VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

Annihilate Now! said:
It's pretty much the exact same challenge - studs hitting the top of the ball and bouncing off. For them to try and call them as totally different is a bit silly.
Click to expand...
The small difference for me is that Casemiro / Shinnie went into a planted leg, which is where the danger is as a potential leg-break. Cooper connects with a leg that isn't planted and isn't in any real risk of injury.
 
Gio said:
The small difference for me is that Casemiro / Shinnie went into a planted leg, which is where the danger is as a potential leg-break. Cooper connects with a leg that isn't planted and isn't in any real risk of injury.
Click to expand...
The injury risk in the Casemiro incident is mitigated by the fact that Casemiro's leg isn't straight, so as he makes impact his leg bends at the knee and absorbs the force, similar to how a tackle on a non-planted leg wouldn't have the same force as straight leg, locked at knee-joint, versus planted leg. Referees however, seem to think that studs are the most dangerous thing in the world and not the body weight of a player.

I really think that referees need a basic course in impact physics and medicine to understand what is dangerous and what's not. For example, when Walker-Peters slides with his centre of gravity through Garnacho's ankle, and locks the ankle underneath his body, then that is a serious risk of injury. When a player is kicked in the head with full force in an attempt to do an overhead kick, then that's a serious risk of injury (Azpilicueta). When a player is made to uncontrollably spin mid-air and lands on his neck, then that's a serious risk of a severe injury. But none of those incidents apparently fulfil the criteria of "endangering the safety of an opponent", which is a red card according to the rules. But dive in with your studs showing, regardless of if it's a straight leg or not, on a planted leg or not, and you'll run the risk of seeing red, and especially so if you're foreign (Joao Felix, Casemiro, Bruno Guimaraes).
 
That’s Casemiro tackle v Saints but of course it’s a yellow because it is a yellow going by how the refs have treated this tackle all season
 
All those tackles are actually worse than Casemiro's who was just unlucky to hit the player.
 
thegregster said:
Click to expand...

This is what annoys me, that's almost identical to Casemiros and oh look a yellow.

There is no consistency and VAR should make these decisions easy but it feels so political. Why can't we hear the VAR team talking? We should hear their exact workings out everytime.
 
Berbasbullet said:
This is what annoys me, that's almost identical to Casemiros and oh look a yellow.

There is no consistency and VAR should make these decisions easy but it feels so political. Why can't we hear the VAR team talking? We should hear their exact workings out everytime.
Click to expand...

It's actually way worse when you really look at it.
 
Out of all the above, was the Casemiro red the only one that the official was brought over to look at the screen and shown a slow motion on the moment contact was made with the opposing player without any further context given on the screen?
 
Annihilate Now! said:
It's actually way worse when you really look at it.
Click to expand...
I hate moaning about refs and conspiracies, it's never a good look, and I have no doubt we have got away with a lot of decisions that we have collectively disregarded, but it's so bad. We get some truly awful decisions that sometimes it just feels like a narrative playing out. You see it all the time with added time for example.
 
In a way I hope the club shows Casemiro these other fouls, I feel like hes been unfairly scapegoated as he's a high profile player. There is obviously an unconscious bias put on us this season, the evidence keeps pilling up. The Odegaard and City incidents are still firmly in PGMOL's collective consciousness.
 
It’s actually ridiculous at this stage. Someone posted Ronaldo’s goal v Newcastle above also, watching it again months on its unbelievable that it wasn’t given. There’s no grounds to disallow it.
 
Berbasbullet said:
I hate moaning about refs and conspiracies, it's never a good look, and I have no doubt we have got away with a lot of decisions that we have collectively disregarded, but it's so bad. We get some truly awful decisions that sometimes it just feels like a narrative playing out. You see it all the time with added time for example.
Click to expand...
No ones likes it but corruption is part of life and referees aren't angels who could never fall to it. Some decisions (the Brighton pen vs Spurs) are too blatant to not consider some refs to be on the take. I know it sucks that the product (PL) we watch could be tainted like that but if a scandal arrives about match fixing in the PL, I'd be the least surprised
 
Opinion on Thiago (Liverpool) handball controversy against West Ham?

I think it's hand ball.
 
This is what I and a number of others were saying to those on here claiming both of Casemiro's red cards were "clear reds". We see comparable incidents in basically multiple matches per week that do not end up being punished with a red card.
 
RyRy11 said:
In a way I hope the club shows Casemiro these other fouls, I feel like hes been unfairly scapegoated as he's a high profile player. There is obviously an unconscious bias put on us this season, the evidence keeps pilling up. The Odegaard and City incidents are still firmly in PGMOL's collective consciousness.
Click to expand...
It actually really angered me (OK, not really) that this was deemed a "mistake". To any reasonable observer and non-Arsenal fan (the two often go hand in hand), Odegaard DID foul Eriksen in the build up to their goal. Therefore, it stands to reason that the goal was correctly disallowed.

