RateTheRef

In real time, Attwell clearly felt there wasn’t enough to justify a penalty and having seen the replay I believe he was correct not to give it.

Once sent to the monitor, it’s inevitable that the decision will be changed. Why? I can only remember two occasions where the referee has viewed the monitor and stuck with their original call (Graham Scott and Andre Marriner). Is it the expectation from PGMOL that you stick with VAR’s call? Or are referees scared that should they go against VAR that we might not see them in the PL again for a few weeks?

Quote from: TVOS on Sun 02 Jan 2022 09:55

While I agree fans must accept that opposition players will celebrate in front of them (and it's part of all the 'fun' of being at the game), to say it isn't inflammatory shows a remarkable lack of understanding.

Of course, his passion and enjoyment at scoring the winner maybe saw Rhodri lose control for a second or two, but he could have just as easily gone to his own fans, who were behind the same goal, albeit at the other corner of the stand.

Also, given how far the fans are from the pitch at the Emirates, he ran far enough, didn't he? Not Adebayor proportions, but that was an exception.

What if one of those objects thrown by the fans had seriously injured a player or another fan? Yes, the fans should show restraint, but in a highly passionate game and situation like that, people do things they ordinarily wouldn't.

Sorry, I’m not for having that. If you want to amend the Law, or use it - on what grounds? Players shouldn’t celebrate near opposition fans? There was no safety or security issue caused, and if any adult can’t stop themselves throwing objects at a person on a football field, they should not be there.

‘Security or safety issue’ is already a mandatory caution, and that would be a very liberal interpretation of the Law.

I’m all for sensible law application, but that’s just infantilising football fans.

I can't comment on the overall control as did not watch the whole game but on the big incidents this would be my take -

The Arsenal penalty claim I favour a penalty, I think he just gets the foot before the ball. However, this in not at all clear, from one goal line angle it does look like he gets the ball first, VAR cannot intervene here in my view it is in my view an almost perfect example of not being clear and obvious.

The Man City penalty to me is totally different. Clear leg on leg contact impeding the opponent and the shirt holding is also clear. I get the argument that it has to be decided if the shirt holding impedes the opponent but for me the whole picture here is a penalty. No contact on the ball, only on the opponent and I think it is impeding contact. Yes simulation by the attacking player in the aftermath but for me a foul by the defending player first. Clear and obvious foul a correct VAR intervention IMO.

The RC I think is spot on, silly YC for dissent and then a silly challenge for the second YC, no issue there IMO.

To be honest I am amazed at the description of inconsistency by VAR Gillett. The two incidents are totally different. The only real similarity is the location they took place on the pitch! In one case there is an argument of whether there is contact on the ball first or not in the second I am not really sure what the debate is. The argument seems to be if VAR is used for a penalty incident for one team then it must be used for the other? Forgive me if I am missing something but to me they are not at all similar incidents.

Quote from: DublinRef on Sat 01 Jan 2022 23:12

I can't comment on the overall control as did not watch the whole game but on the big incidents this would be my take -

The Arsenal penalty claim I favour a penalty, I think he just gets the foot before the ball. However, this in not at all clear, from one goal line angle it does look like he gets the ball first, VAR cannot intervene here in my view it is in my view an almost perfect example of not being clear and obvious.

The Man City penalty to me is totally different. Clear leg on leg contact impeding the opponent and the shirt holding is also clear. I get the argument that it has to be decided if the shirt holding impedes the opponent but for me the whole picture here is a penalty. No contact on the ball, only on the opponent and I think it is impeding contact. Yes simulation by the attacking player in the aftermath but for me a foul by the defending player first. Clear and obvious foul a correct VAR intervention IMO.

The RC I think is spot on, silly YC for dissent and then a silly challenge for the second YC, no issue there IMO.

To be honest I am amazed at the description of inconsistency by VAR Gillett. The two incidents are totally different. The only real similarity is the location they took place on the pitch! In one case there is an argument of whether there is contact on the ball first or not in the second I am not really sure what the debate is. The argument seems to be if VAR is used for a penalty incident for one team then it must be used for the other? Forgive me if I am missing something but to me they are not at all similar incidents.

Superb post Dublinref - definitely one of the best posts this year!

For once, I thought Peter Walton was insightful on BT in making a distinction between the two. It is rare that two incidents are directly comparable and for those arguing inconsistency, I wonder if they would have said the same if the two incidents had happened in separate games or both been potential penalties for Man City?

I sometimes think people place too much emphasis on their own opinion. Of course everyone will have their own views and should express them but I think there are many instances when you can personally think you'd have made a different decision but consider that the VAR's judgement was a credible and reasoned one. In such cases, I would generally give benefit to VAR.

As someone who can no longer see incidents myself, and therefore have no direct opinion, I have heard people across football arguing for all 4 possible scenarios - both clear penalties, both clearly not penalties, Arsenal clearly a penalty but Man City not, Man City clearly a penalty but Arsenal not. In cases where there is a clear consensus such as the tackle by Ederson V Newcastle or the Kane tackle a few weeks ago my presumption is that VAR got it wrong. In instances like yesterday, I am happy to accept the professional judgement of the officials on the day.