A&H

Newcastle Vs Arsenal

Mooseybaby

Mooseybaby

Retired big bad baldy in all black!
Absolutely crazy "challenge" by Havertz and in the aftermath, 3 Newcastle players follow him in the the book for their protests! :eek:
 
The Referee Store
Don’t know what they said, but not a great look when you’re booking three players on the team on the end of a bad challenge…
 
Sfp interpretation has shifted way too much towards point of contact and away from speed, force, and lunging.
 
How is Guimarães not in the book for a forearm into an opponent's head off the ball, shoving someone in the chest then booting the ball at an another during a stoppage? :eek:
 
Mooseybaby said:
How is Guimarães not in the book for a forearm into an opponent's head off the ball, shoving someone in the chest then booting the ball at an another during a stoppage? :eek:
Click to expand...
That’s a red card for violent conduct all day long. Elbow to the head deliberately?? How did var not deal with that.

Second booking for kicking the ball as hard as he could at a player.

Saying that I wouldn’t have surprised if Havertz would have been sent off.
Want to know what the 3 players said to the ref to get booked. Don’t understand players doing that. They know the result.
 
Ignoring the elbow, Bruno not being booked in that first half is laughable. It’s the easiest booking you’ll ever see
 
Think it's one those "orange" cards. Though how the onfield referee wasn't called for the elbow on Havertz is a bit puzzling for me. Got to be violent conduct for the forearm to the head.
 
Last edited:
Shameful standard of refereeing on and off the FOP
Away from the television cameras, it's that sort of officiating and inaction that gets games abandoned
 
The three yellow cards for dissent to Newcastle players seems to have affected VAR and the ref. I can't think of any other reason.
 
es1 said:
Havertz yellow for me

Bruno red, clear violent conduct
Click to expand...
Absolutely this. Don't think Attwell saw it at all, so Madley can only send him to the screen if he thinks it is VC. Seems the reason given that it was forearm rather than elbow, but I'm struggling to see the logic on that, it was still a very forceful arm to the head of an opponent off the ball. Howard might be making yet another phone call.
 
Big Cat said:
Shameful standard of refereeing on and off the FOP
Away from the television cameras, it's that sort of officiating and inaction that gets games abandoned
Click to expand...
Apart from the consensus is he got the right outcome for the Havertz challenge, so can't blame him or VAR for that. Attwell clearly didn't see the off the ball arm to the head, not would I expect him to given when and where it happened, so my only complaint would be with VAR.
 
RustyRef said:
Absolutely this. Don't think Attwell saw it at all, so Madley can only send him to the screen if he thinks it is VC. Seems the reason given that it was forearm rather than elbow, but I'm struggling to see the logic on that, it was still a very forceful arm to the head of an opponent off the ball. Howard might be making yet another phone call.
Click to expand...
It was not negligible force … would have expected VAR and red…
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
For those who are saying the Havertz challenge was a caution-what else would have been needed for you to call that a SFP red?

High speed, high force into the plant leg. Havertz comes lunging/flying in. I fail to see how that isn’t endangering the safety of the player. I’m a neutral in this game, so I don’t have a rooting interest. If the only reason that isn’t SFP is because the contact was low or not studs first, then we need to move away from this “check a lot of boxes” exercise and think of the total context of the challenge.
 
RefIADad said:
For those who are saying the Havertz challenge was a caution-what else would have been needed for you to call that a SFP red?

High speed, high force into the plant leg. Havertz comes lunging/flying in. I fail to see how that isn’t endangering the safety of the player. I’m a neutral in this game, so I don’t have a rooting interest. If the only reason that isn’t SFP is because the contact was low or not studs first, then we need to move away from this “check a lot of boxes” exercise and think of the total context of the challenge.
Click to expand...
I don't see this. If I did, agree red, but it's glancing contact at most on one viewing.
 
“In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.”
So there is nothing in lotg that distinguishes between elbow/ forearm etc. Guimaraes deliberately struck the player and should have been shown red. Howard Webb will have explaining to do!
In lower level/ untelevised games, these offences might not be seen or maybe referees might be swayed by not wanting to raise the temperature etc but VAR does not have such luxury; every decision is endlessly scrutinised and the decisions need to be correct IN LAW.
And how can Gordon not be offside for the goal? There is only one player between him and the goal line when the ball deflects off Joelinton? Does an inadvertent’pass’ not count? I can’t wait to hear what Dermot has to say on Monday!
As a Leeds fan, I honestly have no vested interest in who wins/ stays on the pitch etc, but controversies such as these end up making it more difficult for refs everywhere.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top