How the hell has Havertz not been sent off? Thats all. Even Keown said he got lucky.
Officials were bad all game. How did Guimaraes get away with forearming an Arsenal player in the head off the ball?
totally agree, dont dispute that at all but the Havertz decision woulnd all the Newcastle players up and set the nasty tone there after. That was the point the ref totally lost it.
Can you imagine Arteta's reaction if that was a Newcastle player sything down Saka like that? lol. Spontaneous combustion springs to mind!
It doesn't make it right - But the utter silence from Wolves, who have been screwed over so many times, makes Arsenal and recent Liverpool reactions even more embarrassing.
Arsenal fans genuinely think they don't get the rub of the green on refereeing decisions - and now VAR. No, seriously, they do.
I know, I know, it's totally baffling. But their sense of entitlement literally knows no bounds.
These embarrassing club statements might be the thing that turns my opinion on scrapping VAR… first Liverpool, now Arsenal, who’s next?
I am missing the days where clubs accepted the result of a match after 90 minutes (even in cases where the ball clearly crossed the goal line for instance) rather than crying about it on the internet.
Imagine if the FA issued a statement on FIFA after the 2010 World Cup. 😂
You think the likes of Fergie or Wenger never criticised refereeing performances? Or Mourinho? Living in a dream world.
Of course they did. I don’t remember official club statements which basically consisted of whinging though.
These embarrassing club statements might be the thing that turns my opinion on scrapping VAR… first Liverpool, now Arsenal, who’s next?
I am missing the days where clubs accepted the result of a match after 90 minutes (even in cases where the ball clearly crossed the goal line for instance) rather than crying about it on the internet.
Imagine if the FA issued a statement on FIFA after the 2010 World Cup. 😂
You think the likes of Fergie or Wenger never criticised refereeing performances? Or Mourinho? Living in a dream world.
Of course they did. I don’t remember official club statements which basically consisted of whinging though.
I remember Ferguson singling out individual referees months later, in press conferences before games, to intimidate them into giving United decisions. But complaining after a game about a decision is bad now I guess.
Whichever way you cut it, the refereeing performance this season has been abysmal. Banning clubs from stating that fact is a joke.
Possible ball out of play / foul / handball / offside: Gordon goal
What happened: Newcastle took the lead in the 64th minute when Anthony Gordon stabbed the ball home from close range. However, the VAR needed to check a series of incidents before deciding whether to clear the goal.
It was a remarkable reaction and completely removed from the reality of the situation. You could understand Liverpool's anger when Luis Diaz's goal wasn't allowed against Tottenham, but this isn't remotely close to that. It's a series of situations that are fully explainable. There's no smoking gun over a VAR error. Arsenal's reaction was over the top and unnecessary, creating added pressure when unwarranted.
The Gunners have a fair argument about a possible foul, but it doesn't justify the reaction.
PGMOL's promise of greater transparency under chief refereeing officer Howard Webb since the start of the year has backfired to a degree, as now fans and clubs on the wrong side of 70-30 or 60-40 subjective decisions think they have been cheated. Yet truly egregious mistakes are rare, and in most cases a decision will always leave one side feeling aggrieved -- which is why this system of VAR is always going to have serious issues.
The Independent Key Match Incidents Panel has logged fewer VAR errors than last season, but debate around them has intensified. Errors like that for the Díaz goal cannot happen, and that has understandably added to the furore about refereeing standards. But Arsenal's statement adds nothing, and there will be no response from the Premier League or PGMOL
One incident outside of the three was straightforward: the claim that the ball touched the arm of Joelinton before Gordon scored. Accidental attacking handball before a goal now applies only to the scorer, so Joelinton would need to deliberately handle or have his arms in an unexpected position for his movement; neither applied, so the VAR would not consider the handball further.
The other situations are more contentious, but for two of them the only outcome for the VAR was to stay with the on-field decision.
The first concerns Joe Willock and whether he managed to keep the ball in play by the corner flag. As it happened so far away from the goal area, it was out of shot of the camera on the goal line, which is concentrated on the area around the goal.
When Rasmus Hojland's goal was disallowed for Manchester United against Brighton & Hove Albion in September, Marcus Rashford's attempt to keep the ball in play was in shot on that goal-line camera, allowing the VAR to take the decision that the ball was definitely out.
