A&H

Southampton vs Arsenal

The Referee Store
To be clear, I said I was 50/50 on the Jesus penalty, but 50/50 isn't enough for VAR to get involved. And if I was VAR I would absolutely be looking at the way he went down, it wasn't the action of a man trying to avoid being held, it was the action of a man trying to win a penalty.

And, also as I said, the Saka caution was arguably harsh, but he only has himself to blame. If you feel the slightest bit of contact and fling yourself to the ground you aren't getting a foul, and if the referee doesn't see the slight contact you will be getting a caution for simulation. There is absolutely no way that that level of contact made him fall to the ground as he did, so I'm actually happy with the caution.

Finally, the reason I flagged it as a fan post was that almost always when someone posts multiple times in succession, without replying to other people, it is a fan post and smacks of frustration about not getting decisions. That absolutely isn't what this forum is about, so I and the other mods will pick up on it.
 
Spanish_Ref said:
Some odd decisions and refereeing in this one today.

Saka yellow card for diving. Clearly wasn't a dive and within what you would card for a "dive".
Click to expand...
TBH you lost me here already. Saka's was a blatant dive and the ref did great to caution!

Jesus - there is a higher bar for penalties. The defender starts holding outside the box. The smart attacker goes down then. But then the defender plays the ball. Then they are inside the box, and there's a higher bar. Then they separate and Jesus throws himself to the ground. I completely understand a no penalty decision here. I would have preferred a DFK outside the box and a yellow (covering defenders).

The Tierney one - yes, I thought it looked like a foul - but have not seen a better angle. Have you got a better angle that VAR saw that shows this should have been a penalty?
 
santa sangria said:
Jesus - there is a higher bar for penalties. The defender starts holding outside the box. The smart attacker goes down then. But then the defender plays the ball. Then they are inside the box, and there's a higher bar. Then they separate and Jesus throws himself to the ground. I completely understand a no penalty decision here. I would have preferred a DFK outside the box and a yellow (covering defenders).
Click to expand...
Another person on this forum who doesn't understand the law of physics - Newton's third. If the defender pulls and holds the striker and the striker does his best to get to the ball in front of him, the defender then let's go, the striker falls in the opposite direction. He doesn't "throw himself" to the ground. On the contrary, as the striker admitted after the game, the ref told him that if he didn't try to stand his ground, then maybe he would consider the penalty.
 
Pmalinski83 said:
Another person on this forum who doesn't understand the law of physics - Newton's third. If the defender pulls and holds the striker and the striker does his best to get to the ball in front of him, the defender then let's go, the striker falls in the opposite direction. He doesn't "throw himself" to the ground. On the contrary, as the striker admitted after the game, the ref told him that if he didn't try to stand his ground, then maybe he would consider the penalty.
Click to expand...
Regardless of using physics terms, Jesus would still have to motion his movement in that direction. The force of his movement is irrelevant because the fact remains that the actions of the defender wouldn’t send him backwards, he’s done that himself. If you crash into the back of a car it generates the same force but that car isn’t go to go backwards even if you keep shouting ‘newtons third’ at it
 
Pmalinski83 said:
Another person on this forum who doesn't understand the law of physics - Newton's third. If the defender pulls and holds the striker and the striker does his best to get to the ball in front of him, the defender then let's go, the striker falls in the opposite direction. He doesn't "throw himself" to the ground. On the contrary, as the striker admitted after the game, the ref told him that if he didn't try to stand his ground, then maybe he would consider the penalty.
Click to expand...
You ever played tug of war, mate?
 
Mr Dean said:
You ever played tug of war, mate?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's exactly that. Defender pulls him towards the back, Jesus wants to get to the ball so pulls in the direction of the goal, the defender then lets go so Jesus falls to the ground towards the ball/goal. Jesus, it's not that difficult to understand, is it?!?
 
QuaverRef said:
Regardless of using physics terms, Jesus would still have to motion his movement in that direction. The force of his movement is irrelevant because the fact remains that the actions of the defender wouldn’t send him backwards, he’s done that himself. If you crash into the back of a car it generates the same force but that car isn’t go to go backwards even if you keep shouting ‘newtons third’ at it
Click to expand...
He doesn't fall backwards, he falls forwards. You haven't seen the video, have you?
 
Pmalinski83 said:
He doesn't fall backwards, he falls forwards. You haven't seen the video, have you?
Click to expand...
That didn't happen though did it? If someone is holding you and they let you go you just flop forward, it would be nowhere near as exaggerated as it was in this case.
 
It was a massive dive. Doesn't mean it wasn't a foul. But he threw himself to the floor.
Impossible situation for the referee in the end.
In retrospect, giving the first soft foul outside the box would have been "smart".
 
Well, good morning lads. Nice to see we are having a nice debate here.

Mark Halsey and Keith Hackett both called the Jesus incident a penalty regardless of what he said the ref told him or what way he went down. I think ref's are human and I wouldn't think it's unusual to hear a comment from a ref to a player such as "if you had gone down earlier, maybe it would of been a pen". I hear ref's all the time talking about "selling" a decision.

