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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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
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.
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).
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.
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).
"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.
PGMOL needs to be ripped to the studs and rebuilt. It is beyond repair or renovation at this point. It is a tear down.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
No question about Willock hitting Gabriel in the face after he lost the ball as well
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.
