• Fit_Meaning6661@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    No arguing with these muppets, world is against them and Saudi have bought the refs, could have a unanimous panel of 100 and arsenal fans will still think it’s rigged

  • Oh_my_Butt@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    So the independent committee either is very biased or isn’t independent if they think that wasn’t a foul on Gabriel. Someone is trying to save face for the PGMOL

  • syfqamr32@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Again, post match whatever these panels or whatever the hell the want to call themselves means fuck all. If these people were so good put them at the VAR duty so that correct call can be made DURING THE MATCH.

  • thejamielee@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    66% failure rate on the 3 absolutely match altering decisions is disgraceful, but the lack of consequence for the failures even more.

  • TheGoldenPineapples@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I just don’t really get the consistency here.

    I personally have no issue with VAR not being able to rule that the ball went out of play. I think Gabriel was fouled in the build-up and I still don’t see how they didn’t have the correct footage for the offside, but that’s another matter entirely.

    My point is that if there wasn’t enough evidence to rule out whether or not Willock had run the ball out for them to act, then why was Rashford keeping the ball in play against Brighton not given the same advantage? Surely, they had the same level of evidence for that, no?

    • Jamesy555@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They didn’t actually, there was a camera level with the line rather than at an off angle

    • NUFC9RW@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They had a better angle on that one they judged to be sufficient evidence to rule that out.

    • kdpilarski@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They had a camera view level with the goal line for the rashford goal, which they didn’t for this one.

  • Drj1001@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Joelinton has two stretched arms in the back of Gabriel, how is that not a freekick?! 👀

  • chariot_dota@alien.top
    cake
    B
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    ??? why always the first image that is shown in havertz tackle? That leg doesn’t even catch anyone

  • ModeTop7@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I would love to see what evidence they had to disallow the goal that Rashford apparently let the ball go out of play for. Different rules for different clubs apparently.

    • Bendy_McBendyThumb@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Probably because, just as football fans rage over other VAR decisions showing refs just the still image, a still image doesn’t show enough evidence. Go back slightly from the where the still image is, you’ll see Gabriel jumps upward slightly, before then flopping himself.

      I don’t mind getting downvoted into oblivion by fans who disagree with this, but go take a careful look for yourself, without bias, and you’ll see Joelinton doesn’t impede Gabriel, and Gabriel’s movement is inconsistent with if he’d been pushed, hence he can’t have been pushed.

  • 21otiriK@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Bruno incident probably doesn’t even happen if Havertz gets correctly sent off. He’d completely lost his head in the aftermath to that and half-time came at a good time for him.

  • ReggieWigglesworth@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean they voted that Havertz tackle was a red 5-0 and that Bruno’s was a red 3-2… their findings are hard to deem credible.

    • goon_crane@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And to see they’re trying to dust their hands with the Havertz tackle, when if we look across 10 matches it was clear that the ref’s on field and VAR were systemically not interested in giving straight reds for harsh challenges that weekend.

      Only one player got a straight red for an equivalent dangerous challenge and it was in the box and after he already should’ve gotten one for violent conduct.

    • kingtuolumne@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I dunno, expecting 100% unanimous is not how things work though. That’s why you have multiple people on a panel. Came to the right decision at least now

    • An_Almond_Thief@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the Joelinton tackle isn’t a foul either then it’s going to be really easy to defend crosses if you can just push over the attackers.

    • LePixelinho@alien.top
      cake
      B
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That picture of the Havertz tackle is also weird, given he only touched him with the left leg. Don’t know why that should be a clear red tbh, even if he had some speed

      • Murderbot20@alien.top
        cake
        B
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thats what I thought about the Havertz tackle too.

        I mean it was a rough tackle no doubt. But he didnt try to ‘get him’ with his leading foot. He clipped him with the trailing foot and because of that I dont think it was reckless.

      • Alexabyte@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If he had made contact though (and it was a matter of inches) there was every chance of a career-ending (or limiting) injury. That would have been a lot of force into a planted leg.

        Red without any hesitation.

      • galactix100@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        He absolutely did not only hit Longstaff with his left leg. His right leg catches Longstaff, it was pure luck it didn’t hit him hard enough to do serious damage.

      • WhenTheSunGoesDan@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s always the case when they use single frames to discuss events of the game. Joelintons push looks a lot worse in the photos that everyone uses than it does in video form. That’s not me saying it isn’t a foul, more so that the photos make it look a lot worse.

    • besop12@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel like this so called “PL Independent Key Match Incident” committee proceeded purely to discredit Arteta’s statement. Sky Sports & PGMOL are all both in cahoots to protect each other & prop each other’s interests. This is why they can suddenly conjure Howard Webb for a cheeky little guest appearances on MNF.

    • Not_Ginger_James@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This sounds pedantic but they weren’t voting on whether it was a red or not, they were voting on whether the VAR intervention was correct. And yes, for the record I think it makes very little difference here and I’m surprised it wasn’t unanimously agreed as wrong. But I can only assume they disagreed on the basis of whether its ‘clear and obvious red’ as opposed to red card at all.

      • Om_Nom_Zombie@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Referee didn’t see it at all, meaning any potential red should refer the referee to thr screen so he can make a judgement, let alone such a blatant one.

    • whiskeyinthejaar@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      But the thing is, football laws are subjective for the most part to the individual interpretation. That game was anomaly, not the norm. I will always be a firm believer that if you need to watch the play more than once to make a decision, whatever ref decided is the correct call.

      If we keep playing and replaying these instances, and yet we have major divide on the correctness of the calls, then these arguments are invalid.

      Arsenal was unfortunate because of the end result, but the whole disgrace to football is just bullshit to make their fans feel better about the loss.

    • firemeaway@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also the screenshot provided for the havertz tackle is completely misrepresenting the point of contact. AFAIK the only foot that made contact was the trailing left foot that stayed on the ground. The right high foot completely missed.

    • Th3Alch3m1st@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Would love to know how “independent” these folks are. What’s the point of making their identities hidden? They could have side hustles in the middle-east for all we know…

    • BoosterGoldGL@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      R/soccers obsession with the Havertz one not being red is bonkers to me. It’s the definition of reckless.