Bruno Guimarães’ arm to the head of Arsenal’s Jorginho in the 45th minute was also a missed red card, but on a split 3-2 decision.
This tells you everything you need to know about how brainless the panel is. Deliberately smashing your forearm into someone’s head is not a red card according to 2 panel members.
Looks like the article has been corrected. It now says “but on a split 3-2 decision for the VAR to get involved.” That suggests they all personally thought it was a red, but only 2 out 5 thought a yellow was a clear and obvious error
He didn’t even give a foul let alone a yellow. If that’s not clear and obvious I don’t know what is. They need to let the VAR just talk to the ref more like in Rugby
That suggests they all personally thought it was a red, but only 2 out 5 thought a yellow was a clear and obvious error
He didn’t get a yellow for the elbow, he got a yellow in the 88th minute for shoving Vieira in the face.
So actually 2 of the 5 thought giving him nothing for purposely elbowing an opponent in the back of the head was not a clear and obvious error.
I forgot Guinarares didn’t get a yellow, but that doesn’t change the main point.
The fact that no yellow was given was (probably) because the on field ref didn’t see it. However VAR can’t intervene to give a yellow. So the question is whether it was a clear and obvious error to not give a red. And 2 out of 5 thought no.
Anyway, I’ve had enough of this discussion. Everything has been laid out, if you don’t accept it, then you don’t.
Now compare that to Daizen Maeda’s VAR overrule red card yesterday which was initially a yellow from the ref.
I guess it depends on whether they thought it was deliberate. I don’t know the breakdown of the rules, but usually an accidental forearm in the face, if it’s light enough won’t get a red, but definitely a foul.
I am fine with them saying the Havertz challenge is something they want out of football. Total striker’s challenge, he was lucky to stay on. But how can the same not be said about Bruno losing head. Man tries to slide tackle someone late, misses, and then clocks Jorginho in the head to make himself feel better. While different than the Havertz incident, it is violent conduct and a red card, but because it’s “emotional” it’s okay?
I thought Havertz was a clear yellow until you slow it down and see him make contact with the leading foot as well. Couldn’t complain about a red really. That said Bruno should be a clear red made even worse with context. They just had a bust up and he missed a two footed challenge immediately before the elbow. Don’t know if Jorgi said something or because he was the captain but Bruno seemed to have it out for him.
No dude. They all said red card. The vote is about whether VAR should have intervened. I disagree with the people who say it shouldn’t have been used. But that’s not the same as saying it wasn’t a red card offense.
Bruno should have seen red. Havertz should have seen red.
There’s a question of whether Bruno would have done what he did, if the ref had made the correct decision on the Havertz challenge; but both incidents as they are deserved red cards.
Sadly though, far too many Arsenal fans still can’t admit that Havertz’s challenge was a dangerous one.
They’re absolutely not brainless this is part of a fight on multiple fronts intended to discredit arteta, Klopp and anyone who dares question the sovereignty of the PGMOL
What’s crazy about that challenge is that the ball has already been passed by Jorgi, and Bruno comes up behind him and so obviously raises his elbow at his head. This happened not 5 seconds after he went in two footed on White and missed.
No he didn’t go in two footed. He clearly brings his second foot through well after he’s slid past White.
Looks a lot like the havertz tackle that was unanimously deemed a red card by the panel
It wasn’t two footed but a still image in that position doesn’t really tell the story accurately. He was clearly fuming and went in extremely recklessly, the only reason he didn’t make contact is because White pulled out of the challenge. If he connected it wouldn’t have been much different than the Havertz tackle.
What’s brainless is the fact that you can’t read. All 5 agreed it was a red, go back and read it again.
You know, when 2/5 panel members don’t believe an intentional forearm to the head away from the play is not worthy of a red, it kind of takes away their credibility.
“When independent experts disagree with me, they aren’t independent experts”
All 5 of the panel members thought it deserved a red.
There are two ways to see it though:
Either they know of the conversation between the VAR and the ref (which I highly doubt it) and they think it was not clear and obvious because the ref had seen it.
Or they don’t know what was said and they are talking bullshit. Because if there is a red card, away from the play and it is not given, it is clear and obvious.
