Southampton vs Arsenal

[Spanish_Ref]

Shock horror, keith hackett having a pop at PGMOL management.

I always take Keith and Mark with a pinch of salt - they do a lot to remain "relevant" and in the public eye.

Nothing against your opinion on the two young lads Keith and Mark but as opposed to Dermot Gallagher who went on Sky and called the Gabriel Jesus incident "a tangling of legs". LOL. That's gas-lighting of the highest order. I think anyone with a two eyes and a brain wouldn't call that incident a "tangling of legs" unless they are trying to manipulate the viewers or divert/distract from the incident.

 

[GraemeS]

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’.”

Referees are human. If a player is exaggerating a fall in order to try and sell it, he inevitably runs the risk of making the fall look entirely fake, which I think is exactly what happened here. It's a pretty borderline penalty call for me regardless, add in him throwing himself to the ground and I completely understand it not being given live and I completely support the VAR not getting involved.

It's certainly not the heinous error you (and "the lads") are trying to make it out to be. You mention DG doesn't think it should have been given - so we have 2 ex-referees plus you who say yes and one ex-ref plus most of this forum that says no. That's a fairly 50:50 split that accurately represents a borderline decision for me, which is what this is.

The fact you choose to take those that agree with you as speaking gospel and those that disagree as gaslighting is a concerning attitude to be honest. I don't always agree with Dermot, but I think you need to take a step back here and consider why you're so quick to dismiss his opinion and so eager to agree with MH and KH, who both have just as patchy a record as DG when it comes to having opinions post-match.

 

[Spanish_Ref]

Referees are human. If a player is exaggerating a fall in order to try and sell it, he inevitably runs the risk of making the fall look entirely fake, which I think is exactly what happened here. It's a pretty borderline penalty call for me regardless, add in him throwing himself to the ground and I completely understand it not being given live and I completely support the VAR not getting involved.

It's certainly not the heinous error you (and "the lads") are trying to make it out to be. You mention DG doesn't think it should have been given - so we have 2 ex-referees plus you who say yes and one ex-ref plus most of this forum that says no. That's a fairly 50:50 split that accurately represents a borderline decision for me, which is what this is.

The fact you choose to take those that agree with you as speaking gospel and those that disagree as gaslighting is a concerning attitude to be honest. I don't always agree with Dermot, but I think you need to take a step back here and consider why you're so quick to dismiss his opinion and so eager to agree with MH and KH, who both have just as patchy a record as DG when it comes to having opinions post-match.

A lot of words from me, a lot of words from you, a lot of words from others. I appreciate it.

But, I don't understand how a defender holding and stopping (or slowing down) a forward from getting to the ball is 50:50. Does the defender have any reason to have his hands around the attackers chest and waist? No. Is he impending the attacker? Yes. It's a penalty. We can sit here all day and give explanations why the referee didn't give it or why VAR didn't get involved, but if you are isolating the incident and using it as a training tool or playing the VAR with hindsight and in front of our TV screens, there is no justification for arguing against it being a penalty.

I don't know much about the "lads" opinions but I know they aren't afraid to go against the grain or give their honest opinion whilst the lad Dermot has a bit of a reputation for sitting on the fence and always backing the referee. I can pull up about five very similar incidents where Dermot is completely contradictory and always sides with the referee without failure. Similar incidents but one week he says "it's a tangling of legs" and the previous month he said "Yes, 100% correct decision he's being held".

Can anyone sit here and say that Broja was a penalty vs Man Utd, Mason Mount against AC Milan was a penalty, Mings was a penalty but Jesus wasn't? I appreciate you calling it a 50/50 not a definite no but for me it's penalty. When you give a penalty it's either a definite YES or it's a no, and for me this is a definite YES. I can't provide any justification for the defenders actions and I ask the questions was the defender holding/grabbing the attacker? YES. Did he impend/prevent the attacker getting to the ball with his contact? YES. I don't care if Jesus falls down, stays on his feet or does ten star jumps and a moonwalk afterwards. Why, you ask? It's because the foul happened before he went down. So if he stayed on his feet it's a penalty. Therefore the fact he went down and from what angle doesn't matter, it's a penalty.

Do I understand why the referee didn't give it? YES. Have I seen VAR get involved loads of times in similar incidents? YES. Do I think if the referee was sent to the VAR monitor he would look at it and give it? I'm 99% sure he would. Do I understand anyone sitting here saying if we isolate the incident and look at it from our laptops it's 50/50 or not a penalty? NO. Final comment from me. Got to go and test out my holding/grabbing theory in public and see what makes people go to ground or not.

 

[GraemeS]

A lot of words from me, a lot of words from you, a lot of words from others. I appreciate it.

But, I don't understand how a defender holding and stopping (or slowing down) a forward from getting to the ball is 50:50. Does the defender have any reason to have his hands around the attackers chest and waist? No. Is he impending the attacker? Yes. It's a penalty. We can sit here all day and give explanations why the referee didn't give it or why VAR didn't get involved, but if you are isolating the incident and using it as a training tool or playing the VAR with hindsight and in front of our TV screens, there is no justification for arguing against it being a penalty.

It's not a non-contact sport, which immediately makes the question "Does the defender have any reason to have his hands around the attackers chest and waist?" irrelevant.

There is a sliding scale of acceptable to unacceptable levels of contact, with unacceptable only kicking in with "careless" fouls. So the question you actually need to ask is "does the defender hold or pull the attacker in a careless manner?" To which for me at least, the answer is......maybe? Hence borderline.

 

[Ross]

Watching very closely. Stop the fan post nonsense or take a break from here

 

[RustyRef]

Shock horror, keith hackett having a pop at PGMOL management.

I always take Keith and Mark with a pinch of salt - they do a lot to remain "relevant" and in the public eye.

Exactly, if they routinely agree with refereeing decisions they cease to be employable.

 

[RustyRef]

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.

Not even vaguely comparable, Mount did his level best to stay on he feet and got a shot away, but it was very weak because he was being held back. Jesus flung himself to the floor.

And can you quit it with the "lads" please. Not sure if this news has reached you, but female referees are allowed and we live in a world of equality.

 

[Redster]

It's not a non-contact sport, which immediately makes the question "Does the defender have any reason to have his hands around the attackers chest and waist?" irrelevant.

There is a sliding scale of acceptable to unacceptable levels of contact, with unacceptable only kicking in with "careless" fouls. So the question you actually need to ask is "does the defender hold or pull the attacker in a careless manner?" To which for me at least, the answer is......maybe? Hence borderline.

Why would carelessness matter? It's a holding offence.

You could ask 'was it trivial?' or 'did it in fact impede the attackers movement?', but it's just fundamentally wrong to import the notion of carelessness.

Having looked at it, the arms of the defender don't look like they really dragging much on the attacker. The defender appears to be trying to play at the ball with his foot, but he doesn't shove the attacker away - his arms simply have to be somewhere. There's a lot of movement, and the stills look sus, but I think I'm with the majority here. This is not one for VAR to get involved in

 

[socal lurker]

Agree. The question on holding is whether it was more than trifling, not whether it was careless. (And one could ask if that is pretty close to what we actually do on other fouls, but let's not open that can of worms . . .)