Dogawful Officiating

[Hanshithispantz]

That corner decision was baffling, it barely even reached the line never mind went over it. Tino was in complete control, there was no reason for the officials to assume he'd fucked up and let the ball roll out.

 

Anyway, Arsenal match Liverpool as the most ridiculous group we come across, season after season it seems now. Both clubs and the people around them go so far beyond reality to garner pity, whilst being absolute shithouses themselves, it's fucking embarrassing.

 

 

Edited November 5, 2023 by Hanshithispantz

[gbandit]

Aye, they are both this -

 

A single minor debatable decision goes against them: “this is corruption of the highest order, let’s leave the league, this is a disgrace, I feel sick”

 

A major incorrect decision goes for them: “It’s just one of those, we deserved it anyway, it’s only fair given how many decisions we’ve had against us.”

 

Completely incapable of seeing things without bias. I’d say that Liverpool are by some distance the worst as their fans en masse talk utter shit. However, Arteta and some of Arsenal’s fans are just as bad 

[joeyt]

16 hours ago, Stifler said:

The ball went backwards, the ball has to go forwards for it to be offside.

 

No it doesn't

[RodneyCisse]

Really felt like there was a narrative presented to the refs to make sure X,Y and Z happened.

[Bimpy474]

5 hours ago, wyn davies said:

Good point well presented, maybe give someone a chance in the same vein why was Havertz allowed to stay on the field following his initial none reckless tackle yellow.

 

He wasn't allowed back on as the ball was on the side of pitch he was waiting to come on from, he can't come on straight into the play where the ball is. It seems unfair but it's arguably right, whether he should be off the pitch as the fouled player is the problem. Why should the offending team gain a man advantage from their foul, for however long. It's farcical really.

[NUFC]

Why it probably wasnt a red cars for Havertz is probably point of contact. 

 

If you look its Havertz trailing foot that catches Longstaff rather than his foreward foot.

 

If it had been his front foot that had caught Longstaff it would have been a red for SFP.

 

I have tried to pause the MOTD highlights, apologies its blurry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2023 by NUFC

[M4]

Most of the aftermath from these incidents is tedious as hell, but I do love the random horror show of making up rules and interpretations that come up. Two favourites from today:

 

"All of the ball that's on the ground is out, so that's enough. In any other circumstances that would be judged over the line"

 

"Rule states that there has to be two players behind the goalkeeper for the player scoring to be onside."

[joeyt]

Thought it was hilarious how he delayed the game to let Declan Rice tie hs lace ffs

[Adam]

20 minutes ago, NUFC said:

Why it probably wasnt a red cars for Havertz is probably point of contact. 

 

If you look its Havertz trailing foot that catches Longstaff rather than his foreward foot.

 

If it had been his front foot that had caught Longstaff it would have been a red for SFP.

 

I have tried to pause the MOTD highlights, apologies its blurry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hate this idea though. VAR say it is reckless, then how is it not a red. Do you actually have to injure someone to get sent off. If you have no control of your tackle and jump in off the ground like a mad man clearing the player out you should be off. If someone swings a punch but misses, is that also reckless, but not dangerous as they miss? 

[GeordieDazzler]

28 minutes ago, joeyt said:

Thought it was hilarious how he delayed the game to let Declan Rice tie hs lace ffs

Happened twice didn’t it? One was clearly part of a pre planned routine from a corner iirc 

[GeordieDazzler]

Havertz went in to hurt the player and only failed to get sent off because he wasn’t successful in his attempt. 

[Checko]

12 minutes ago, Adam said:

 

I hate this idea though. VAR say it is reckless, then how is it not a red. Do you actually have to injure someone to get sent off. If you have no control of your tackle and jump in off the ground like a mad man clearing the player out you should be off. If someone swings a punch but misses, is that also reckless, but not dangerous as they miss? 

