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

    Are they actually an independent panel. I get why technically they could be “independent” but aren’t they all just former refs and pgmol members?

    If that’s not a foul, every single game from now on Arsenal should just start by floating crosses to the back post and blatantly push defenders down. There’s no need to be sly about it, make it the most obvious pushes.

  • Wide_Challenge3880@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The fact that only 3-2 of them said Bruno should have been sent off is super fishy.

    I don’t trust how independent this ‘independent’ panel is.

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

      I mean we watched the referee give an incorrect decision and we saw VAR review it and also gave the wrong decision. Why would an independent panel be exempt from similar melons? 2/5 saying Bruno shouldn’t have gotten a red should mean that they should get chucked off the panel immediately. I have no problem with them saying Havertz should have gotten a red as long as the consistency of this is applied throughout the season, likelihood of that is nil. Udogie, with a very similar and arguably worse tackle, literally didn’t get a red a game later from VAR. As for the Joelinton call, swap the players around and Gabriel would have conceded a penalty and people would have said he was an idiot. I mean I remember this apparently being enough contact to be deemed stonewall.

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

    I’m in awe people are still crying about this. The Liverpool decision last night was worse and the man United decision was about on par and everyone has moved on.

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

      True, because other decisions were worse we should ignore all other injustices. We should also just move on and then complain about the same stuff next week when more bad decisions happen. Nothings going to change if people don’t keep talking about it.

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

      Right?

      Like this doesn’t even rate in the top 5 most atrocious games for reffing this season.

    • Wide_Challenge3880@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      For me, I think it’s because people can’t even admit that Arsenal got fucked over that match. There are still people who think the goal was fair.

      Then there’s stories of PGMOL making sure pundits cover the referees

      • 93EXCivic@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If Harvetz is sent off like he should of been either for the tackle they reviewed or the other late tackle that should have been a second yellow, then the game is probably very different.

    • teamorange3@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Arsenal fans are the softest fan base in all of football. I honestly don’t get how they watch the game and find enjoyment out of it.

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

      I think it’s the fact that there are 3 controversial incidents in one game and within one of those incidents 3 controversial calls were made.

      Add to that the aggrieved parties manager called out the refereeing organisation.

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

      It’s being reposted by a United fan, only difference is this is now in a neat little graphic instead of the full report.

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

      Man I am crying about all of it. I don’t care if it was UEFA, the Rashford Red Card was fucking atrocious. I didn’t see the Liverpool call but I also cried about the abysmal communication that disallowed Liverpool’s goal against Tottenham too. And I will cry when any team is fucked over by the refs. Refs are making headlines more than players are, and that is a problem.

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

      Arsenal have the most batshit conspiracy theory crazy fanbase on the internet, they are either 10yr olds or have the mental capacity of 10yr olds. it’s hilarious how triggered they got over a correct decision this week. They’ve become the new banter FC, been some incredible takes. Been fun to watch the state of some of it

  • EducationalTension72@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Players see a red , miss three matches, Few more yellows, miss a match, easy touch Wrong call? Ohh human error darling. Blunder? Apologies maybe? 😳👉🏻👈🏻

  • 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.

  • National-Fig4803@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Funny that. They decide that the match defining call was correct but happy to hold their hands up to the other two.

    It was a foul for the goal. It’s fucking simple. Cowards.

  • 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?

    • 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.

    • 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

  • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • LePixelinho@alien.topB
      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

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • Murderbot20@alien.topB
        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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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…

    • 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

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • Putrid_Loquat_4357@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Dw there will be multiple new fuck ups this weekend and we’ll move onto those. Nothing will ever change, it’ll be a continual cycle of fuck ups from the pgmol.

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

    Note that the panel only voted 3-2 in favour of saying Bruno’s intentional forearm to the head of Jorginho should have been reviewed and been a red card.

    The rules are very clear that striking someone intentionally in the head is violent conduct and a red so there is no excuse for getting this wrong. But why might that be the case?

    Well this independent panel includes 3 ex players and or coaches. Why are they deemed competent to know the rules and give valid opinions? As we know from punditry players often have shit takes because when they played football they could two foot people from behind or elbow people in the face as they jump up for headers.

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

      So you can’t trust the referees to get it right? And you can’t trust ex-players? And you can’t trust ex-coaches?

      Who do you think should be making these assessments? Fans who have never actually read the Laws of the Game?

  • Gear4days@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Remember when they were boasting that VAR will result in 98.8% of decisions being correct lol

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

      Tbf they do get a hell of a lot more right than wrong, just the right ones aren’t worth talking about.