Ref Watch

[Gray]

View attachment 76821

Don’t trust Madley.

 

[Gray]

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

You are wrong it was a penalty.

 

[Gray]

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.

It is a penalty absolutely.

 

[Gray]

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.

Wrong it was a penalty.

 

[Gray]

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.

Of cause it was a penalty, you would have to be blind not to see it.

 

[BamberBridgeBlue]

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.

I hope this is sarcasm?

 

[Gray]

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.

Penalty all day long.

 

[Gray]

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!

Your user name should be iKnowNowt.

 

[Gray]

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.

A foul on Partey are you being serious?

 

[SSBlue]

Crunch some numbers around time in the penalty box and possession percentage figure ratios Carol.

Glad I spent time finding actual data to justify a refereeing bias just so you could mock me.