The rules are very clear, away from the play, hitting a player in the head is a red, there is not much room to maneuver here.
That is even more stupid.
“You missed a red card but don’t worry about it”
Someone else pointed this out, but the 2/5 were saying they wouldn’t have gotten VAR involved, meaning they thought it wasn’t a clear and obvious error, not that they didn’t think it was red card.
The whole “clear and obvious” thing is a huge issue. Ironically, it will never have a clear definition.
Ok, but if they thought it was a red, and the ref didn’t give a red, that’s a clear and obvious error by proxy. If they didn’t think it was a clear and obvious error they cannot have thought he should have been sent off
It’s just a completely pointless caveat that adds more confusion into the whole process.
Good process boys
Somehow the Kai Havertz is a unanimous sending off by the panel, but the Bruno Guimares elbow/forearm to the back of the head is not deemed a red card by 2 people. Make it make sense
Yeah if Kai should’ve been sent off but Bruno’s is questionable, I’m very much questioning the “independence” of this panel.
completely undermines any credibility this “independent” panel might have had.
It’s not meant to make sense, it’s meant to distract from what was a very blatant case of match fixing.
Objectively VAR and the refs ruin games all the fucking time, we’ve had absolute howlers too. It’s not a conspiracy that you got shafted by the ref, you played shit didn’t create any chances and compounded bad decisions from the ref helped us win.
The whole “saudi paying the refs” thing is ridiculous, they’d just murder the refs and their families and replace them with their own.
PGMOL needs to be ripped to the studs and rebuilt. It is beyond repair or renovation at this point. It is a tear down.
And who would be responsible for refereeing PL games in the meantime?
So basically it turns out Newcastle were the ones most disadvantaged by the referee considering Havertz send off would have been early in the game.
The sentiment around the refs is correct, just from the wrong angle.
So, they basically said “how can we make the result look more legimate”. Tbh looks like they’ve done the opposite.
People really could do with a lesson in anatomy, because it was a forearm, not an elbow.
To answer your question: the one is a leg-breaking and potentially career ending tackle. The other one is childish and petulant, with less severe consequences to the player’s health (because it’s the forearm, not elbow).
See you don’t realize! Eddie Howe didn’t shit on the ref standards! Arsenal bad Newcastle not so bad.
The panel think that the team with the most money is right.
Get used to it.
Man City only not seeing sanctions because the UAE government would be raging about it is just another example.
What about the billions UAE has spent on Arsenal? Waste of money?
They got paid.
The Havertz challenge was a lot more dangerous
No. The article suggests everyone on the panel personally thought that the elbow was a red card offense. But only 3 out of 5 thought it was a clear and obvious error to not give a red. Meaning that 2 out of 5 believed there was a gray area where some refs could plausibly judge the offense to only be a yellow.
I don’t get how you can reconcile that.
This isn’t a grey area red card. And the ref didn’t give it a red card.
If that’s not the definition of clear and obvious, then what is?
Ok Anthony Taylor
A lot of people have decided that Arteta’s comments were out of line, and are twisting their brains into pretzels to make his complaints look unhinged. I’m so over the entire thing honestly, the bootlicking of referees is astonishing.
Nobody is bootlicking referees (outside of like one City fan I’ve had the pleasure of).
People dislike Arteta’s petulance. And his rant was an example of that. The goal also was not that controversial, and especially compared to the shit other teams have been getting this season.
So to blow up over that just seems like a sore loser. He could have blown up over the Bruno G incident and would have likely been better received (though that would have drawn more attention to Havertz).
Mak€$ p€rf€ct s€n$€
Same panel said Eddie Nketiah sliding on Vicario was just a yellow when that was much worse than Havertz. “Independent panel” my ass when Jon Moss and Martin Atkinson are part of it.
I read it as they were split 3-2 on whether VAR should have intervened. It’s not clear what the split was on the actual incident itself
Surely a vote for VAR not to intervene is the same as a vote saying it isn’t a red card
That’s not how anything works. Lots of legal cases are dismissed or lost on pure procedure and not the actual objective truth.
Process is a part of justice as well.
That’s still ridiculous.