There was no reason for PGMOL to say they'd made a mistake there; Hell, they practically agreed with my reasoning. The reason why they said it was a mistake wasn't that they didn't believe Odegaard had committed a foul, but just that the on-pitch referee's error wasn't "clear and obvious" enough to have been overturned.

It felt like that only even became an incident because:

A. It was a decision that favoured us and,

B. Arsenal fans, in typical Arsenal fan fashion, were looking to blame their first defeat of the season on the referee.
 
ti vu said:
Opinion on Thiago (Liverpool) handball controversy against West Ham?

I think it's hand ball.
Click to expand...
I think it would be hard to give it due to the distance and also as it's the hand he's using to support himself as he falls.
 
ti vu said:
Opinion on Thiago (Liverpool) handball controversy against West Ham?

I think it's hand ball.
Click to expand...

Not for me Clive.

It's supporting his body from a slide. When I first saw it I figured people wanted it 'cos he kinda jumps into the tackle - never even occurred that people would want the handball.
 
ti vu said:
Opinion on Thiago (Liverpool) handball controversy against West Ham?

I think it's hand ball.
Click to expand...

saivet said:
I think it would be hard to give it due to the distance and also as it's the hand he's using to support himself as he falls.
Click to expand...

Annihilate Now! said:
Not for me Clive.

It's supporting his body from a slide. When I first saw it I figured people wanted it 'cos he kinda jumps into the tackle - never even occurred that people would want the handball.
Click to expand...

Considering Souček’s hand save against Chelsea(?) wasn’t given I think it’s only consistent that yesterday’s wasn’t either.
 
Mmm-Qatarian said:
It actually really angered me (OK, not really) that this was deemed a "mistake". To any reasonable observer and non-Arsenal fan (the two often go hand in hand), Odegaard DID foul Eriksen in the build up to their goal. Therefore, it stands to reason that the goal was correctly disallowed.

There was no reason for PGMOL to say they'd made a mistake there; Hell, they practically agreed with my reasoning. The reason why they said it was a mistake wasn't that they didn't believe Odegaard had committed a foul, but just that the on-pitch referee's error wasn't "clear and obvious" enough to have been overturned.

It felt like that only even became an incident because:

A. It was a decision that favoured us and,

B. Arsenal fans, in typical Arsenal fan fashion, were looking to blame their first defeat of the season on the referee.
Click to expand...

Spot on.
 
What I don’t get about the cards Casemiro gets is he’s hardly a provocative player. He seems quite quiet and calm and doesn’t shout in refs faces or whinge or any of that stuff that plenty of others do which you’d think must annoy the refs and subconsciously influence the way they respond to players/situations. So why is he getting such a hard time off them?
 
humdinger said:
What I don’t get about the cards Casemiro gets is he’s hardly a provocative player. He seems quite quiet and calm and doesn’t shout in refs faces or whinge or any of that stuff that plenty of others do which you’d think must annoy the refs and subconsciously influence the way they respond to players/situations. So why is he getting such a hard time off them?
Click to expand...
Referees are all attention seeking wankers and targeting Casemiro gives them the attention they crave.
 
Now 2 wins in 11 with Antony Taylor, and i have no idea how Richarlison isn't judged to be interfering
 
SER19 said:
Now 2 wins in 11 with Antony Taylor, and i have no idea how Richarlison isn't judged to be interfering
Click to expand...
Because we make it too easy for refs. We're a soft touch. Our protests amount to a flop of the arms. De Gea should've raced to the linesman screaming in his face. A yellow is a small price to pay to put doubts in those useless cnut's minds.
 
Cpt Negative said:
Because he wasn’t interfering. De dea should have been smarter and made contact with him.
Click to expand...

How was he not interfearing? He is on the line blocking De Gea from getting accross to where the ball went in and is also in a position that prevents De Gea from diving to save it without landing on top of him and possibly injuring both.
 
Shane88 said:
Because we make it too easy for refs. We're a soft touch. Our protests amount to a flop of the arms. De Gea should've raced to the linesman screaming in his face. A yellow is a small price to pay to put doubts in those useless cnut's minds.
Click to expand...

I agree fully, were way to soft. I also think it's been sort of conditioned into us, look at some of the reds we've been given, and how many yellows we get compared to our opposition, we get punished enough as is, if we were to match our opposition every week, we'd have multiple suspensions/red cards every game week
 
Fully Fledged said:
He literally couldn't get to the ball because the player was in between him and it. That would have definitely been given against us.
Click to expand...

Come on, De Gea didn't even attempt to dive...not because Richarlison was there, he just didn't dive.

Would you honestly be happy if our goal was disallowed for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.