Newcastle Vs Arsenal

[RefIADad]

His leading leg doesn’t make contact, it’s the follow through. At which point a lot of the speed and force is gone. It’s a glancing contact that isn’t at risk of injuring the opponent.

I’ve watched it again. I still have no idea how the Havertz challenge was not a red. Havertz gets the plant leg with a lot of his body weight after flying/launching. If we are at a point where the only way you can get a red is to nail someone in the knee with the studs straight-legged, then I seriously question what we are doing. That type of contact is endangering safety - it's not glancing in any way, shape, or form. You can’t connect with someone’s plant leg with your body weight like that. I’m sorry.

 

[bloovee]

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.

What consensus?

 

[deusex]

100% red card. I had to see a lot of different angles to see the contact (but that's what VAR is for).

I've had comments removed by the mods for much less than some of the stuff I've read here.
Consistency please gents!

 

[Kent Ref]

Havertz def red card.

Also red card for the needless elbow to the head.

The goal disallowed for the push IMHO.

 

[RustyRef]

What consensus?

With the pundits and media, and it is probably more than 50/50 on here towards yellow vs red.

 

[bloovee]

With the pundits and media, and it is probably more than 50/50 on here towards yellow vs red.

More than 50/50 is not a consensus, it's a majority (and the minority is right). You usually discount what pundits and media think.

 

[LancsReferee]

Havertz def red card.

Also red card for the needless elbow to the head.

The goal disallowed for the push IMHO.

Agree. Havertz is endangering another player's safety irrespective of whatever contact is made. He's out of control - it's more than just 'reckless'. The elbow has intent behind it and is premeditated and is VC. The push is a foul, so no goal.

 

[SammyT5]

The Havertz challenge definitely looks like a red from the replays I’ve seen, however I think what saves him is that he mainly catches Longstaff with his trailing leg, rather than the leading leg with the studs up.

Having said that, it’s a relatively clear red card anyway for reasons already mentioned by others. It could have been far worse for Longstaff however, less than a second later and that’s an ankle-breaker.

I’m not sure the push had enough in it to rule out the goal. Both players are fighting to win the ball. I’ve not seen a replay of the goal so I might be wrong. I’d also like to look at the goal again for offside as it looked debatable at the very least.

 

[RustyRef]

More than 50/50 is not a consensus, it's a majority (and the minority is right). You usually discount what pundits and media think.

I don't discount what the media thinks. I often think they are wrong and their opinion isn't based on the law, but when when almost everyone in the media thinks it isn't a red card, and even referees aren't agreed, that paints a picture. "What football expects" is used a lot, and clearly football doesn't expect a red card here.

 

[Tealeaf]

Havertz caution for me is right - I don’t quite have enough to totally sell SFP. And that is down to two things;

- the glancing contact with the trailing leg.

- at the point of contact Havertz is on the turf, not in the air.

If he goes past him, airborne and doesn’t make contact I’d find Red much easier because of the risk factor.

I call that red on my games, and I’ve lost control completely; because every single challenge after that is going to see screaming and pressure for cards to “level it up”.

 

[mctones]

Lifelong arsenal fan and avoid posting on my teams games, but on this occasion for the goal:

- It was not a legitimate goal.
- There was not a *clear and obvious* error that VAR was able to correct.

Both can be true.

 

[Big Cat]

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.

The consensus you've invented?

In the end I don't really care. Arsenal were bossing the game until Havertz went lunging at pace and with excessive force, but it changed the impetus in the game.

VAR choked on the Bruno VC because of the earlier SFP.

Arteta is quite loathsome from a ref's perspective.

Another deplorable weekend for the PGMOL and VAR . Mainstream News Headlines again, despite everything going on in the World

 

[Big Cat]

Lifelong arsenal fan and avoid posting on my teams games, but on this occasion for the goal:

- It was not a legitimate goal.
- There was not a *clear and obvious* error that VAR was able to correct.

Both can be true.

Of the 3 considerations, the ball looked out of play. But what can VAR do? Rule the goal out on a hunch? In the end, as is frequently the case, all VAR has done, is amplify the controversy to stupid levels

 

[santa sangria]

I just don’t get why the foul wasn’t given. The defender looks awkward yes, he is starting to stoop, it looks like his playing action is confused and he may well already be subconsciously preparing for the contact… but then…

…there’s an obvious two handed, straight armed shove in the back that knocks him forward, stops him playing the ball properly, and leads to goal.

And the replay angles showed it. It was C&O. It was obviously a foul. Crazy.


At least now there is more and more commentary about VAR not been worth the hassle. What a waste of time and money.

 

[Big Cat]

I'm inclined to sign-off this discussion with these points...
To you observers who are pre-occupied with point of contact, that is guidance which is not Law. Lunge and excessive force are words enshrined in Law, so you are wrong to dismiss the saliant words from the book.

Dismiss for SFP and we have a brave referee who is protecting the safety of players and preventing further misconduct.

 

[bloovee]

I don't discount what the media thinks. I often think they are wrong and their opinion isn't based on the law, but when when almost everyone in the media thinks it isn't a red card, and even referees aren't agreed, that paints a picture. "What football expects" is used a lot, and clearly football doesn't expect a red card here.

Three Newcastle players were cautioned for its not being what football expects.

 

[bloovee]

Havertz caution for me is right - I don’t quite have enough to totally sell SFP. And that is down to two things;

- the glancing contact with the trailing leg.

- at the point of contact Havertz is on the turf, not in the air.

If he goes past him, airborne and doesn’t make contact I’d find Red much easier because of the risk factor.

I call that red on my games, and I’ve lost control completely; because every single challenge after that is going to see screaming and pressure for cards to “level it up”.

Booking three opposition players for your missing a red doesn't scream "control"...

 

[RustyRef]

Three Newcastle players were cautioned for its not being what football expects.

I'm not talking about the players, they are always going to moan. Just shows the brains of footballers when two of the cautions were after the VAR process had been completed, and one of them was straight after his team mate had just been shown yellow for dissent. And only two were cautioned for dissent, Gordon was for his part in the confrontation. But how many pundits have you heard saying it should have been a red card? I can't think of many if any.

 

[Trip]

I'm an Arsenal fan and I think VAR got the goal decision correct. Arteta notably does not say which of the three possible reasons for ruling it out he thinks should stand.

You can't tell if the ball is out of play, I don't think it's an obvious enough foul to be a clear error, and I think it's possible the ball plays the striker onside.

VAR should have spotted the VC.

I love it when PL referees punish dissent properly.

Edit: Havertz yellow was the correct decision. It's very minimal contact with the trailing foot.

 

[RefIADad]

I'm inclined to sign-off this discussion with these points...
To you observers who are pre-occupied with point of contact, that is guidance which is not Law. Lunge and excessive force are words enshrined in Law, so you are wrong to dismiss the saliant words from the book.

Dismiss for SFP and we have a brave referee who is protecting the safety of players and preventing further misconduct.

As I’ve said, we have swung too far to having to “check a bunch of boxes” to get to a send off. In this case, too many people are just saying “well, he didn’t connect him at his knee with a straight leg studs up, so not a red card”. Havertz connects with a lot of his body weight at speed on a plant leg. Sure, he doesn’t connect with his lead leg. He just connects with most of the rest of his body weight.

I think too many are using “glancing” to make an excuse to not go red here. That contact was not glancing or minimal. Regarding pundits saying it’s not a red, that’s why I place virtually zero credibility in their comments about officiating. They are players - of course they are not going to say a challenge should be a red card. NOTHING short of a two footed, straight leg leap into a knee is a red for them.