A&H

Southampton vs Arsenal

S

Spanish_Ref

New Member
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".

Penalty call on Gabriel Jesus. Two arms around the waist/holding and held back over a period of a couple of seconds. Minimum should have been a check of the monitor. Definite penalty for me.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1584183861155545089

Possible penalty on Ben White. Two arm push in the box. Again, should have been a monitor check.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1584180810026225666

Tierney blow to the throat as the cross was coming in. You can hear the connection on the sound of the contact to Tierney's neck.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1584201070493847555

Headbutt/attempted headbutt from Lyanco on Nketiah. Again VAR check as a minimum. Should of been off.

Saka advantage. Played advantage, clearly signals but doesn't pull it back after the advantage was lost whilst his hands were still making the advantage signal.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1584250470180466688
 
The Referee Store
Rob Jones was very consistent on what he deemed to be holding offences, if he didn't deem it to have a material impact he didn't give it. I think that is all the game can ask for, it is well documented that the PGMOL officials have been ordered to not penalise any contact if it doesn't have an impact.

Saka flung himself to the floor, there was contact but it was minimal and also on the blind side of Jones, personally I would have just said no foul but from his view it looked like a blatant dive.

There was holding on Jesus, and I would say 50/50 on a penalty, the defender was taking a big risk holding on for that long. Not enough for VAR to get involved with though.

The Ben White one, absolutely no chance is that a penalty, nor the one on Tierney.

A polite reminder, as I think this is your first post, this isn't a fan's forum so please don't take it down that route. I say this as it comes across as you being an Arsenal fan and it is all very one sided.
 
RustyRef said:
Rob Jones was very consistent on what he deemed to be holding offences, if he didn't deem it to have a material impact he didn't give it. I think that is all the game can ask for, it is well documented that the PGMOL officials have been ordered to not penalise any contact if it doesn't have an impact.

Saka flung himself to the floor, there was contact but it was minimal and also on the blind side of Jones, personally I would have just said no foul but from his view it looked like a blatant dive.

There was holding on Jesus, and I would say 50/50 on a penalty, the defender was taking a big risk holding on for that long. Not enough for VAR to get involved with though.

The Ben White one, absolutely no chance is that a penalty, nor the one on Tierney.

A polite reminder, as I think this is your first post, this isn't a fan's forum so please don't take it down that route. I say this as it comes across as you being an Arsenal fan and it is all very one sided.
Click to expand...

The Gabriel Jesus one was a clear penalty. Especially if you remember the Chelsea penalty last night on Broja. Unless we are in the game here of hiding referee's mistakes, I don't think you can call the Jesus one 50/50. He's clearly being held and impended, and it has to go to VAR if Jones misses it.

I think like Jones or/and the VAR team you are very quick to write off the White one and the Tierney one. Two hands to the back of White and a shove is a penalty. The Tierney one reminded me of the foul on Son last year vs Arsenal which many said was a penalty without doubt.

I'm not an Arsenal fan. I'm a football fan and a referee in the MHRML and Barnet Sunday League and I find it difficult to have any sort of honest discussion with any referee that doesn't think the Gabriel Jesus one is a clear penalty. We are here to call the game and say it as it is, not make excuses to protect each other. Sorry this is one of my first posts, but the Jesus one has to be a clear penalty either in real time or called by VAR and the Tierney one is borderline but has to be reviewed. You can't swing your arms or clatter into an opponent in the box and not expect a penalty not to be given. I also note there is no comment on the head action from Lyanco into the Arsenal player. Red for Lyanco and yellow for Nketiah was the call, again a non-call/review by VAR.
 
Yampy said:
What you really mean is the referee was biased and Arsenal didn’t win because of it.
Click to expand...

No what I really mean is when I referee I hold my hands up if I've made an error and I don't make excuses. The Saka dive caution smacks of an official that was a bit let's say off his game today and out of his depth. The Saka advantage one makes no sense and he should have pulled it back for a free-kick. I am not sure what VAR was doing today, but that's a pen on Jesus, and a red card to Lyanco for a headbutt.
 
It's annoying not because I'm an Arsenal fan which I'm not, but as referees we lose credibility when we say things like the Jesus one was 50/50 and not enough for VAR to get involved. He's clearly impended, it's holding and it's a penalty, if not in real time by Jones which is understandable, it has to be one VAR calls. It's a clear example of a 100% penalty. I don't see how it's a debate at all. Not only is there about 4-5 seconds of consistent holding but he's leaning into him with his chest and shoulders and applying pressure especially towards the end of the play which contributes to Jesus falling.
 
Spanish_Ref said:
Minimum should have been a check of the monitor.
Click to expand...

There’s really no such thing. Either it was a C&O error and should have been sent down and reversed, or it should not have been sent down. The standard for sending down is the same as the standard for reversing. Any time a play is sent down and not reversed, either the VAR or the R made an error.
 
