I would say both things can be unsporting
The Smith-Rowe strike that gave Arsenal the lead. Correct decision?
- Thread starter simplyared
- Start date
I would say both things can be unsporting
If the shoe was on the other foot I'd want our player to try to score.
Kicking the ball out if the ref doesn't stop the game every time someone is 'injured' or stopping play because the keepers on the deck is not what I want to see. It just encourages teams to play act and time waste.
Nothing wrong with it, I'd almost applaud it if didn't come against us.
Football is fecking riddled with play-acting and kicking the ball out rewards this and it drives me mad. I think a heart attack on the pitch is the only thing the ball should be kicked out for.
Football is fecking riddled with play-acting and kicking the ball out rewards this and it drives me mad. I think a heart attack on the pitch is the only thing the ball should be kicked out for.
On the face of it, based on the fact that Fred stood on De Gea, the goal is the correct decision, and it looks even more foolish from De Gea when he jumped up after the ball hit the back of the net.
However, the ref didn’t know who had fouled who in the box with VAR. The referee, when he saw De Gea on the ground went to blow his whistle but had to side step a shot from the arsenal player before doing so. At that point no one expected a goal to given and the referees intention was to stop play from that second.
By the time he blows his whistle, the ball has crossed the line, something VAR had to check as he and the players were under the impression he had blown before that had happened. He also did not wave play on at any point.
Without VAR this decision is absolutely ruled as no goal, but with VAR and all the facts accounted for, it’s a goal. One thing that is not accounted for at any point is the referees intention to stop the game a fraction before the ball hits the net.
I can see why it was given but VAR overrides the referee in this example which is not what it’s for, surely?
However, the ref didn’t know who had fouled who in the box with VAR. The referee, when he saw De Gea on the ground went to blow his whistle but had to side step a shot from the arsenal player before doing so. At that point no one expected a goal to given and the referees intention was to stop play from that second.
By the time he blows his whistle, the ball has crossed the line, something VAR had to check as he and the players were under the impression he had blown before that had happened. He also did not wave play on at any point.
Without VAR this decision is absolutely ruled as no goal, but with VAR and all the facts accounted for, it’s a goal. One thing that is not accounted for at any point is the referees intention to stop the game a fraction before the ball hits the net.
I can see why it was given but VAR overrides the referee in this example which is not what it’s for, surely?
100% the correct decision and if that had gone against us people here would be raging. Rightfully too tbh.
As I posted in the Atkinson thread:
If play always stopped because a keeper goes down they could literally end any attack by the opposition. Think of how absolutely stupid that is. De Gea wasn't injured let along seriously injured. He was standing up seconds later. Here are the rules:
De Gea, by absolutely any objective measure, was not seriously injured. Whether Atkinson was correct by luck or by choice is irrelevant - the reality is he was correct. The keeper was playing dead and looking for the ref to bail him out and was absolutely fine a minute later.
----------------------------
There is no controversy to this incident. It's a goalkeeping howler. You can't do theatrics on the job like that because your foot hurts. There's a time and a place.
As I posted in the Atkinson thread:
If play always stopped because a keeper goes down they could literally end any attack by the opposition. Think of how absolutely stupid that is. De Gea wasn't injured let along seriously injured. He was standing up seconds later. Here are the rules:
De Gea, by absolutely any objective measure, was not seriously injured. Whether Atkinson was correct by luck or by choice is irrelevant - the reality is he was correct. The keeper was playing dead and looking for the ref to bail him out and was absolutely fine a minute later.
----------------------------
There is no controversy to this incident. It's a goalkeeping howler. You can't do theatrics on the job like that because your foot hurts. There's a time and a place.
That one was just as embarrassing. Nani was embarrassing.
Correct decision but shit sportsmanship. Shows how far they've fallen.
Yes clear goal. Stupid from DeGea, dropping to the floor during a set piece for somebody stepping on his toes.
What I would say though is why on earth does the ref wave it off, 30 seconds after De Gea goes down, and waves the goal off like 'no goal as the keeper is injured' then to only overturn it. If he's whistling to protect the goalkeeper then the goal shouldn't stand, otherwise why fecking whistle at all?
What I would say though is why on earth does the ref wave it off, 30 seconds after De Gea goes down, and waves the goal off like 'no goal as the keeper is injured' then to only overturn it. If he's whistling to protect the goalkeeper then the goal shouldn't stand, otherwise why fecking whistle at all?
Was someone down injured in that video?
I feel like anyone who has ever played at any level and taken a stud in the foot / ankle would get this. But alas, here we are with people accusing him of faking because he isn't out injured for 6 months.
Also a case that Fred was pushed into him. So yes, even though it was his own player, there was a knock on effect. And, it doesn't really matter who injured him, the keeper was injured, play should stop. I'm glad we played on every time Arsenal had a player down after that.
Should the goal have stood? Yes. By the laws of the game as the ref didn't blow it up. But any manager with anything about him would have given one back and got on with it. This incident said a huge amount about Lego Pep and Arsenal in general. Their annual Twitter reminder that they once went unbeaten after the last unbeaten team loses, from their lowly 10th in the table, really sums them up. It massively went against all we know of Fair Play. Di Canio was rightly lauded for stopped play when he could have volleyed into an empty net. Nobody wants to score a goal that way, except it seems, Arsenal. Their celebrations were absolutely pathetic and Arteta in particular a complete joke fist pumping a sh1thouse goal like that.
