Ref Watch

[Bluearmy]

A bit harsh.


Surely you mean, condescending pillock.

My bad, let myself down there…

 

[cheekybids]

Its times like these you realise some people don’t understand the game at even a basic level…. The fact that some of these people are apparently officials of the game is frankly scary!!

Shielding whilst “legs akimbo” hmmmmm.

 

[Bluearmy]

Partey isn’t in possession of the ball.

So lets me get this straight, Rashford wasnt shielding the ball so had no impact on a City player whatsoever. But Partey was shielding the ball (according to some) so no foul despite Partey planting 6 studs in KDB’s ankle and not being in possession…

All clear…. Ffs

 

[cheekybids]

So lets me get this straight, Rashford wasnt shielding the ball so had no impact on a City player whatsoever. But Partey was shielding the ball (according to some) so no foul despite Partey planting 6 studs in KDB’s ankle and not being in possession…

All clear…. Ffs

It’s that easy, get a supposed expert to tell the fools the most ridiculous excuse on the telly box & wait & hear it repeated.

It was the same when Ederson gave the penalty away at the Emirates yet we don’t see the ridiculous decisions consistently applied do we.

 

[Chi-town blues]

fuck all to do with law to begin with, foul or no foul? yes or no ? it’s clear as daylight and that’s all it matters than the law shit .

 

[Gordyola]

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

Partey had no intention of playing the ball he put his leg between Kev, who was trying to kick the ball Partey’s actions tripped him up, this was as clear a penalty as you would wish to see and Oliver gave a FK against Kev utter nonsense

 

[Gordyola]

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 Partey was further away from the ball than Rashford at OT but he wasn’t interfering with play
Regardless of Partey being in playing distance he tripped Kev up Foul and don’t care if you were a ref

 

[Gordyola]

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.

You need to change your addy to UsExRefsKnowNowt

 

[Bluearmy]

It’s that easy, get a supposed expert to tell the fools the most ridiculous excuse on the telly box & exit yo hear it repeated.

It was the same when Ederson gave the penalty away at the Emirates yet we don’t see the ridiculous decisions consistently applied do we.

Ive just had a pal text me saying Clattenburg says no pen so its not a pen. YCMIU

 

[cheekybids]

Ive just had a pal text me saying Clattenburg says no pen so its not a pen. YCMIU

Doesn’t surprise me one bit, did he wave his hands together.