Ref Watch

[Sir peace frog]

lets try and be civil about this, the posters on here are very good posters, and especially richard who has enlightened us many times on the rules.

if a player attempts to shoot,an opponent blocks his shooting leg surely that would be a foul ?, to say that is shielding is frankly wrong, you shield with your body,not an outstretched leg, after seeing that picture of parteys studs hitting kevs standing foot,can we all agree that it should of been a penalty,luckily it didn't make any difference, however that's not the point, a clear and obvious penalty and error

 

[Sir peace frog]

haha, @richardtheref will log on and see 1000s of notifications :)

 

[Silva2021]

my view did seem that Oliver favoured Arsenal more then City (but this could be a fans view).

He got most big decisions right (either with VAR or without).

Penalty wasn’t for me and I think in a vice versa situation you would have fans claiming the opposite from both sides.

Ruben kick I had a great view of that in the stadium and whilst I think yellow was the right call, whilst Ruben was arguing I saw Oliver had pulled out the yellow and I was happy. The reason is lack of force but slowed down on VAR he does make a motion with his leg towards the player. If they where just anti City, I think they could have made a case of it.

Stones goal - Obviously you don’t get to see it, but I know we never get the long VAR checks, so was amazing to get one. Not expected as we all seemed to accept offside include Stones and the players, so assumed it was quite clear.

Partey red card - Obvious error where he pulled Haaland down, clear second booking and Oliver bottled the decision.

Overall as I say felt some, strange, bizarre decisions plus the lack of wanting to make any big decisions.

I don’t feel there was an order by PGMOL or PL to try and make Arsenal win or draw for an exciting finale to the season.

 

[mattcity5]

lets try and be civil about this, the posters on here are very good posters, and especially richard who has enlightened us many times on the rules.

if a player attempts to shoot,an opponent blocks his shooting leg surely that would be a foul ?, to say that is shielding is frankly wrong, you shield with your body,not an outstretched leg, after seeing that picture of parteys studs hitting kevs standing foot,can we all agree that it should of been a penalty,luckily it didn't make any difference, however that's not the point, a clear and obvious penalty and error

Agree we should be civil. I think Richard maybe felt a bit swamped and lashed out at me, basically calling me stupid, which seemed uncalled for (and I'd like to say untrue, but that's just an opinion...).

Anyway, no harm done.

Back to the issue. As I've said previously, I can see why it was given the way it was, Partey attempts to shield the ball. However, in attempting to, he takes out Kev with his right foot. That is the initial contact/foul. So a penalty would have been the right call.

I do appreciate Richard and UsFans answering questions etc. If they're willing to answer any more questions - did you miss that contact when watching at first (I did)? Does it change your opinion? If not, why not?

And please don't just say he's shielding the ball. He's trying to shield the ball. That doesn't mean you can plant your studs into someone's foot and get away with it.

:-)

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Whats the rule about planting 6 studs into someones ankle in the box…??

Brilliant shielding.
Thankfully all the refs on here have explained it perfectly.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Here is a screen shot of the moment of impact. Partey has made contact with the back of Kevs ankle. Kev has kicked Partey as he tries to strike the ball. Both impacts look pretty much simultaneous. You could judge that Partey is too late to shield the ball given the placement of Kevs right leg, to shield legitimately Partey right leg, hip and body should have been in front. Its a tough one though and nowhere near the 100% call that lots are making out. In the end Oliver made a call in real time and VAR may have decided there was insufficient to overturn it.

Even if (and I did say if) he got that right, he was stll a biased **** in the way he managed most of the rest of the game. Partey should certainly have got a second yellow and been off.

 

[mattcity5]

my view did seem that Oliver favoured Arsenal more then City (but this could be a fans view).

He got most big decisions right (either with VAR or without).

Penalty wasn’t for me and I think in a vice versa situation you would have fans claiming the opposite from both sides.

Ruben kick I had a great view of that in the stadium and whilst I think yellow was the right call, whilst Ruben was arguing I saw Oliver had pulled out the yellow and I was happy. The reason is lack of force but slowed down on VAR he does make a motion with his leg towards the player. If they where just anti City, I think they could have made a case of it.

Stones goal - Obviously you don’t get to see it, but I know we never get the long VAR checks, so was amazing to get one. Not expected as we all seemed to accept offside include Stones and the players, so assumed it was quite clear.

Partey red card - Obvious error where he pulled Haaland down, clear second booking and Oliver bottled the decision.

Overall as I say felt some, strange, bizarre decisions plus the lack of wanting to make any big decisions.

I don’t feel there was an order by PGMOL or PL to try and make Arsenal win or draw for an exciting finale to the season.

Agree with just about all of that. Additionally I'd say that if the penalty incident happened 20 mins later he would have been more likely to give the penalty. His way of reffing is to avoid influencing the game early on if he can, so a free kick to Arsenal was a safer bet if he was unsure.

 

[mattcity5]

Here is a screen shot of the moment of impact. Partey has made contact with the back of Kevs ankle. Kev has kicked Partey as he tries to strike the ball. Both impacts look pretty much simultaneous. You could judge that Partey is too late to shield the ball given the placement of Kevs right leg, to shield legitimately Partey right leg, hip and body should have been in front. Its a tough one though and nowhere near the 100% call that lots are making out. In the end Oliver made a call in real time and VAR may have decided there was insufficient to overturn it.

Even if (and I did say if) he got that right, he was stll a biased **** in the way he managed most of the rest of the game. Partey should certainly have got a second yellow and been off.

View attachment 76953

That's a good pic and a good point. A few good points. :-)

To shield, you have to be in front. He comes in from the side, which is fine - but he has to get in front. He clearly doesn't and is in the process of taking Kev out.

Agree, the contacts happen practically simultaneously, but one player there is going for the ball, while one is getting there too late to shield successfully.

 

[Corky]

Here is a screen shot of the moment of impact. Partey has made contact with the back of Kevs ankle. Kev has kicked Partey as he tries to strike the ball. Both impacts look pretty much simultaneous. You could judge that Partey is too late to shield the ball given the placement of Kevs right leg, to shield legitimately Partey right leg, hip and body should have been in front. Its a tough one though and nowhere near the 100% call that lots are making out. In the end Oliver made a call in real time and VAR may have decided there was insufficient to overturn it.

Even if (and I did say if) he got that right, he was stll a biased **** in the way he managed most of the rest of the game. Partey should certainly have got a second yellow and been off.

View attachment 76953

It was a split second decision and there are people who would give it either way 2 days later so not one for VAR or complaining about. The best thing would have been to play-on given hindsight the ref doesn't get.

 

[Saddleworth2]

It was a split second decision and there are people who would give it either way 2 days later so not one for VAR or complaining about. The best thing would have been to play-on given hindsight the ref doesn't get.

Exactly. It could have been given, it wasn't. Plenty worse decisions against us than that one.