Correct decision although the narrative in the media would be very different if we'd scored that goal.
Without a doubt, we would be a bunch of cheats etc
Not only that but Arteta actually celebrated it.
I agree with @Berbasbullet the goal should have stood purely for the fact the ref didn't blow his whistle.
But ESR was wrong to go for goal, usually when keepers are down players don't go for goal because it isn't sporting, your example is a keeper fully at fault as he assumed the ball was dead (it wasn't) and Nani rightfully capitalised on a keeper error.
De Gea had his heel stamped on with studs in the freezing cold, went down assuming the ball was cleared and the opposing team would do the correct thing if they recovered possession or ref to do his job and blow up.
Guarantee if a keeper goes down in a future game the ref will blow up, if he doesn't he's being a bad ref, saying that if it happens in our game, we'd better not be the "bigger team" and put the ball out of play - if it's good for one team its good for all.
Posters arguing that it would have set a precedent are forgetting the fact that this incident should also set a precedent, no keepers are allowed to be injured now, and if they are, a goal can be scored and VAR to assess the validity of the injury purely from video.
It was the correct decision because the referee didn’t blow his whistle whilst playing was going on. Plus, I think you open a pretty dangerous precedent if you overrule goals any time the ‘keeper falls to the deck from a corner like that. Especially if it’s the fault of his own teammate!
100% correct decision. Ref didn't stop a game so nothing to argue.
A person in real pain does not roll around. That is why I know that De Gea faked it. He thought it was an Arsenal player and the instinct of dropping to the ground is instilled into him like any player on the pitch.
Correct decision. The reason De Gea was down had nothing to do with Arsenal.
Correct decision. The reason De Gea was down had nothing to do with Arsenal.
He stops play there and sets a precedent.
Any goalkeeper can then go down and stop play when the opposing team is in a good position.
I'm glad the goal was given.
If it sets a precedent of keepers faking injury then that would very quickly be noticed and then punished in the future I imagine.
For those saying Smith Rowe shouldn’t have shot — does he actually see De Gea?
Until about 0:24, I think that’s the only time he looks up at goal and by that point he’s already shot the ball anyway
Until about 0:24, I think that’s the only time he looks up at goal and by that point he’s already shot the ball anyway
Prehaps a yellow and the goal to stand as Smith Row clearly saw DDG lying and took his shot anyway. Something like unsportsmanlike conduct. But the goal should stand technically.
If they score immediately (or from the same passage) after he goes down then there are no complaints. But the ball was cleared from the box and at that point you simply have to blow the whistle. Once the immediate danger has been cleared there are absolutely no excuses for not blowing.
Those saying it's 100 % the correct decision are missing something blatantly obvious. This was a goalkeeper, not an outfielder. You can't carry on without a goalkeeper. There's a reason why outfielders have to go off after receiving treatment while goalkeepers don't. Injuries to goalkeepers means play has to stop.
And let’s not pretend ESR’s shot was some unstoppable top corner banger. He knew the goalie was down. There was never going to be a goal there if the goalkeeper was up.
Arsenal have always been a cheating club with bad values so no surprise they took full advantage of the situation. One thing is them putting the ball in the net in the heat of the moment which is fair enough. But the celebrations after several minutes of a VAR review and then not realising what the right thing to do is in that situation. Sums up that turd of a club. Love how they're becoming more and more irrelevant for every day that passes.
Those saying it's 100 % the correct decision are missing something blatantly obvious. This was a goalkeeper, not an outfielder. You can't carry on without a goalkeeper. There's a reason why outfielders have to go off after receiving treatment while goalkeepers don't. Injuries to goalkeepers means play has to stop.
And let’s not pretend ESR’s shot was some unstoppable top corner banger. He knew the goalie was down. There was never going to be a goal there if the goalkeeper was up.
Arsenal have always been a cheating club with bad values so no surprise they took full advantage of the situation. One thing is them putting the ball in the net in the heat of the moment which is fair enough. But the celebrations after several minutes of a VAR review and then not realising what the right thing to do is in that situation. Sums up that turd of a club. Love how they're becoming more and more irrelevant for every day that passes.
I’ve no problem with allowing the goal for once it played out the way it did.
However, the referee had 3-4 glances and chose not to stop play. He didn’t know if it was a head injury. He didn’t know whether he’d broken his leg or torn his ligaments. He had several chances to stop play well before any controversy and simply return the ball to Arsenal via a drop ball.
The reason we have a rule that says outfield players who get treatment have to go off but goalkeepers don’t is because they are obviously more important and as such different rules apply.
I don’t buy that this would suddenly spur some kind of mass cheating/feigning of injury from goalkeepers.
Genuine injury I'd agree.
But you can't ask for high morals from Arsenal when our own keeper is cheating.
Tactical munchausen by proxy
I've many reasons to dislike VAR but yesterday was a great example of how it has a role.
