Ref Watch

[SSBlue]

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!

I know you'll get shouted down for this post, but you're right.

Not a penalty. Possibly a Partey obstruction indirect free-kick to City.

 

[Mr Fraser]

I know you'll get shouted down for this post, but you're right.

Not a penalty. Possibly a Partey obstruction indirect free-kick to City.

When are indirect free kicks given in the penalty box?

This article clarifies the hugely misunderstood concept of why indirect free kicks are given inside the penalty area.

www.myactivesg.com

 

[ZanteWeatherman]

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.

No attempt by Partey to play the ball. Tell me I'm wrong......

 

[blue b4 the moon]

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

I wasn't taking the piss fella, was just having a bit of fun on the board....never ever take stuff on here seriously, it'll drive you mad.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

I’m not too bothered about the penalty incident, I’ve watched it back a dozen times and it’s probably more obstruction by Partey than anything which isn’t a penalty, it’s an indirect free kick, but de Bruyne does kick Partey.

I can see why it would be given as a penalty if it had been given (because nobody gives free kicks for obstruction in the box anymore), I could have seen why it would have been given as an indirect free kick to City if it had been, but I can also see why it was given as a foul to Arsenal.

It was all the other decisions that have bothered me more.

Stopping play when there was nowt wrong with Partey when we were on the attack, calling for a foul on Xhaka when there was barely any contact and he exaggerated, booking Dias for kicking out at Ben Orange when Orange kicked Dias twice and then stood on his leg, giving a free kick against Rodri for handball when his arms were by his side, booking Rodri, not giving Partey a second booking, telling us to hurry up at free kicks and goal kicks when we’ve had twelve years of teams taking five times as long and never having anything said to them, moaning at our players and Pep for doing an Arteta time out (and Gabriel Jesus nearly crying about it) when one of the Arsenal players was down faking an injury, not booking Ben Orange after the game for grabbing Foden round the scruff of the neck…

 

[SebastianBlue]

I’m not too bothered about the penalty incident, I’ve watched it back a dozen times and it’s probably more obstruction by Partey than anything which isn’t a penalty, it’s an indirect free kick, but de Bruyne does kick Partey.

I can see why it would be given as a penalty if it had been given (because nobody gives free kicks for obstruction in the box anymore), I could have seen why it would have been given as an indirect free kick to City if it had been, but I can also see why it was given as a foul to Arsenal.

It was all the other decisions that have bothered me more.

Stopping play when there was nowt wrong with Partey when we were on the attack, calling for a foul on Xhaka when there was barely any contact and he exaggerated, booking Dias for kicking out at Ben Orange when Orange kicked Dias twice and then stood on his leg, giving a free kick against Rodri for handball when his arms were by his side, booking Rodri, not giving Partey a second booking, telling us to hurry up at free kicks and goal kicks when we’ve had twelve years of teams taking five times as long and never having anything said to them, moaning at our players and Pep for doing an Arteta time out (and Gabriel Jesus nearly crying about it) when one of the Arsenal players was down faking an injury, not booking Ben Orange after the game for grabbing Foden round the scruff of the neck…

Partey catches Kev’s plant leg with his studs just before Kev kicks him (and then body checks Kev in to the air for good measure). Partey’s right leg actually ends up between Kev’s legs, that’s how late he was with the challenge. It was more than merely obstruction.

It is a bad challenge in pretty much every conceivable way.

 

[Plain Speaking]

The City+ commentary also said Johnny, Johnny Stones was definitely offside and couldn't understand why VAR was taking so long to ascertain Johnny, Johnny Stones was offside because they could see Johnny, Johnny Stones was definitely offside...

I think most people watching that were amazed it was onside, all my family were, to be honest we were very lucky, their whole defence kept a good line, and Stones looked miles offside except for the trailing leg of White! Vital goal just before HT! ;-)

 

[halfcenturyup]

I think most people watching that were amazed it was onside, all my family were, to be honest we were very lucky, their whole defence kept a good line, and Stones looked miles offside except for the trailing leg of White! Vital goal just before HT! ;-)

And that is why the rule is bollocks. I don't like when a goal is disallowed when someone is a mm offside when everyone with the naked eye thought it was on, and I don't like it when an offside is over-ruled for a mm when everyone with the naked eye thought it was off.

The pretence that it can possibly work to one mm with any degree of certainty is just staggering to me.

 

[SatOnTheWall]

I’m not too bothered about the penalty incident, I’ve watched it back a dozen times and it’s probably more obstruction by Partey than anything which isn’t a penalty, it’s an indirect free kick, but de Bruyne does kick Partey.

I can see why it would be given as a penalty if it had been given (because nobody gives free kicks for obstruction in the box anymore), I could have seen why it would have been given as an indirect free kick to City if it had been, but I can also see why it was given as a foul to Arsenal.

It was all the other decisions that have bothered me more.

Stopping play when there was nowt wrong with Partey when we were on the attack, calling for a foul on Xhaka when there was barely any contact and he exaggerated, booking Dias for kicking out at Ben Orange when Orange kicked Dias twice and then stood on his leg, giving a free kick against Rodri for handball when his arms were by his side, booking Rodri, not giving Partey a second booking, telling us to hurry up at free kicks and goal kicks when we’ve had twelve years of teams taking five times as long and never having anything said to them, moaning at our players and Pep for doing an Arteta time out (and Gabriel Jesus nearly crying about it) when one of the Arsenal players was down faking an injury, not booking Ben Orange after the game for grabbing Foden round the scruff of the neck…

Yeah but apart from that…

 

[hcblue]

I know you'll get shouted down for this post, but you're right.

Not a penalty. Possibly a Partey obstruction indirect free-kick to City.

Another where the powers that be have changed the laws. An indirect free kick can now only be awarded if there is no contact in the obstruction (or dangerous play). So since Partey clearly "touched" Kev its a penalty if you think he impeded him.