The worst part for me is that the ref on field didn’t even see it when it happened, because it was after the ball was gone. So they decided not to intervene on the reasoning that the ref’s on-field decision not to call it a foul wasn’t a clear and obvious error when he never actually made that decision (because he didn’t see it). What kind of logic is this? They missed a call, have him go look at it ffs. Why does VAR have to be so complicated in England? It’s really not like this in other countries, certainly not at this rate at least where we have 3-4 baffling decisions every matchday.
And no I’m not claiming conspiracy, just incredible incompetence.
That doesn’t make it any better lol. How could anybody think that VAR shouldn’t intervene? It’s violent conduct pure and simple. Semantics aren’t going to change that.
I’m more shocked that many people like you that don’t think it’s an absolute red card tackle.
Just a few centimeters difference between a certain leg breaker.
Havertz is at least trying to block a clearance down the line, there is absolutely nothing about the Bruno incident that belongs in a football match
Intention doesnt matter. He jumps in, studs up and get full contact. He got away with a red there.
Yes it was a dangerous, arguable red. At least he’s playing the ball and playing football though. Bruno just assaults Jorginho with no intention of anything other than hurting him.
I don’t think it was a few centimeters though, he catches him with his trailing leg. He is like a foot away from any spikes on leg contact.
It’s clear that he catches Dan Burn’s left leg with a glancing blow with studs up, them he buckles his right ankle with his trailing leg. Certainly not a foot away.
So what you’re saying is if it was a worse tackle then it would have been a worse tackle? There is not a tackle in football that wouldn’t be a leg breaker if the foot was in a different position than it actually was.
What I find funny about this whole episode is that there are many people on both sides of the argument, each saying the other side is complete idiots.
This kind of shows that each decision in the match was actually quite close, more like a 50/50 decision on is it a red, is it not; is it a goal, is it not.
Ben foster on his show the other day was saying how shit VAR was, and then it turned out he was adamant there was no foul on Gabriel while the others disagreed.
🛢️🛢️💷💷
Now imagine xhaka doing what Bruno did…
Or Havertz
You didn’t read closely enough, champ. That’s not what the article says.
No question about Willock hitting Gabriel in the face after he lost the ball as well
I swear Arsenal fans invent a new foul in the game that should have been a clear red in each thread.
"although Joelinton does have his hands on Gabriel, there isn’t enough to award a foul as Gabriel had made an action to play the ball before any contact”
That’s a laughable excuse. If he hadn’t been shoved in the back he would’ve easily headed that ball away, as he was preparing to do. Absolute fucking clowns.
Your first mistake is taking a panel about refereeing decisions hosted by ESPN seriously.
Anyone else find it worrying that two of five people looked at the Bruno G incident and thought “Nah that’s all fine”?
That’s not what it says. 2 out of 5 thought it didn’t rise to the level of requiring VAR intervention, meaning they thought it plausible that some refs might deem it to only be a yellow.
In other words, they (2 out of 5) believed there was a gray area, unlike the many redditors who are 100% sure of all their opinions.
but the ref missed it and did not even call a foul. VAR got involved because it was clear something happened as the Arsenal player was on the floor and then VAR just did nothing either.
The fact the ref missed it makes it a clear and obvious error surely.
The ref didn’t see it at all. Isn’t that a clear & obvious error?
I don’t even think it falls in to the “error” category. Given how late it was we can’t expect the ref to see it. It’s surely one of the very things VAR was intended for, off the ball collisions that the referee doesn’t see.
Violent conduct
Ref didn’t see it let alone give a foul let alone give a yellow
Yet 2/5 thought var shouldn’t get involved.
Hard to accept that they’re doing this in good faith.
“We’ve actually found ourselves to be completely innocent.”
It’s an independent panel, and they identified a few calls that they deemed to be incorrect.
It was made up by former players refs and a representative from the PL and the PGMOL.
So independent that one out of five members of the panel is a PGMOL representative.
Independent panel made up by Jon Moss and Martin Atkinson?
An independent panel with 3 former players (that all have biases because they’re former players connected to clubs), and two representatives from the PGMOL and PL.
It’s about the furthest from independent i could think of.
If they care about protecting the refs and the VAR, why did they say the Havertz and Guimaraes decisions were incorrect?