1) Play to the whistle and sort it out later. Goalkeepers would fall down like flies all day otherwise. Would be unfair on Arsenal not to score because the goalie decided to go down like a sack of potatoes and Lindelof/Rashford decided to get out of the way and offer a clean shot at goal. We executed that goal to perfection, more so than Smith-Rowe did.
2) The Fred penalty, such a WTF moment, it was a stonewall penalty for anyone with a pair of eyes. Maguire played with fire and got away with it, VAR probably called it and the ref disregarded it as a peripheral incident he wasn't bothered about, but no way Odegaard could ever get away with that once the hapless/cnut ref is alerted.
1) Play to the whistle and sort it out later. Goalkeepers would fall down like flies all day otherwise. Would be unfair on Arsenal not to score because the goalie decided to go down like a sack of potatoes and Lindelof/Rashford decided to get out of the way and offer a clean shot at goal. We executed that goal to perfection, more so than Smith-Rowe did.
2) The Fred penalty, such a WTF moment, it was a stonewall penalty for anyone with a pair of eyes. Maguire played with fire and got away with it, VAR probably called it and the ref disregarded it as a peripheral incident he wasn't bothered about, but no way Odegaard could ever get away with that once the hapless/cnut ref is alerted.
The equivalent point is that the defending team fecked up purely on their own doing, and the attacking team scored an open goal.
If a cross happens and a defender barges into his own goalkeeper/elbows his goalkeeper accidentally and the ball falls to an attacker with an open goal, do you stop play? Of course not. A ref quite simply should never stop a dangerous attacking sequence if there was no foul committed. Stop the play when the immediate danger is over, but you can't stop a potential goal action just because someone is lying on the ground through no fault of the attacking team. Especially now with VAR where they can simply look back and see if there was a foul. Goalkeepers fall down all the time and feign injury and get cheap free kicks to relieve pressure. They shouldn't get a free kick unless an actual foul happens.
He wasn’t feigning though was he. He had Fred’s studs down the back of his ankle. It hurts. Just because he doesn’t then have to go off doesn’t mean he wasn’t also injured at that moment.
Yep, correct. He was injured by his own player.
I think de Gea thought it was an Arsenal boot that fouled him and went down thinking he's got a free hit. As in if anything bad happens they'll rule it out. Unfortunately he's not seen that it was his own clumsy player who stepped on him.
I think de Gea thought it was an Arsenal boot that fouled him and went down thinking he's got a free hit. As in if anything bad happens they'll rule it out. Unfortunately he's not seen that it was his own clumsy player who stepped on him.
Cheating by being injured? Just because he got up a few mins later it don’t make him cheating? Has he ever feigned an injury to get out of trouble like that before? Think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Correct decision. Perhaps unsporting, but to be fair, if it had been us scoring that goal against Arsenal it would have been funny as feck
Correct decision.
Arsenal should have just let us equalize straight after in terms of fair play.
Arsenal should have just let us equalize straight after in terms of fair play.
Yes correct decision. Atkinson was unaware that De Gea was down because he was watching the ball, as he should, and although he was about to blow his whistle to stop play, the ball crossed the line before he could. Goal. Not much you can do.
Correct decision and I also don't blame Smith-Rowe for scoring.
If De Gea was legitimately injured and had to be taken off (Head injury or something that needed emergency attention) I would expect Arsenal to give us a goal in return.
But when you own player steps on his foot and he then curls up into a ball..
Embarrassing.
Thought their celebrations were small time though.
Typical Arsenal.
If De Gea was legitimately injured and had to be taken off (Head injury or something that needed emergency attention) I would expect Arsenal to give us a goal in return.
But when you own player steps on his foot and he then curls up into a ball..
Embarrassing.
Thought their celebrations were small time though.
Typical Arsenal.
Exactly the opposite.
It hurts - will sting for a few minutes and probably again after the game. No one is saying it doesn't.
It doesn't cause you to go into the fetal position and turn your back to the play. A player would know if he was injured or not and he wasn't injured. To go down like that at the first sign of pain, on the job as a goalkeeper while defending a corner...There are no words for just how pathetic that is.
See off the danger, do your job and then go down and get treatment. He didn't know it was Fred and was looking for a foul. Everyone knows this but defends him anyways. Unbelievable.
The idea that Arsenal should feel ashamed for scoring when our player stands on his teammate who proceeds to play dead is just embarrassing. They did nothing wrong, nor did Atkinson.
So is any injury that doesn’t mean you have to subbed now cheating? Players take kicks all the time and it hurts. It doesn’t mean they were cheating. De Gea got studs on his ankle. Do I think De Gea is often soft? Yes. But I can also guarantee that really hurt yesterday.
At the time I thought that was the case, he has his eye on the ball and there's a bunch of bodies between him and the goal. I think it's definitely plausible he was unaware.
That's such a BS argument.
Yes, the pain will fade in a minute or two, but it's a huge pain when someone steps on your ankle with studs on.
What stops keepers lying down every time you get a ball in the box then? Rule predates VAR, I'm not fussed it wasn't stopped, very much the opposite. I would be livid as an Arsenal supporter if the whistle got blown and then saw the replay.