Yes, the tackle on the no 9 player in the black shirt is a 100% foul. Both arms on him over a period of a few seconds and he gets wrestled to the ground. The defender in red and white has no interest in the ball whatsoever. Very bad refereeing.
 
socal lurker said:
There’s really no such thing. Either it was a C&O error and should have been sent down and reversed, or it should not have been sent down. The standard for sending down is the same as the standard for reversing. Any time a play is sent down and not reversed, either the VAR or the R made an error.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're saying here. That the referee cannot be sent down to the monitor and stick to his/her original decision?
 
Pmalinski83 said:
Not sure what you're saying here. That the referee cannot be sent down to the monitor and stick to his/her original decision?
Click to expand...
The VAR only sends down if there is a C&O error.

the R reverses if there is a C&O error.

if the VAR sends down and the R doesn’t reverse, then either (1) the VAR was wrong that it was C&O error and should not have sent it down, or (2) the R was wrong to not reverse because it was a C&O error. Plays are NOT sent down because the VAR thinks maybe it should be reversed or thinks the R should take another look just in case. Every time a VAR sends it down and the R doesn’t change the call, the powers that be are telling one of them that they erred. announcers really don’t help when they say things like “at least the R should have looked at the screen”--that’s just not how VAR protocols work.
 
Only seen the Jesus one and my thought was no pen.
It's consistent with holding frequently allowed in the EPL. And the final throw to the floor by Jesus was against the momentum ie another direction of any pull and was clearly an exaggeration imo..
 
socal lurker said:
The VAR only sends down if there is a C&O error.

the R reverses if there is a C&O error.

if the VAR sends down and the R doesn’t reverse, then either (1) the VAR was wrong that it was C&O error and should not have sent it down, or (2) the R was wrong to not reverse because it was a C&O error. Plays are NOT sent down because the VAR thinks maybe it should be reversed or thinks the R should take another look just in case. Every time a VAR sends it down and the R doesn’t change the call, the powers that be are telling one of them that they erred. announcers really don’t help when they say things like “at least the R should have looked at the screen”--that’s just not how VAR protocols work.
Click to expand...
You make it sound it as if decisions were always objective. They're not. LOTG are written on paper and every decision is an interpretation of these rules. So the VAR sends the R down if they thought there was a C&O error. The R reviews the decision, disagrees and stick to the original decision. Neither of them was wrong; they just interpreted the rules differently.
 
JamesL said:
Only seen the Jesus one and my thought was no pen.
It's consistent with holding frequently allowed in the EPL. And the final throw to the floor by Jesus was against the momentum ie another direction of any pull and was clearly an exaggeration imo..
Click to expand...
Not really consistent with the penalty given the day earlier in the Man United - Chelsea match. Rules haven't changed. Looks like the referees interpreted the same rules differently.
 
JamesL said:
Only seen the Jesus one and my thought was no pen.
It's consistent with holding frequently allowed in the EPL. And the final throw to the floor by Jesus was against the momentum ie another direction of any pull and was clearly an exaggeration imo..
Click to expand...
I'd have to disagree.

Jesus was through on goal and was quite clearly stopped from both arms wrapped round him, slowing him down so other defenders could get involved.

Holding, I assume, you are referring to would be in the box for a corner. If referees gave penalties for holding in the box, there would be 5/6 penalties a game. This was very different.

Ref/VAR had a few choices imo:
1) free kick and DOGSO red as first pull back was outside area.
2) Pen and red no attempt to play ball
3) Pen and yellow (could argue from the first hold back he was trying to play the ball)

2+3 would be a debate as there were so many other factors to decide the colour of card.
 
Ryanj91 said:
I'd have to disagree.

Jesus was through on goal and was quite clearly stopped from both arms wrapped round him, slowing him down so other defenders could get involved.

Holding, I assume, you are referring to would be in the box for a corner. If referees gave penalties for holding in the box, there would be 5/6 penalties a game. This was very different.

Ref/VAR had a few choices imo:
1) free kick and DOGSO red as first pull back was outside area.
2) Pen and red no attempt to play ball
3) Pen and yellow (could argue from the first hold back he was trying to play the ball)

2+3 would be a debate as there were so many other factors to decide the colour of card.
Click to expand...

have not seen the clips

Jumping in though to point out your three options are flawed.

Option 3, cannot even have debate, " hold back" cannot be yellow, it is never classed as " trying to play the ball". Holding, would be a red
 
QuaverRef said:
Can we really sit in front of young referees and tell them this was 50/50 and shouldn't have gone to VAR :redcard:


Yes. Look at the screenshot you’ve posted, and then look at the direction Gabriel flings himself.
Click to expand...
Newton's third law of motion. Honestly, we're now at an absurd levels of discussion if we can't agree that holding a player with both hands without attempting to play the ball is not a foul...
 
Anubis said:
have not seen the clips

Jumping in though to point out your three options are flawed.

Option 3, cannot even have debate, " hold back" cannot be yellow, it is never classed as " trying to play the ball". Holding, would be a red
Click to expand...
Agree with what you say, but in the world of VAR, it's not always been the case.

My point being there is the covering defender that does eventually come into play (only because of the holding/hugging) so some could say it wasn't DOGSO in the penalty area and then be downgraded. Depends which part of the whole scene the VAR/ref/refchat want to pinpoint where the incident(s) happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top