 

Reckless has a specific meaning in the rules and is a yellow card offence:

 

"Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned"

 

For a red card it would be:

 

"SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play."

 

"Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off"

[Bally21]

What really boils my piss with yesterday, and the goal VAR debate, is that if it was a goal against say Nottingham forest the media wouldn't give a flying fuck.

[Hanshithispantz]

Be canny funny if the PMGOL appologised to Arsenal for not sending off Havertz.

[Checko]

4 minutes ago, Bally21 said:

What really boils my piss with yesterday, and the goal VAR debate, is that if it was a goal against say Nottingham forest the media wouldn't give a flying fuck.

I guess it's the hysteria around the reaction that makes the story really.

 

'Sportsman takes defeat with good grace' isn't a very interesting news story. 'Sportsman taken defeat by whining like a teenager on a Monster energy drink comedown' is good copy.

[madras]

54 minutes ago, NUFC said:

Why it probably wasnt a red cars for Havertz is probably point of contact. 

 

If you look its Havertz trailing foot that catches Longstaff rather than his foreward foot.

 

If it had been his front foot that had caught Longstaff it would have been a red for SFP.

 

I have tried to pause the MOTD highlights, apologies its blurry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Using that logic Roy Keane shouldn't have been sent off for throwing the punch at Shearer because he didn't connect.

[Bally21]

11 minutes ago, Checko said:

I guess it's the hysteria around the reaction that makes the story really.

 

'Sportsman takes defeat with good grace' isn't a very interesting news story. 'Sportsman taken defeat by whining like a teenager on a Monster energy drink comedown' is good copy.

Agree, however if it is say Nottingham that are doing the whining - it's less of a story.

[huss9]

the goal controversy was  VAR at its best.

quick check of each issue - nowt clear and obvious - no need to re-referee the game - goal stands.

[Checko]

2 minutes ago, Bally21 said:

Agree, however if it is say Nottingham that are doing the whining - it's less of a story.

True. No-one mentions the Wolves ones much.

[Geordie Ahmed]

6 minutes ago, huss9 said:

the goal controversy was  VAR at its best.

quick check of each issue - nowt clear and obvious - no need to re-referee the game - goal stands.

Though according to some Arsenal fans because there were 3 checks it should increase the chance of not giving the goal

 

Doylems not realising, each issue gets checked and treated on it's own, you can't add them up to justify disallowing it

[Bally21]

3 minutes ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

Though according to some Arsenal fans because there were 3 checks it should increase the chance of not giving the goal

 

Doylems not realising, each issue gets checked and treated on it's own, you can't add them up to justify disallowing it

Exactly this, judge each incident on its merit, all 3 are independent events.

[midds]

Liked how even the stadium announcer sounded increasingly exasperated at each additional check with var

 

"and now they're checking the fucker for an offside.....jesus fucking wept man" 

[healthyaddiction]

1 hour ago, NUFC said:

Why it probably wasnt a red cars for Havertz is probably point of contact. 

 

If you look its Havertz trailing foot that catches Longstaff rather than his foreward foot.

 

If it had been his front foot that had caught Longstaff it would have been a red for SFP.

 

I have tried to pause the MOTD highlights, apologies its blurry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you watch the video, his right leg does connected with Longstaffs leg. Not heavily, it might have just been the shinpad, but it does connect.

 

 

[Pilko]

Can't wait til one of Arsenal's players gets snapped (hopefully Havertz) and their fans demand a red card. They'll change their view when it's the other way around, just like their entitled cunt of a manager.

[Adam]

1 hour ago, Checko said:

 

Reckless has a specific meaning in the rules and is a yellow card offence:

 

"Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned"

 

For a red card it would be:

 

"SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play."

 

"Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off"

 

I mean its pretty clear he uses excessive force, and endangers the safety of the opponent. He's dived in to play the man, if he was trying to play the ball he would be swiping round with his front leg. Taking a running jump in to someone is the definition of excessive force.