City v Arsenal Post Match

[PSmyth07]

Was Mike Dean even looking when he awarded a penalty to Arsenal?

Mike Dean awarded Arsenal a controversial penalty in the 24th minute against Manchester City on Sunday, and questions have been asked as to whether the referee even saw the foul.
Replays highlighted on Match of the Day 2 appear to show the official looking away as Vincent Kompany blocks Nacho Monreal off the ball inside of the box at the Etihad.
Santi Cazorla scored the penalty as Arsenal went on to win 2-0 against the Barclays Premier League champions, putting a serious dent in their hopes of retaining the title over Chelsea.


Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2916606/Mike-Dean-awarded-Arsenal-penalty-against-Manchester-City-referee-looking-Vincent-Kompany-fouled-Nacho-Monreal.html#ixzz3PH63btVz" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z3PH63btVz</a>
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Maybe the linesman saw it?

 

[NQCitizen]

Maybe one of the referees that posts on here could explain why Kompany's foul (if it was one) was not simple obstruction? And If obstruction, wouldn't that warrant an indirect free kick rather than a penalty?

The panel on MOTD showed yesterday that Dean wasn't even watching the incident... He couldn't wait to give a penalty

Those field of vision things on MOTD are the most ridiculous thing of all - as if you can't look sideways or only have a view of a 2m square at all times.

It was a penalty, vinnie just naively stepped in which isn't an uncommon foul from him.

 

[munster]

Some thoughts:

1. Vinne ALWAYS tries too hard when he's back from injury. He should never have given Dean the opportunity to exercise his discretion erroneously by 'standing his ground' when Monreal released the ball; a fit Vinne would have followed him whilst keeping eyes on the ball.
2. Kun's injury was evidently a bad one and he'll take time to recover; his tears against Everton indicated disappointment that the period of amazing form he was in was going to be curtailed prematurely, and a realisation that it would take him a number of games to get up to the same level when he returned.
3. we swtiched off for the second goal which is simply unacceptable at this level; Fernandho the cuplrit but Lampard too didn't push up (which is why our centre backs weren't where the three Arsenal players were, including Giroud).
4. our corners were dreadful; we had c. 15 and won the first header on one occasion (Vinnie c. 90 mins).
5. the margins are very fine at this level. Arsenal played very well - tactically and technically - but also got a few breaks that iron themselves out during the course of a season. We didn't play at the level we can, and when we fall short we usually do so fairly spectactularly e.g. CSKA, Stoke.
6. Chelsea are formidable not because they have better players, but because they are all in what Pellers would describe as a 'perfect moment'; they are fit and firing on all cylinders. Their home form is staggering and it will be a tall order getting anything from the game at Stamford Bridge even if we do improve on yesterday's performance; dare I say SB has a little of the (historical) Swamp effect on the home team.
7. we've still got three fronts to fight on and I'm sure we'll put together another impressive run between now and the end of the season, so here's hoping for a successful denouement.

 

[eversince 76]

Was Mike Dean even looking when he awarded a penalty to Arsenal?

Mike Dean awarded Arsenal a controversial penalty in the 24th minute against Manchester City on Sunday, and questions have been asked as to whether the referee even saw the foul.
Replays highlighted on Match of the Day 2 appear to show the official looking away as Vincent Kompany blocks Nacho Monreal off the ball inside of the box at the Etihad.
Santi Cazorla scored the penalty as Arsenal went on to win 2-0 against the Barclays Premier League champions, putting a serious dent in their hopes of retaining the title over Chelsea.


Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2916606/Mike-Dean-awarded-Arsenal-penalty-against-Manchester-City-referee-looking-Vincent-Kompany-fouled-Nacho-Monreal.html#ixzz3PH63btVz" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z3PH63btVz</a>
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Whether hDean saw it or not is more debateble than the descision by itself. It might have been a soft penalty, but Kompany's body clearly moved towards the player.
Imho this is not a game where we should try and blame the ref. He was of no influence to what happened out there. Let's not try and behave like Wenger or Mourinho (or Ferguson in the past).

 

[Sergi0 Na5r1]

Kompany probably shouldn't have started, looking back now and should have come on in the final 40-45 or so as a sub if needed. But we'll definitely need him now alongside Mangala in the chelsea game.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Maybe one of the referees that posts on here could explain why Kompany's foul (if it was one) was not simple obstruction? And If obstruction, wouldn't that warrant an indirect free kick rather than a penalty?

The panel on MOTD showed yesterday that Dean wasn't even watching the incident... He couldn't wait to give a penalty

Those field of vision things on MOTD are the most ridiculous thing of all - as if you can't look sideways or only have a view of a 2m square at all times.

It was a penalty, vinnie just naively stepped in which isn't an uncommon foul from him.

Correct. If a ref's field of vision was as they illustrate it there, we'd need 10 refs on the pitch.

A human field of vision is typically about 60 degrees, that's without bothering to actually move your eyeballs, let alone your head. A 2 inch lateral movement of the head and moving your eyes will cover approx 140 degrees.

Summary - the illustration is pure fiction.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Kompany probably shouldn't have started, looking back now and should have come on in the final 40-45 or so as a sub if needed. But we'll definitely need him now alongside Mangala in the chelsea game.

Hindsight's a wonderful thing though. Had he not started and we'd conceded, people would be questioning why we didn't have him back for a game of this magnitude.
I think if most of us were honest and we'd been told he's 100% ready to go, we'd have played him.

 

[Sergi0 Na5r1]

Kompany probably shouldn't have started, looking back now and should have come on in the final 40-45 or so as a sub if needed. But we'll definitely need him now alongside Mangala in the chelsea game.

Hindsight's a wonderful thing though. Had he not started and we'd conceded, people would be questioning why we didn't have him back for a game of this magnitude.
I think if most of us were honest and we'd been told he's 100% ready to go, we'd have played him.

Yup no way to know beforehand.

 

[warringtonblue]

Does anybody else think we leave a massive gap between the line of defence and the goal keeper for free kicks?
I certainly believe we do because it easier for the attacker to get a good run onto the ball than it is for the defenders to turn and hopefully get something on the ball
That's twice now we've been undone from similar positions (Everton away), are the defenders expecting Joe to come for it ( but get there) or is he expecting the defenders to backtrack and win the header? Whichever one it is, it certainly needs addressing because we do give a lot of free kicks away around our box

 

[Eds]

I can't believe how many people think that was a penalty. Monreal was on his way down before he even came into contact with Kompany. If anything we should have had the free kick for a dive. Also interesting to see that everytime he contested a high ball his arm flings out into the opponents chest but that was never penalised, yet Sergio gets whistled when he show much as breathes on opponents...