Wolves vs Arsenal

[BCMilan]

What a complete farce it's become. Totally agree with the comment about a court jury not being influenced etc. I'd like to know what evidence this panel has (that deemed it not a red card) that is different to the clear view of MO and the VAR room ?

 

[Wilson80]

What a complete farce it's become. Totally agree with the comment about a court jury not being influenced etc. I'd like to know what evidence this panel has (that deemed it not a red card) that is different to the clear view of MO and the VAR room ?

FA commission report attached

 

[Hilly1618]

FA commission report attached

Thanks for posting this. Interesting insight to the appeal process.

 

[Wilson80]

Are these official guidelines, or well-known SFP factors, or...? I can see from a previous thread something very similar came up in a previous appeal. https://refchat.co.uk/threads/newcastle-vs-arsenal.22696/page-4.

12. The Commission noted the various factors to be considered by a Match Official when assessing an incident of Serious Foul Play:


a. Could the Player play the ball fairly?


b. Could the Player play the ball without putting his opponent at risk?


c. What was the degree of speed?


d. What was the distance that the Player travelled?


e. Was the Player airborne and out of control?


f. What were the position of the Player’s feet


g. Were the Player’s studs showing?


h. Was there malice or brutality in the challenge?


i. Did the challenge endanger the safety of the opponent?

 

[BCMilan]

FA commission report attached

7. The role of the Regulatory Commission is not to usurp the role of the Referee and to simply re-referee the incident.

But you just have ! So, why has arguably our best referee and the referees in VAR deemed it differently ?

 

[BCMilan]

Either MO and the VAR officials don't know what they're doing, or the panel have totally thrown them under the bus and made it 10x more difficult for all us referees out there

 

[Wilson80]

7. The role of the Regulatory Commission is not to usurp the role of the Referee and to simply re-referee the incident.

But you just have ! So, why has arguably our best referee and the referees in VAR deemed it differently ?

Surely there'd be no point in the appeal process in the first place if the FA commission couldn't come to different conclusions than the match officials?

 

[Runner Ref]

Interesting they used an example from the exact same game. A challenge that I’d say was worse than the MLS challenge.

I wonder had MO sent him off if this would have meant the outcome of the case was difficult

 

[Wilson80]

Interesting they used an example from the exact same game. A challenge that I’d say was worse than the MLS challenge.

I wonder had MO sent him off if this would have meant the outcome of the case was difficult

The talk at the time from commentators listening to VAR feed was that Gomes' challenge was less serious than MLS' as (first?) point of contact was foot and not ankle or above

 

[CaptainsPlease]

1. It seems the only way the Commission could justify its decision was to understate the nature of the challenge in its description.

2. Other incidents are not relevant and should not be admissible in these appeals.

 

[ladbroke8745]

The Commission members were unanimous in their opinion that the Referee had
made an obvious error in sending off MLS for the challenge that he had made. The
challenge was certainly ‘Foul Play’ but it obviously could not, to the mind of the commission, be categorised as having been ‘Serious Foul Play’. MLS had stepped
across his opponent and tripped him up, possibly deliberately, but in doing so he
had obviously not endangered the safety of his opponent or used excessive force
or brutality, nor had he ‘lunged’ in at his opponent.

From this still... i don't see a player stepping across. I do see an outstretched leg with studs showing..

 

[BCMilan]

Surely there'd be no point in the appeal process in the first place if the FA commission couldn't come to different conclusions than the match officials?

Isn't that what VAR is there for, though ?

 

[RefereeX]

To suggest it is just a trip is equally as wrong (if not more wrong) than calling it serious foul play in my opinion.

 

[BCMilan]

The Commission members were unanimous in their opinion that the Referee had
made an obvious error in sending off MLS for the challenge that he had made. The
challenge was certainly ‘Foul Play’ but it obviously could not, to the mind of the commission, be categorised as having been ‘Serious Foul Play’. MLS had stepped
across his opponent and tripped him up, possibly deliberately, but in doing so he
had obviously not endangered the safety of his opponent or used excessive force
or brutality, nor had he ‘lunged’ in at his opponent.

From this still... i don't see a player stepping across. I do see an outstretched leg with studs showing..
View attachment 7899

The angle of that foot is not the angle a player would use in order to just trip someone up

 

[ladbroke8745]

The angle of that foot is not the angle a player would use in order to just trip someone up

That's the point.
It wasn't a trip. It wasn't stepping across.
To me, its serious foul play.

 

[BCMilan]

That's the point.
It wasn't a trip. It wasn't stepping across.
To me, its serious foul play.

I guarantee this case will be used in evidence in future appeals, from other teams between now and the end of the season

 

[BCMilan]

That's the point.
It wasn't a trip. It wasn't stepping across.
To me, its serious foul play.

and that'll be why MO instinctively brandished a red !!!

 

[ladbroke8745]

So the panel was made up of Stuart Ripley, Bradley Pritchard and Alan Knight.
Two midfielders who probably did these type of challenges in their career of which one was prominently lower league stuff and one a keeper who retired from professional football 20 years.
That's not to say they dont know the game but they're removed from refereeing part of the game and have they also kept up with the style of the game changing?
The trouble with these appeals board is that they're all viewing it as players.

 

[Ori]

Wow. The still is ridiculous. He twisted his foot round and caught him with the top of his foot.
The tackle on Timba was far more dangerous and was only a yellow. I’ve heard arguments, but that’s a tackle……irrelevant. Bruno got sent off by VAR for less. We mostly agreed that was a red card even though he didn’t mean it.

I also think it is pathetic that the fa have charged Arsenal for surrounding the referee after the red card had been overturned. It looks petty.
Don’t get me wrong. I agree they should charge any club for surrounding the referee, but the optics of this looks bad. Looks vengeful.

I also don’t follow this MO is our best. Who has rated him as such? I have seen him make huge errors, including this one that I will never understand. I also recall him being defended by Howard as saying he didn’t send off a player for a horrid challenge because he didn’t want to ruin the game, but is quite happy to send a player off in a big match for much less.

I believe MO Was in charge when a Liverpool player took a foot in the chest in the box and someone deemed it wasn’t a foul. I don’t hold this MO is our best and if he is our best, then we are in trouble.

I don’t believe in conspiracies against Arsenal. I think Arsenal have been unlucky by referees enforcing the latest PGMOL crackdown for whatever week they are enforcing it and then stop just as quickly.

Final thought is that VAR hasn’t helped these situations at all. Referees make less decisions relying on VAR to correct obvious errors (which they don’t consistently).

 

[Ori]

What a complete farce it's become. Totally agree with the comment about a court jury not being influenced etc. I'd like to know what evidence this panel has (that deemed it not a red card) that is different to the clear view of MO and the VAR room ?

That’s a terrible argument. Effectively saying that VAR have all the evidence and hence never make a mistake……which we know isn’t true.