Jump to content

Other games (2024/25)


simonsays

Recommended Posts

Love Haaland! Arteta talks shit a lot times and he suddenly has Haaland doing it to his face. And I just saw Ian Wright calling him a coward for throwing the ball at Gabriel. If it was not an Arsenal player, Wrighty would be calling that banter. But because it's Arsenal and their hearts are broken, Haaland is a coward. Love Wrighty too but that was a bit emotional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, geordie_b said:

So the PL reviewed the footage of Haaland throwing the ball off Turkey Teeths head and decided no ban, does that mean its now allowed? Roy Keane got a red card for doing it to Shearer...

 

Refs were biased in favour of Newcastle though.

 

Sure Shearer kicked Neil Lennon in the head and didn't even get a yellow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, geordie_b said:

So the PL reviewed the footage of Haaland throwing the ball off Turkey Teeths head and decided no ban, does that mean its now allowed? Roy Keane got a red card for doing it to Shearer...

 

Keane got a red for throwing a punch at Shearer

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, geordie_b said:

So the PL reviewed the footage of Haaland throwing the ball off Turkey Teeths head and decided no ban, does that mean its now allowed? Roy Keane got a red card for doing it to Shearer...

 

The Norwegian press will obviously have a pro-Haaland bias, but felt it was argued reasonably well that it cold set a very harsh precedent for future situations of a similar ilk when it couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the throw was 100% intentionally aimed to hit the Arsenal player's head. In other words, even though it seems fairly obvious it was intentional, giving a retroactive punishment for it could mean a player that genuinely hit a player with the ball by accident when throwing it (for whatever reason) would also have to be retroactively punished. 

 

In other words, Haaland didn't get punished for something he did that was arguably quite intentional so that any other players in the future who didn't do something similar intentionally would get the same punishment :dontknow: 

 

The rule that apparently would've been applied to hand out retroactive punishment would have been "unsportsmanlike conduct" and if the ref had dealt with it on the pitch it'd have been a yellow card, which also could be why there was no retroactive punishment handed out as they only seem to happen when it's an offense that would've been a direct red card that's been overlooked.

 

 

Edited by Kaizero

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Despise Man City personally. Want Arsenal to win the league. 

Dear god man pull yourself together. Anyone wanting Arteta to win anything other than a lifetime of herpes needs a check up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, gbandit said:

Iconic moment. I absolutely love the lad, not his footballing style as I find it boring as fuck but I love how odd he is 

 

He was very exciting to watch at Dortmund. He scored in some spectacular ways, using speed, stregth and even scoring goals from distance. It's just the role he has in Man City, like facing a low block every single game when they are passing the ball around the box.

 

 

Edited by Erikse

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just caught up on Trossard's red. Don't know how anyone can find it funny tbh; absolutely pathetic that a player should be cautioned and ultimately have to leave the field for that. Football: The Referee Show.

Link to post
Share on other sites

c6bae10a1bd57f1bbb5d665d9aea94e3.thumb.png.801cbe744cd17324cf7bb9e508074329.png

 

He's kind of right, but I'm not upset about it. It was just funny.:lol: If he did something similar against us, we'd be fuming. He did have a go at Dan Burn when we played them.

 

 

Edited by Erikse

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kaizero said:

 

The Norwegian press will obviously have a pro-Haaland bias, but felt it was argued reasonably well that it cold set a very harsh precedent for future situations of a similar ilk when it couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the throw was 100% intentionally aimed to hit the Arsenal player's head. In other words, even though it seems fairly obvious it was intentional, giving a retroactive punishment for it could mean a player that genuinely hit a player with the ball by accident when throwing it (for whatever reason) would also have to be retroactively punished. 

 

In other words, Haaland didn't get punished for something he did that was arguably quite intentional so that any other players in the future who didn't do something similar intentionally would get the same punishment :dontknow: 

 

The rule that apparently would've been applied to hand out retroactive punishment would have been "unsportsmanlike conduct" and if the ref had dealt with it on the pitch it'd have been a yellow card, which also could be why there was no retroactive punishment handed out as they only seem to happen when it's an offense that would've been a direct red card that's been overlooked.

 

 

 

 

Honestly referees often make assumptions about things being deliberate in situations where it's pretty obvious. You can rarely (or even never) prove "deliberate" 100%, because you can't read their mind. Can we prove 100% beyond reasonable doubt that Trossard intentionally kicked the ball away? What if he didn't hear the whistle, can we prove that he did? No, but everyone knows that he must have heard it. Just like everyone could see that Haaland did it intentionally.

 

 

Edited by Erikse

Link to post
Share on other sites

Justice for all round nice club Man City. They may be facing countless charges of corruption, but at least they didn’t get angry a few times like Arteta did. He should be in jail. 
 

Imagine if we engaged in time-wasting tactics too. Wouldn’t be like us O0

Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Erikse said:

 

Honestly referees often make assumptions about things being deliberate in situations where it's pretty obvious. You can rarely (or even never) prove "deliberate" 100%, because you can't read their mind. Can we prove 100% beyond reasonable doubt that Trossard intentionally kicked the ball away? What if he didn't hear the whistle, can we prove that he did? No, but everyone knows that he must have heard it. Just like everyone could see that Haaland did it intentionally.

 

 

 

 

Had to figure out what was what and this is the long and short of it:

  • Retroactive punishment for on-pitch/bench incidents can only be applied for a "bannable" offense. 
  • Taken literally this means the ref and the VAR team would have had to have overlooked an offense that should have been a direct red card.
  • FA disciplinary team ruled it was "unsportsmanlike conduct" and that a yellow card should have been awarded by the referee at the time.
  • However, the FA disciplinary team also ruled it was not "an act of violent conduct", which would have been a red card offense.
  • Had it been a red card offense, the  FA disciplinary team would have retroactively given Haaland a ban equal to an on-pitch direct red card.

l0IylOPCNkiqOgMyA.webp

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Kaizero said:

 

Had to figure out what was what and this is the long and short of it:

  • Retroactive punishment for on-pitch/bench incidents can only be applied for a "bannable" offense. 
  • Taken literally this means the ref and the VAR team would have had to have overlooked an offense that should have been a direct red card.
  • FA disciplinary team ruled it was "unsportsmanlike conduct" and that a yellow card should have been awarded by the referee at the time.
  • However, the FA disciplinary team also ruled it was not "an act of violent conduct", which would have been a red card offense.
  • Had it been a red card offense, the  FA disciplinary team would have retroactively given Haaland a ban equal to an on-pitch direct red card.

l0IylOPCNkiqOgMyA.webp

 

Oh, yeah I see now that you said "retroactive". I thought that you were talking about the onfield decision. Yellow seems about right, without really knowing the rules myself.

 

 

Edited by Erikse

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...