Ref Watch

[blue cigar]

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.

In real time i thought no pen but seeing it this morning it's nailed on a pen, partey doesn't attempt to play the ball but he attempts to block keV and stamps on the side of his foot, anywhere else it's a free kick to us. I get the theory that he's protecting or shielding against the ball but he's never in possession and he simply prevents a player getting to it, a foul. It should certainly have warranted a var intervention but I get the feeling Oliver is seen as a bit untouchable

 

[nmc]

Oliver has previous for giving dodgy penalties against us. Imagine if that was the other way around, would have spunked his load whilst pointing to the spot.

Wrong 'un this fella and I think Pep has him sussed.

Oliver is interesting - he is uber cautious with us - rarely if ever gives us anything and hides behind the 'if I don't see it - I can't give it' or 'I've got to be certain' Then contrast that to the shithouse was he behaves at OT - he can't wait to point to the spot there for the slightest offence. I remember Danny Wellbeck getting his studs caught in the turf against Fulham and he fell over - no one in the stadium appealed for a pen - but, Oliver pointed straight to the spot.

 

[SebastianBlue]

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

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.

So you are saying that if a player is running free in midfield with the ball ahead of them, and an opposition player comes in from the side (perpendicular to the attacking players movement) to block off their run, that it would not be a foul?

Because that is exactly what happened. And it has been given as a foul (and sometimes a yellow if it stops a counter) thousands of times.

At no point did Partey have possession of the ball and his move across Kev’s body was only to block off Kev from taking his shot, not gain possession. And, in this case, Partey stopped Kev from taking a shot on goal.

It is a foul anywhere else on the pitch and should have been one in the box for a penalty last night.

 

[CatMan]

In real time i thought no pen but seeing it this morning it's nailed on a pen, partey doesn't attempt to play the ball but he attempts to block keV and stamps on the side of his foot, anywhere else it's a free kick to us. I get the theory that he's protecting or shielding against the ball but he's never in possession and he simply prevents a player getting to it, a foul. It should certainly have warranted a var intervention but I get the feeling Oliver is seen as a bit untouchable

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.

 

[CatMan]

So you are saying that if a player is running free in midfield with the ball ahead of them, and an opposition player comes in from the side (perpendicular to the attacking players movement) to block off their run, that it would not be a foul?

Because that is exactly what happened. And it has been given as a foul (and sometimes a yellow if it stops a counter) thousands of times.

At no point did Partey have possession of the ball and his move across Kev’s body was only to block off Kev from taking his shot, not gain possession. And, in this case, Partey stopped Kev from taking a shot on goal.

It is a foul anywhere else on the pitch and should have been one in the box for a penalty last night.

At no point did KDB have possession. The ball was free, Partey got to within playing distance of the ball first and KDB kicks him. If Partey was not within instant playing distance, then it's no lo ger a shield, but a trip.

 

[kaz7]

If Oliver and Coote were under orders to keep things interesting, why the fuck did Coote go to the effort to find an angle showing Whites big toe was playing Stones onside, rather than using the tv angle where Stones looked clearly off and which nobody would’ve questioned…..

They are not allowed to use the tv angle, they have to use tgeir tech only

 

[SebastianBlue]

It is a nailed on penalty.

Any of our players doing what Partey did to one of theirs anywhere on pitch would be given as foul (as it should).

That is running in, perpendicular to the attacking players movement, to block their leg to prevent a run/shot, with no intention to play the ball (only Ramsdale and Kev were even in a position to do that), which is always a foul.

He actually takes Kev out at the legs and people are arguing that Kev fouled Partey.

It’s laughable.

 

[blueinsa]

It is a nailed on penalty.

Any of our players doing what Partey did to one of theirs anywhere on pitch would be given as foul (as it should).

That is running in, perpendicular to the attacking players movement, to blocking their leg to prevent a run/shot, which is always a foul.

He plays the man it’s that simple.

It’s a foul and thus a penalty

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Oliver is interesting - he is uber cautious with us - rarely if ever gives us anything and hides behind the 'if I don't see it - I can't give it' or 'I've got to be certain' Then contrast that to the shithouse was he behaves at OT - he can't wait to point to the spot there for the slightest offence. I remember Danny Wellbeck getting his studs caught in the turf against Fulham and he fell over - no one in the stadium appealed for a pen - but, Oliver pointed straight to the spot.

He wasn't shy in giving Leicester 3 in one game against us a couple of years ago.

 

[Plain Speaking]

No idea what either of you are watching. Bizarre thought process!!

Andy Morrison was the City Ambassador/commentator who was trying to fairly describe what had actually happened. Like he said, initially it looked a penalty.

I think if the teams had been reversed and say Jesus had kicked Dias with his feet planted next to the ball there wouldn't be a cry for a penalty?

I try to be fair and reasonable giving my views, I am not a big fan of Oliver and I think he dislikes us and usually gives the opposition the benefit of any doubt, but in this case, sadly I think he was right.