Ref Watch

richardtheref said:
I honestly think Oliver got that call right. Kev actually kicked Partey. I think a few on here need to remove their blinkers. The only thing he got seriously wrong was not giving Partey a 2nd yellow.

Been on a few Arsenal forums and they are all saying he favoured City
Click to expand...
You are wrong it was a penalty.
 
UsFansKnowNowt said:
It's not a penalty as Partey is within playing distance of the ball and is therefore able to use his body or legs as a shield. 'Playing Distance' is normally considered to be a distance that if the blocker was to attempt to play the ball, he could do so with just a single movement of either leg!

Remember it is KDB who has impacted on Partey, who managed to get his shield within playing distance of the ball, he is perfectly validated in making that shield.

If Partey had been beyond playing distance of the ball, then it is a foul. Just to validate my interpretation, I was until a few years ago a referee.

The same thought process is used for the shoulder charge. If the charger impacts his opponent before he is within a stride 'playing distance' of the ball, then it is a shove. If he is, then it is a fair charge.
Click to expand...
It is a penalty absolutely.
 
UsFansKnowNowt said:
It's no different than a full back shielding a ball with his body and waiting for the impatient player to come through the back of him. There is no obligation for Partey to play a ball and if KDB is not there, Partey, if he wanted could play the ball, but he knows KDB is coming so he is in effect blocking access for KDB. The key to this though is the distance, i.e. within instantaneous 'Playing Distance', and as I stated previously, because of this the law sees it as Partey got to the ball first and KDB kicks him. If he wasn't within 'playing distance', then it's a trip and a foul.
Click to expand...
Wrong it was a penalty.
 
UsFansKnowNowt said:
I would have liked it to have been a penalty as much as anyone, but the laws were interpreted correctly, first by Oliver, and then by VAR. As bizarre as it may look, and as much as many may not like it, it was not a penalty, but a foul on Partey. Incidentally it was the same VAR team that overruled the on field offside decision for Stone's goal, when at 1st glance nobody would have disagreed with the initial offside. So it’s fair to say, that they do have some modicum of knowledge of the laws of the game.
Click to expand...
Of cause it was a penalty, you would have to be blind not to see it.
 
UsFansKnowNowt said:
I would have liked it to have been a penalty as much as anyone, but the laws were interpreted correctly, first by Oliver, and then by VAR. As bizarre as it may look, and as much as many may not like it, it was not a penalty, but a foul on Partey. Incidentally it was the same VAR team that overruled the on field offside decision for Stone's goal, when at 1st glance nobody would have disagreed with the initial offside. So it’s fair to say, that they do have some modicum of knowledge of the laws of the game.
Click to expand...
I hope this is sarcasm?
 
UsFansKnowNowt said:
Neither the Arsenal fans, you, nor I where refereeing and the penalty was not awarded for the reasons I have stated. The laws of the game can be subjective on shielding and fighting for your space, but both Oliver on the field, and the VAR official decided that Partey had won the space and KDB kicked him, and ultimately they are far more experienced than anyone playing or watching last night.
Click to expand...
Penalty all day long.
 
UsFansKnowNowt said:
Because Partey got to the playing distance first! It's as simple as that. However obstructive it may look, and as much of a foul it may instinctively feel, the Laws and their interpretation mean that Partey can legally occupy that space immediately in front of the ball before KDB arrives milliseconds later. If the ball was not so close to Partey's foot when he plants it down then I agree it's a penalty. However based on the TV angle from behind the keeper, you can see why VAR agreed with Oliver.

Remember, the laws are not foolproof as Rashford proved at the Swamp, and sadly can be very subjective in their interpretation!
Click to expand...
Your user name should be iKnowNowt.
 
UsFansKnowNowt said:
I would have liked it to have been a penalty as much as anyone, but the laws were interpreted correctly, first by Oliver, and then by VAR. As bizarre as it may look, and as much as many may not like it, it was not a penalty, but a foul on Partey. Incidentally it was the same VAR team that overruled the on field offside decision for Stone's goal, when at 1st glance nobody would have disagreed with the initial offside. So it’s fair to say, that they do have some modicum of knowledge of the laws of the game.
Click to expand...
A foul on Partey are you being serious?
 
UsFansKnowNowt said:
Because Partey got to the playing distance first! It's as simple as that. However obstructive it may look, and as much of a foul it may instinctively feel, the Laws and their interpretation mean that Partey can legally occupy that space immediately in front of the ball before KDB arrives milliseconds later. If the ball was not so close to Partey's foot when he plants it down then I agree it's a penalty. However based on the TV angle from behind the keeper, you can see why VAR agreed with Oliver.

Remember, the laws are not foolproof as Rashford proved at the Swamp, and sadly can be very subjective in their interpretation!
Click to expand...
I know you'll get shouted down for this post, but you're right.

Not a penalty. Possibly a Partey obstruction indirect free-kick to City.
 
UsFansKnowNowt said:
I would have liked it to have been a penalty as much as anyone, but the laws were interpreted correctly, first by Oliver, and then by VAR. As bizarre as it may look, and as much as many may not like it, it was not a penalty, but a foul on Partey. Incidentally it was the same VAR team that overruled the on field offside decision for Stone's goal, when at 1st glance nobody would have disagreed with the initial offside. So it’s fair to say, that they do have some modicum of knowledge of the laws of the game.
Click to expand...
No attempt by Partey to play the ball. Tell me I'm wrong......
 
