Ref Watch

[SebastianBlue]

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.

See above.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

No attempt to play the ball, he has stopped kdb from kicking the ball
100% penalty for any other team in the league
Same as the penalty at the emirates was 100% not a penalty for any other team is playing

That's a

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.

Wow, having seen it a second time, I really don't see how anyone can defend Oliver in this situation. No contact with ball, he clearly and intentionally plays Kevin and fouls him. Doesn't matter whether he was trying to block or shield Kevin from the ball. There's no rule saying that you can foul someone as long as you're trying to block them. That's a pen.

 

[Sky Blue]

See above.

Even those deluded cunts on aftv said it was a pen.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Even those deluded cunts on aftv said it was a pen.

The NBC commentators thought it was a penalty, as well, and were quite surprised that VAR didn’t intervene.

 

[Ali B's Heel]

Too early in the game to give City a stonewall pen and too late in the game to send Partey off, that should be our end of season VHS/DVD title

"Not enough in that" I kept hearing the female commentator on BT saying and pretty sure have heard her saying it many times before in matches where decisions have not went city's way. Must be her go to phrase for glossing over city injustices.

Regards the penalty shout, Partey clearly isn't playing the ball but is he allowed shield it for the keeper? To me though, he lunges towards KDB so I'm inclined to think excessive and therefore penalty.

I thought Oliver was very one sided. Amazing to think Arsenal had only 1 booking and this for when Partey lost his rag with Grealish

 

[mattcity5]

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.

I agree now.

I wasn't sure and I agree with the ref guys about their reasoning and thought Partey got his foot down and Kev kicks him. However I missed that in putting his foot down, Partey takes out Kev's standing foot. I'd say this is probably marginally prior to Kev kicking him, so a pen.

It's one that var should have had Oliver check, regardless of whether it changed his mind or not.

 

[Bill the Blue]

Funny how the ref and VAR couldn't wait to give the tarquins a penalty at the Emirates when their forward clattered into Eddy..

1-0 to us at the time as I recall..

Of course everything is fair and above board, the cheating ****s..!

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

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

That was Alistair Mann's commentary with Andy Morrison on Co-comm's.

Ali is very fair in his reading of situations, and always objective.

 

[Sir peace frog]

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

what the actual fuck do they teach you at referee school

 

[Sir peace frog]

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.

these part time refs are like full time refs fucking clueless.

 

[jjctid]

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…..

You sir are spot on regarding the second goal. What was interesting though was the different footage shown. At first viewing it looked clearly offside but if you re-watch it the ball has left Kev's foot and is probably a frame or 2 late. On the review which I think uses the official VAR footage the still frame looks totally different and is certainly a frame or 2 earlier. However you can't see Kev crossing the ball on the 2nd view which all goes to show how it is possible to achieve either decision. I was amazed we got the goal as were most of us I suspect.

 

[SebastianBlue]

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.

Partey literally took Kev out at the legs.

Have no idea which incident you were looking at but this is the one we’re discussing.

 

[Sir peace frog]

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.

how the fuck is that shielding the ball,its as clear as daylight, the two claiming to be refs saying that's not a penalty well that's quite fucking scary

 

[SebastianBlue]

how the fuck is that shielding the ball,its as clear as daylight, the two claiming to be refs saying that's not a penalty well that's quite fucking scary

I have no idea. It’s the literal definition of blocking/obstruction. It is a foul anywhere on the pitch.

 

[CatMan]

these part time refs are like full time refs fucking clueless.

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.

 

[Roachy]

Just before the Kev- Partey incident, there looked like a handball shout. Anyone else notice this and was there anything in it?

 

[SebastianBlue]

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.

In what upside down world is this Kev fouling Partey?

 

[Coljj]

Funny how the ref and VAR couldn't wait to give the tarquins a penalty at the Emirates when their forward clattered into Eddy..

As I recall Nketiah thought the ref had blown because his watch had buzzed and the ball had crossed the line. Never did he think he'd been fouled. He just went to celebrate what he thought was given as a goal.

 

[Roachy]

I have no idea. It’s the literal definition of blocking/obstruction. It is a foul anywhere on the pitch.

Obstruction, now there's a blast from the past. Indirect free kick iirc as well.

 

[mattcity5]

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.

One thing I 100% guarantee you - if Oliver had given that as a penalty VAR wouldn't have overruled it.