Who actually is the independent key match incident panel? Are they a bunch of ex referees, players, fans, lawyers?
“Gabriel had already made a movement to play the ball before any contact” what the fuck kind of reasoning is that? How does that make it not a foul?
???
It’s a phrasing they’ve never used before, to invent a way of not admitting wrongdoing.
He also played it with his arm.
Can someone explain to me how Saliba being hit on the arm in a natural jumping position from half a yard away on a scuffed Mudryk-header going a mile off target is a penalty, but Joelinton assisting the goal with his arm in a fouling motion from a 20 yard pass is a-okay.
Even beyond the handball , the foul is obvious and the offside is clear, there is no logic. Blatant cover-up.
i haven’t seen any angle showing whether it was offside, could you link a video/screencap?
And this is a pretty conservative set of lines from the guy who drew it. The line on Gordon is at his knee, rather than at his outstretched foot which isn’t visible from this angle, while the line for the ball is so far right, that if the ball was any further right it’d be visible - even though it obviously hit the left side of Joelinton.
If they’d drawn the lines at Gordon’s foot from a different angle, the line would go somewhere in the visible space right of Joelinton and behind Gabriel, which would mean that even if you can’t pinpoint the ball, you can see that it’s at least half a yard offside.
It’s much clearer than the the time they couldn’t find Cucurella’s foot because he was blocked by his own keeper, so they just gave up after 4 minutes and guessed that Martinelli was probably offside to overturn the goal.
You can’t even see the ball mate. How do you think that is ‘clear and obvious’ It isn’t, and so VAR can’t rule on it.
Gabriel showed the intention of going forward. Joelinton was only helping him get there faster. That’s all.
Fucking insane. Like, say I had already started my movement to shoot the ball 1 on 1 against the goalie from 15 yards, but then my standing leg got violently slide tackled from behind, nowhere near the ball. No foul apparently 😆
I can understand them saying it wasn’t a clear and obvious error even if I disagree, surprised they didn’t disagree with the original on field decision though
If anything, isn’t it worse if a player gets fouled after they have played the ball?
I don’t agree with it fully but they’re saying Joelintons actions had no/ little impact on Gabriel as he had already went to make that header.
I’ve watched it on 0.25 speed and the only thing Gabriel had done by the time Joelinton made contact was brace/position himself as the ball was coming in. He still had more than enough time to adjust himself if unimpeded IMO. The decision makes no sense to me
Which is fucking insane to claim.
This. I don’t see how two hands pushing Gabriel down by the back of his neck doesn’t impede him significantly. It’s a total farce.
A player with two arms on the back of another player, pushing them downwards, not looking at the ball but looking at the player they are fouling.
Any other circumstances it would be a foul.
Bracing himself for when Gabriel flings his head back.
Bruno should have been sent off but that’s not a foul.
Per the FA if a player impedes another player, pushes or holds them it’s a direct free kick. Joelinton pushes Gabriel down and impedes his ability to play the ball.
Also if
HANDLING THE BALL
For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.
It is an offence if a player:
deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised.
Joelinton has made himself unnaturally bigger by sticking his arms out to push Gabriel. So it’s both a foul and a handball
That’s one way of interpreting it though. The other is that Gabriel is leaving forward to head it back over his head.
It’s a marginal call. You can’t just decide you know exactly what happened and then claim its an outrage! Gabriel himself didn’t even complain about it at the time.
Joelinton doesn’t even play the ball. It would be one thing if he’d headed it but he the ball comes in and hits his arm.
Gabriel didn’t complain? You sure?
He literally threw his hands up straight after…
Gabriel is doing what you said. Joelinton pushing down on his neck and back stops him from doing so. Ergo it’s a foul (also a handball)
You can only decide that two straight arms to the back of the head and neck impede Gabriel to move his head back. That’s a foul in itself. Then you can also notice that they weren’t straight at the beginning of the action and that all muscles on Gabriel’s legs get more tense throughout because he is trying to resist the push.
We’re not even mentioning that the first point of contact with the ball was that arm, clearly not in a natural position.
Handballs don’t get called if the person who handled it doesn’t score when attacking
That’s only for VAR reviews though isn’t it? So if the ref caught it initially it would’ve been a handball? Not the reason it should’ve been called back by VAR but it should’ve been called initially.