Santa unfortunately for some reason Sky didn't show a replay of the Tierney incident and that's what riled Arsenal fans. You heard a smack and Tierney an honest Scotsman went down, but there didn't seem to be any replays and we don't know if VAR looked at it or not. If you see the only angle that's available of the incident, it looks like a right arm into the throat and a collision and you see the fans behind the goal instantly call for a pen. To not get a proper replay is odd considering they showed numerous replays of Tierney in the same position a couple of minutes later when the goal was disallowed for the ball going out of play.

And let's call it how it is lads. I think we can all discuss opinions and it doesn't matter if we are new members, Dermot Gallagher or an administrator but Rusty you said this about the Tomori incident "Tomori pulled back at Mount a few times, it might have been "soft" but certainly not wrong." Gabriel Jesus's vs Mount, I think Jesus's one was much worse and he was impended and held more.

I would also like to make a note that nobody is talking about "was it enough for him to go down?". That isn't the issue. He was held/grabbed beyond the threshold of what's allowed and he went down to emphasis the fact. It's not simulation, a large majority of fouls/kicks result in a player going to ground when they could of done everything to stay on their feet. It's the game. If someone slide tackles me in Tesco's above the ankle, chances are the impact will hurt but the impact won't be enough to knock me off my feet, same as Broja vs Man United when we was being held, but players need to do it to get the decision. It's football. I can guarantee you if Broja was held by Mctominay like that in Tesco's when he is reaching for the baked beans, Broja won't end up on the floor, but it's the game. It's about the defenders action, the pull, the grab, not how or when the player goes down.
 
Spanish_Ref said:
I would also like to make a note that nobody is talking about "was it enough for him to go down?". That isn't the issue. He was held/grabbed beyond the threshold of what's allowed and he went down to emphasis the fact. It's not simulation, a large majority of fouls/kicks result in a player going to ground when they could of done everything to stay on their feet. It's the game. If someone slide tackles me in Tesco's above the ankle, chances are the impact will hurt but the impact won't be enough to knock me off my feet, same as Broja vs Man United when we was being held, but players need to do it to get the decision. It's football. I can guarantee you if Broja was held by Mctominay like that in Tesco's when he is reaching for the baked beans, Broja won't end up on the floor, but it's the game. It's about the defenders action, the pull, the grab, not how or when the player goes down.
Click to expand...
Right, but that's where I think you're having a disconnect with the rest of the forum here - it explicitly does matter how he goes down.

I don't know if you're a reader of Dale Johnson's VAR columns, but he often discusses how the VAR has been explicitly told this season to ensure the manner of fall matches the point and force of any contact. Going down "to emphasise" anything will result in a disconnect between contact and fall, which the VAR is 100% supposed to consider as a reason to doubt the validity of the foul. By trying to emphasise a foul, it means VAR is correct to not feel it's a C&O error.
 
GraemeS said:
Right, but that's where I think you're having a disconnect with the rest of the forum here - it explicitly does matter how he goes down.

I don't know if you're a reader of Dale Johnson's VAR columns, but he often discusses how the VAR has been explicitly told this season to ensure the manner of fall matches the point and force of any contact. Going down "to emphasise" anything will result in a disconnect between contact and fall, which the VAR is 100% supposed to consider as a reason to doubt the validity of the foul. By trying to emphasise a foul, it means VAR is correct to not feel it's a C&O error.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply.

I see the point of contact and pulling/holding that warrants a penalty before the player goes down. So from my angle the if, when, how the player goes down is irrelevant. It's still a penalty even if the player stays on his feet at the end of the play. I also think we are getting bogged down in the intricacies of VAR. If we are looking at the incident in a room as ref's for training purposes in isolation before the existence of VAR, we are all sitting there looking at the pull/grab saying "yeah that's a pen". Take a way the threshold for VAR to get involved or not, remove how Jesus goes to ground, because the foul is before that, it stops him getting a shot off and getting to the ball. It's so obvious.

I'm with the lads Mark and Keith 100%.

Mark:
Arsenal should have been awarded a first-half penalty when Gabriel Jesus was hauled down by Southampton's Duje Caleta-Car. The incident highlighted the inconsistency of decision-making by officials this weekend, with Chelsea and Aston Villa benefitting in similar situations. Saints defender Caleta-Car wasn't goal-side and tried to make life difficult for Jesus but he committed himself to a clear holding offence and referee Robert Jones should have pointed to the spot. If Jones didn't see it, VAR official Peter Banks needed to intervene.'

Keith
That’s a penalty kick for me. You cannot, as a defender, grab your arms around like that. Then we say, why has that not been penalised? Come on referees, this is grappling. This is why in the Man United game they are saying there is inconsistency because there is. All of these referees need to sit in front of a screen and the manager should show all these clips and say very clearly ‘This is a holding offence, I want penalty kicks awarded’.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top