I’m not too bothered about the penalty incident, I’ve watched it back a dozen times and it’s probably more obstruction by Partey than anything which isn’t a penalty, it’s an indirect free kick, but de Bruyne does kick Partey.

I can see why it would be given as a penalty if it had been given (because nobody gives free kicks for obstruction in the box anymore), I could have seen why it would have been given as an indirect free kick to City if it had been, but I can also see why it was given as a foul to Arsenal.

It was all the other decisions that have bothered me more.

Stopping play when there was nowt wrong with Partey when we were on the attack, calling for a foul on Xhaka when there was barely any contact and he exaggerated, booking Dias for kicking out at Ben Orange when Orange kicked Dias twice and then stood on his leg, giving a free kick against Rodri for handball when his arms were by his side, booking Rodri, not giving Partey a second booking, telling us to hurry up at free kicks and goal kicks when we’ve had twelve years of teams taking five times as long and never having anything said to them, moaning at our players and Pep for doing an Arteta time out (and Gabriel Jesus nearly crying about it) when one of the Arsenal players was down faking an injury, not booking Ben Orange after the game for grabbing Foden round the scruff of the neck…
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Psychedelic Casual said:
I’m not too bothered about the penalty incident, I’ve watched it back a dozen times and it’s probably more obstruction by Partey than anything which isn’t a penalty, it’s an indirect free kick, but de Bruyne does kick Partey.

I can see why it would be given as a penalty if it had been given (because nobody gives free kicks for obstruction in the box anymore), I could have seen why it would have been given as an indirect free kick to City if it had been, but I can also see why it was given as a foul to Arsenal.

It was all the other decisions that have bothered me more.

Stopping play when there was nowt wrong with Partey when we were on the attack, calling for a foul on Xhaka when there was barely any contact and he exaggerated, booking Dias for kicking out at Ben Orange when Orange kicked Dias twice and then stood on his leg, giving a free kick against Rodri for handball when his arms were by his side, booking Rodri, not giving Partey a second booking, telling us to hurry up at free kicks and goal kicks when we’ve had twelve years of teams taking five times as long and never having anything said to them, moaning at our players and Pep for doing an Arteta time out (and Gabriel Jesus nearly crying about it) when one of the Arsenal players was down faking an injury, not booking Ben Orange after the game for grabbing Foden round the scruff of the neck…
Click to expand...
Partey catches Kev’s plant leg with his studs just before Kev kicks him (and then body checks Kev in to the air for good measure). Partey’s right leg actually ends up between Kev’s legs, that’s how late he was with the challenge. It was more than merely obstruction.

It is a bad challenge in pretty much every conceivable way.

IMG-3440.jpg


IMG-3439.jpg


IMG-3438.jpg
 
Kakhaber The Great said:
The City+ commentary also said Johnny, Johnny Stones was definitely offside and couldn't understand why VAR was taking so long to ascertain Johnny, Johnny Stones was offside because they could see Johnny, Johnny Stones was definitely offside...
Click to expand...
I think most people watching that were amazed it was onside, all my family were, to be honest we were very lucky, their whole defence kept a good line, and Stones looked miles offside except for the trailing leg of White! Vital goal just before HT! ;-)
 
Plain Speaking said:
I think most people watching that were amazed it was onside, all my family were, to be honest we were very lucky, their whole defence kept a good line, and Stones looked miles offside except for the trailing leg of White! Vital goal just before HT! ;-)
Click to expand...

And that is why the rule is bollocks. I don't like when a goal is disallowed when someone is a mm offside when everyone with the naked eye thought it was on, and I don't like it when an offside is over-ruled for a mm when everyone with the naked eye thought it was off.

The pretence that it can possibly work to one mm with any degree of certainty is just staggering to me.
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
I’m not too bothered about the penalty incident, I’ve watched it back a dozen times and it’s probably more obstruction by Partey than anything which isn’t a penalty, it’s an indirect free kick, but de Bruyne does kick Partey.

I can see why it would be given as a penalty if it had been given (because nobody gives free kicks for obstruction in the box anymore), I could have seen why it would have been given as an indirect free kick to City if it had been, but I can also see why it was given as a foul to Arsenal.

It was all the other decisions that have bothered me more.

Stopping play when there was nowt wrong with Partey when we were on the attack, calling for a foul on Xhaka when there was barely any contact and he exaggerated, booking Dias for kicking out at Ben Orange when Orange kicked Dias twice and then stood on his leg, giving a free kick against Rodri for handball when his arms were by his side, booking Rodri, not giving Partey a second booking, telling us to hurry up at free kicks and goal kicks when we’ve had twelve years of teams taking five times as long and never having anything said to them, moaning at our players and Pep for doing an Arteta time out (and Gabriel Jesus nearly crying about it) when one of the Arsenal players was down faking an injury, not booking Ben Orange after the game for grabbing Foden round the scruff of the neck…
Click to expand...
Yeah but apart from that…
 
SSBlue said:
I know you'll get shouted down for this post, but you're right.

Not a penalty. Possibly a Partey obstruction indirect free-kick to City.
Click to expand...
Another where the powers that be have changed the laws. An indirect free kick can now only be awarded if there is no contact in the obstruction (or dangerous play). So since Partey clearly "touched" Kev its a penalty if you think he impeded him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top