What if he handballs it forward to someone in an offside position while fouling a defender…
The goal was farcical.
If the goal was disallowed because of the foul. This doesn’t get spoke about 30 seconds after the incident.
It’s far from controversial to say that that’s a foul… because it is one. Sometimes you have to look at how it may of been handled had it gone the other way. I don’t think Newcastle would of said a word had it been a foul.
I mean had Arsenal scored that goal and had it disallowed Arteta would’ve had the exact same reaction.
Or in other words, Newcastle fans are typically more realistic and less hysterical? That does track based on the lack of understanding and the conspiracies we’ve seen getting banded about in these threads.
Forearms become elbows, spheres become cubes, refs, linesmen, VAR, ex-pros are bought and paid for… Lmao.
I think a lot of the outrage on this one was because it just feels more unfair when 3 50/50 calls all go against you.
Also watching the match the initial anger was more around the ball going out. In a lot of people’s minds it wasn’t a goal long before they even saw the possible foul (it was quick and hard to see live).
People are better at moving on to another argument as to why they are still right than admitting they might be wrong. I think that’s why you see so many people 100% confident this is a foul. It allows them to not have to change their mind.
I agree with your reasoning as to why it’s unfolded how it has but I don’t agree that people think this a foul cause they’re holding on to something that may seem more substantial.
It easy to think that considering there’s 3 more controversies that people will move until something sticks but the foul was the last part of that sequence which is why it may of took a bit of time to get to in peoples heads.
Force of the push is subjective. We could speculate all day. But two hands on the back is objective. Which I was always taught that’s a foul.
When a defender is in a tricky spot with the ball at his feet. They will fall to the ground with a tap. 99 times out of a 100 it’s a foul. And no cares cause that’s just how it is. Joelinton gave more than enough reason for that to be a foul and had the other 3 calls (out of bounds, handball, offside) hadnt of existed, this would still be as controversial.
This is absolutely right. It feels like three 50/50 decisions all needing to be heads is unlikely. But it’s not that because the goal was given three 50/50 decisions that aren’t clear is a goal. If it wasn’t given a goal you’d need three clear over rules (which wouldn’t happen). It’s an unconscious bias that if three close calls go one way it’s unfair or wrong. But unclear means goal due to the original call.
The foul isn’t a 50/50 imo. It’s so obviously a foul that I honestly can’t understand anyone saying otherwise. The ball out of play and the offside are much more 50/50 calls
You see you start with IN YOUR OPINION. You’re biased to start and then the fact that many professionals say different things should perhaps make you realize your opinion is not universally shared.
When multiple neutral professionals say it’s a close call then just maybe your starting position of it’s a clear and obvious foul and there’s no debating it is perhaps maybe flawed?
I know my opinion isn’t universally shared. That’s what I’m trying to figure out. Every time I watch the goal I try to see how it isn’t a foul and I can’t. He used Gabriel’s neck as a springboard
You could, for example, listen to some of the people. Stop looking at stills and look at the video. I know some people are saying Gabriel ducks before the arms make much contact. So the argument is that he was already too low and then exaggerated the minor contact to go down knowing he couldn’t get it
There are other explanations but that’s the one I’ve heard most. The stills arsenal fans insist on showing, don’t show that of course.
As a Newcastle fan I would have had a grumble about it at the time and that would be it. Had that been the same goal in reverse against us and it was given I’d have done the same thing. Had a bit of a moan then moved on. Because it’s a 50/50 decision some you win and some you don’t.
I’m done listening to all the mental gymnastics needed to conclude that Joelinton didn’t foul Gabriel
although Joelinton does have his hands on Gabriel, there isn’t enough to award a foul as Gabriel had made an action to play the ball before any contact
The ball falls through the gap between Joelinton’s arms and Gabriel’s neck that’s being forced down. The only reason that gap exists is because Joelinton is forcing Gabriel’s head down, but that doesn’t matter because an “action” by Gabriel already occurred? It’s nonsense, they wanted to give the goal, it’s that simple.
What is your take on who assassinated JFK?
they
wanted
to give the goal, it’s that simple.
They tried 3 times to disallow it!