The VAR in this game, Andy Madley, has to take into account the angle of the camera and the curvature of the ball; it's impossible to say -- without doubt -- that the whole of the ball was out, so the decision stays with the on-field call. Remember the goal Japan scored against Spain at the World Cup, when it looked as if Kaoru Mitoma had failed to keep it in before Ao Tanaka scored? Initial television replays had viewers convinced it was out, but later angles proved the VAR was correct to allow the goal; the curvature from other angles had been deceptive.
There's no prospect, in the near future at least, of technology to track whether the ball stays in play outside of goal-line technology. There's too much space to cover.
Then there's the possible offside against Gordon. When Joelinton touches the ball, Gordon needs to be behind it to be onside. But there is no camera angle that shows both the ball and the whole of Gordon's body.
It's very possible that Gordon was marginally ahead of the ball, but the VAR cannot change the on-field call on a hunch -- so the decision of onside must stand.
Even with the increased number of cameras being used for offside this season, it will never be possible to completely rule out a situation like this. Indeed, it wouldn't be solved by semi-automated offside, as the system used by UEFA -- which was adopted by Serie A in January and will likely be added by the other top European leagues next season -- doesn't have a sensor to track the ball, only the players.
So while Gordon's position could be calculated, it wouldn't be possible to manually plot the front of the ball -- and create the offside line. UEFA had a similar problem last season when a lengthy offside review led to a late Harry Kane winner for Tottenham against Sporting CPbeing ruled out for offside. That decision needed a manual process to see the ball, but it was in view, which meant the decision could be made.
The only part of this decision that Arteta can have legitimate complaints about is the potential foul on Gabriel, when Joelinton appeared to push down on his back with extended arms. The freeze-frame images look damning, but in real time it doesn't look anywhere near as incriminating. Indeed, on the initial replays few people seemed to think there was even a foul to look at. It's a borderline decision for a VAR overturn; some will think this is definitely a foul, others that there's not enough in it. Is it clear and obvious? Arteta at least has a case on this, but the series of events on the goal didn't warrant the response from Arsenal.
I love that people are obsessed with the ball going out when it's the clear push that is the reason the goal should've been disallowed anyway.
But I guess Sky and ESPN love to focus on the wrong issue as per usual.
"There's no prospect, in the near future at least, of technology to track whether the ball stays in play outside of goal-line technology. There's too much space to cover" Billion pound sport right there. Tennis does it fine but football just can't manage the lines.
You shouldn't have to guess. Put a sensor in the middle of the ball and if it goes more than half a ball's length outside the pitch you know it's out. But the billion pound sport can't do that, so we're stuck with camera angles.
You shouldn't have to guess. Put a sensor in the middle of the ball and if it goes more than half a ball's length outside the pitch you know it's out. But the billion pound sport can't do that, so we're stuck with camera angles.
You seem a bit too obsessed over the ball going out of play if you ask me...
You shouldn't have to guess. Put a sensor in the middle of the ball and if it goes more than half a ball's length outside the pitch you know it's out. But the billion pound sport can't do that, so we're stuck with camera angles.
You seem a bit too obsessed over the ball going out of play if you ask me...
Good argument, very intelligently made.
Anyway Chelsea v Tottenham is on in less than an hour.
I used to quite like arsenal due to the old man, but now I think Arteta and their fans are all wankers. It won’t be refereeing decisions that will cost them this season it’ll be the lack of a good centre forward.
The shadow the ball is just over the line so the ball is still in play. Arteta should concentrate move on way his players were so slow to get out to Willock to close him down.
Comments
Can you imagine Arteta's reaction if that was a Newcastle player sything down Saka like that? lol. Spontaneous combustion springs to mind!
I know, I know, it's totally baffling. But their sense of entitlement literally knows no bounds.
Whichever way you cut it, the refereeing performance this season has been abysmal. Banning clubs from stating that fact is a joke.
Newcastle 1-0 Arsenal
Possible ball out of play / foul / handball / offside: Gordon goal
What happened: Newcastle took the lead in the 64th minute when Anthony Gordon stabbed the ball home from close range. However, the VAR needed to check a series of incidents before deciding whether to clear the goal.
VAR decision: Goal stands.
VAR review: This unique and complicated review took four minutes and six seconds and included three possible reasons to disallow the goal. Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta was fuming after the game, calling the decision "embarrassing," with Arsenal doubling down on that criticism as a club on Sunday.
