imo correct, Saka moves back in to the defender & initiates the contact, so imo no c&o error. I think we should look at just the decisions in this match, not criticise these match officials for inconsistency.

Saka is tripped first. Then dragged with both hands to the ground...

 

[santa sangria]

It’s the referee’s task to decide if there is a foul, and if it is careless, reckless or excessive force. The still is quite damning I think.

Ndidi stops watching the opponent and watches the ball, hence the contact. I can easily understand why this could be interpreted as excessive force and endangering the safety of the opponent.

But football doesn’t expect cards here with goals. For me it’s crazy and benefits defenders and encourages wilder lunges.

 

[RustyRef]

It’s the referee’s task to decide if there is a foul, and if it is careless, reckless or excessive force. The still is quite damning I think.

Ndidi stops watching the opponent and watches the ball, hence the contact. I can easily understand why this could be interpreted as excessive force and endangering the safety of the opponent.

But football doesn’t expect cards here with goals. For me it’s crazy and benefits defenders and encourages wilder lunges.

A different interpretation could be that in sliding in to play the ball Martinelli has effectively put himself into Ndidi's path. I really don't see what he could have done differently here to avoid the contact, accidents happen in football and contact doesn't necessarily mean foul or sanction.

 

[santa sangria]

A different interpretation could be that in sliding in to play the ball Martinelli has effectively put himself into Ndidi's path. I really don't see what he could have done differently here to avoid the contact, accidents happen in football and contact doesn't necessarily mean foul or sanction.

He could have looked where he was going!

 

[Jorik0907]

There is a problem in football with fouls during the act of shooting. They are just not given and not expected.

I think this would be a very easy area for IFAB etc. to clarify and encourage sanctions, which would discourage defenders and probably mean more goals.

In this case I was hoping for a yellow but the replay makes it look red.

(I had one mentor tell me it can’t be a foul if the defender is trying to block a shot. I love him but want to strangle him for that.)

I've had these a lot. Gave a couple of fouls and PKs for it last season and was told in rather clear terms that I wasn't expected to give those. No one even really appeals for them while they're mostly clearly reckless and sometimes even borderline excessive.

 

[Ori]

While op is clearly an arsenal fan, I am also a fan, but the only decision that baffles me is the saka penalty.
The disallowed goal I could argue isn’t clear and obvious for var to overrule, but my personal belief is that the keeper was being held and it’s quite important and hence the right decision was made.
The “foul” on martinelli was clearly accidental in that he was tackling him and just landed on him accidentally after he slid to score. He went in the way of the defender.

Saka was clearly a penalty. No idea why it was given.

I don’t fully understand VAR. I don’t understand the threshold for clesr and obvious or for when they call the ref to review it. In this case they could have asked the ref to go to the monitor and make his own mind up if they weren’t sure.