Refs are terrified of giving calls against Arsenal because Arteta goes fucking psycho every time. He’s been on their necks for over a year now and it shows with the treatment they get from referees, particularly in tight calls.
It was a clear goal. Be angry at Gabriel for not standing strong on his man, be angry at Raya for flapping a simple cross, read the rules and get over it.
Be angry at Gabriel for not standing strong on his man
Refs are terrified of giving calls against Arsenal
They must be very brave since they do it all the fucking time.
He’s been on their necks for over a year now and it shows
How? How has he been on their necks. Do you have anything to back this claim up.
with the treatment they get from referees, particularly in tight calls.
Yes we’ve famously got the rub of the green in tight calls.
It was a clear goal. Be angry at Gabriel for not standing strong on his man
I’m going to invite joelinton to your house and have him put all his weight on your back in a 2 handed shove and see if you can stay on your feet.
Grow up.
I’m going to invite joelinton to your house and have him put all his weight on your back in a 2 handed shove and see if you can stay on your feet.
Go for it. I’m about the same size as Gabriel and would have no problem standing up without going down like Gabriel did. The reason Gabriel went down is because he deliberately went down to try and flick the ball away, which is exactly what the refs have said here.
The rest of your post is Le Tissier level conspiracy nonsense. You get tight calls your way all the time.
As for Arteta being on ref’s necks. He absolutely obviously is. He never shuts up about them! He got one fired just last year!
Go for it. I’m about the same size as Gabriel and would have no problem standing up without going down like Gabriel did
You’d fall like a sack of shit.
The reason Gabriel went down is because he deliberately went down to try and flick the ball away, which is exactly what the refs have said here.
This makes no sense. He’s a top rate defender with 3 years of pl experience. He knows how to flick a ball behind. Without joelinton pushing him he flicks it behind for a corner 10/10 times. The only thing that stopped him was the shove. And he goes for the ball so it’s not a foul? What kind of stupid logic is this?
You get tight calls your way all the time.
Some. Overwhelmingly drowned out by the poor calls we get.
As for Arteta being on ref’s necks. He absolutely obviously is. He never shuts up about them! He got one fired just last year!
-
he rarely talks about the refs. I can think of maybe 3 or 4 occasions from his entire time at the club.
-
that ref got himself fired. He didn’t draw an offside line in a game during a title run in. And he didn’t even get fired, that ref now trains other refs. Scandalous.
-
It’s more annoying that a couple of seasons ago, Martinelli had a goal ruled offside against Brighton because the officials weren’t sure where to draw the line accurately. On-field decision was goal, but was chalked off after a review.
If they couldn’t find conclusive evidence for the offside on this one, why give it?
Because the benefit of the doubt is supposed to go with the attacker, as in “its a goal unless you can find conclusive/undisputable reasoning not to allow it”.
I dunno which goal you’re referring to, but if its like you said, it sounds more like they fucked up there than with this decision.
Let me get this straight, they were unanimous that Havertz was a red as it was “a very dangerous challenge and the type of tackle that needs to be eradicated”.
They then say that all the decisions in the Spurs game were correct so they are happy with a two footed challenge and that it didn’t fall into the above category?
“However, the panel felt Destiny Udogie should have received a red card from the referee for his first-half challenge on Raheem Sterling, but it wasn’t a clear and obvious error for the VAR to intervene on.”
Read the fucking article before spouting drivel, literally said udogie should be off earlier
It’s so fucking absurd now. They’ve overcomplicated it to a ridiculous level. Just come to the correct decision, get rid of all this “clear and obvious” shit and put a time limit on the really fine margin subjective shit whereby if you can’t tell within 60 seconds something is wrong, the on field decision stands.
We were all sold VAR in the idea it was to stop shit like this being given offside, and now we’re using microscopes to draw lines from players armpits to disallow goals while letting players elbow and foul each other because it’s “not clear and obvious”.
It’s so frustrating. We have the same thing with hockey in the NHL now. Offside reviews were brought in because a guy scored a goal despite being like 8 feet offside, and now it’s used to determine if a players skate was 2 micrometers offside 30 seconds before the goal was scored.
“Independent”
I’ve never read something so stupid in my life
>ESPN