It was a remarkable reaction and completely removed from the reality of the situation. You could understand Liverpool's anger when Luis Diaz's goal wasn't allowed against Tottenham, but this isn't remotely close to that. It's a series of situations that are fully explainable. There's no smoking gun over a VAR error. Arsenal's reaction was over the top and unnecessary, creating added pressure when unwarranted.
The Gunners have a fair argument about a possible foul, but it doesn't justify the reaction.
PGMOL's promise of greater transparency under chief refereeing officer Howard Webb since the start of the year has backfired to a degree, as now fans and clubs on the wrong side of 70-30 or 60-40 subjective decisions think they have been cheated. Yet truly egregious mistakes are rare, and in most cases a decision will always leave one side feeling aggrieved -- which is why this system of VAR is always going to have serious issues.
The Independent Key Match Incidents Panel has logged fewer VAR errors than last season, but debate around them has intensified. Errors like that for the Díaz goal cannot happen, and that has understandably added to the furore about refereeing standards. But Arsenal's statement adds nothing, and there will be no response from the Premier League or PGMOL
One incident outside of the three was straightforward: the claim that the ball touched the arm of Joelinton before Gordon scored. Accidental attacking handball before a goal now applies only to the scorer, so Joelinton would need to deliberately handle or have his arms in an unexpected position for his movement; neither applied, so the VAR would not consider the handball further.
The other situations are more contentious, but for two of them the only outcome for the VAR was to stay with the on-field decision.
The first concerns Joe Willock and whether he managed to keep the ball in play by the corner flag. As it happened so far away from the goal area, it was out of shot of the camera on the goal line, which is concentrated on the area around the goal.
When Rasmus Hojland's goal was disallowed for Manchester United against Brighton & Hove Albion in September, Marcus Rashford's attempt to keep the ball in play was in shot on that goal-line camera, allowing the VAR to take the decision that the ball was definitely out.
The VAR in this game, Andy Madley, has to take into account the angle of the camera and the curvature of the ball; it's impossible to say -- without doubt -- that the whole of the ball was out, so the decision stays with the on-field call. Remember the goal Japan scored against Spain at the World Cup, when it looked as if Kaoru Mitoma had failed to keep it in before Ao Tanaka scored? Initial television replays had viewers convinced it was out, but later angles proved the VAR was correct to allow the goal; the curvature from other angles had been deceptive.
There's no prospect, in the near future at least, of technology to track whether the ball stays in play outside of goal-line technology. There's too much space to cover.
Then there's the possible offside against Gordon. When Joelinton touches the ball, Gordon needs to be behind it to be onside. But there is no camera angle that shows both the ball and the whole of Gordon's body.
It's very possible that Gordon was marginally ahead of the ball, but the VAR cannot change the on-field call on a hunch -- so the decision of onside must stand.
Even with the increased number of cameras being used for offside this season, it will never be possible to completely rule out a situation like this. Indeed, it wouldn't be solved by semi-automated offside, as the system used by UEFA -- which was adopted by Serie A in January and will likely be added by the other top European leagues next season -- doesn't have a sensor to track the ball, only the players.
So while Gordon's position could be calculated, it wouldn't be possible to manually plot the front of the ball -- and create the offside line. UEFA had a similar problem last season when a lengthy offside review led to a late Harry Kane winner for Tottenham against Sporting CP being ruled out for offside. That decision needed a manual process to see the ball, but it was in view, which meant the decision could be made.
The only part of this decision that Arteta can have legitimate complaints about is the potential foul on Gabriel, when Joelinton appeared to push down on his back with extended arms. The freeze-frame images look damning, but in real time it doesn't look anywhere near as incriminating. Indeed, on the initial replays few people seemed to think there was even a foul to look at. It's a borderline decision for a VAR overturn; some will think this is definitely a foul, others that there's not enough in it. Is it clear and obvious? Arteta at least has a case on this, but the series of events on the goal didn't warrant the response from Arsenal.
But I guess Sky and ESPN love to focus on the wrong issue as per usual.
"There's no prospect, in the near future at least, of technology to track whether the ball stays in play outside of goal-line technology. There's too much space to cover"
Billion pound sport right there. Tennis does it fine but football just can't manage the lines.
You shouldn't have to guess. Put a sensor in the middle of the ball and if it goes more than half a ball's length outside the pitch you know it's out. But the billion pound sport can't do that, so we're stuck with camera angles.
Anyway Chelsea v Tottenham is on in less than an hour.
Referee lost the plot yet again. Standard of refereeing is actually becoming a joke this season.
Tottenham should have 9 men and be 2-1 down.