Fixtures Saturday April 20th - Wolves - Molineux Stadium - 7:30 Pm

Kick-Off

       Injuries                 Steve Gleiber



Get the Latest Post Go to the Bottom of Page It is currently Fri Apr 19, 2024 7:45 am

All times are UTC


  


Reply to topic

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Gaz from Oz, Terry Henry, warrior and 171 guests

 
Post #479641  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:06 am
Posts: 16438

Niall wrote:
So, does anyone subscribe to Wenger's view that the penalty was soft? He commented that there would be 10 penalties a game if all those types are given. I think it's the use of the word "farcical" that did sound a little embarrassing - but then Wenger has always liked a whinge and he's nicer about it than that arse Mourinho.

It's definitely a soft penalty.

But its hardly surprising that Wenger was upset. Two penalties like that in a row. Even Job would have been a bit irked.

_________________
Hamba kakuhle, Madiba


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479642  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:40 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:38 pm
Posts: 6450
Location: ɹǝpu∩uʍop

Konstantinos Mavropanos

Image

Arsenal have signed Greek defender Konstantinos Mavropanos from PAS Giannina for a £1.9m initial fee.
He joins the youth ranks, taking Arsenal's net spend to £22.5m so far.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantinos_Mavropanos


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479643  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:40 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:04 am
Posts: 7373
Location: Townsville Australia

gooner7 wrote:
Gaz from Oz wrote:
I cannot let Wengers press conference pass without comment.

Farcical is a term that can be used in conjunction with Arsenal but in relation to the overall management of the team not referee decisions. If I put my key concerns.
Contracts expiring over the next 18 months of many key positions. Forget the next 6 months - look further ahead and start to worry.
Following from that of course is that Wenger will buy or promote players of his ilk. We will be stuck with more players being paid a *%^@ load of cash who will not want to move because they will never be paid that much again by even a chinese club. The USSR socialist experiment failed. it also failed at our club.
A defense that needs improvement in quality and training about their roles.
A failure to jettison the failures.
A failure to properly succession plan.
Wenger continually shifting blame away from the players. Players never taking responsibility.
Lack of strong leaders. He likes peace and tranquility and achieves it with finding and promoting placid players.

January 4 - 23 points behind the leading club in the EPL. Farcical


23 points ????
Did you miss a punctuation mark somewhere? Did you mean be 2 - 3 points, because it is only January :icon_mrgreen:

I only wish I had. I know people will come on and say that Man C is having an exceptional season etc etc. Great and comparisons with how Man U etc is doing and how far they are also behind do not cut the mustard. If we were running a the same level as the second placed team at least I could justify our position but our 1st team do not play cup games so fatigue is no excuse while all the other squads have played CL. We are 5 behind 4th place trophy at the moment. There has been no EPL challenge.

_________________
If this policy does not deliver then I would say we have to change it.
AW 150810


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479644  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:36 am
Posts: 9010
Location: The Go-Between Bridge

dec wrote:
The game is alien to me these days. It seems contact now justifies a penalty kick. 5 or 6 years ago that was a dive, plain and simple. I couldn't understand the one Everton got against Liverpool a few weeks ago and this was worse. It has effectively got to the stage where you cannot touch a player in the box.


Unless it's a corner when you are allowed to wrestle them and try and swap shirts as you see fit.

It was a penalty. It wasn't just contact, he kicks Hazard's foot with enough force to potentially interfere with his play. Some refs might not have given it but that doesn't make it farcical. Saying "oh Wenger's entitled to feel disappointed" is ridiculous in my view. He's entitled to but he's also a senior well rewarded professional who should be able to have enough perspective to know when it is appropriate to complain in such a way. We drill it into kids for God's sake. And not all managers complain in the way Wenger does - that simply is not true. Mourinho does for sure but many adopt a more circumspect approach and would probably have said the truth in that situation: that it stung after WBA but we have to suck it up.

Also he really needs to take that jumper to the dry cleaners.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479645  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:36 am
Posts: 9010
Location: The Go-Between Bridge

Also not a single observer from the mainstream press agrees with Wenger, there is almost universal consensus that the ref got this one right just as there was almost universal consensus that the WBA penalty was wrong. So there is no "conspiracy" and Wenger makes himself look like the special-pleading idiot that he is and opens himself up for comments about Wilshere's (and possibly ASM's) simulation but - more tellingly - the fact that he scorns defence in a ridiculous and infantile pose that he is all about the "exciting"part of the game.

His press conferences almost hurt they are so childish and whiny.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479646  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:36 am
Posts: 9010
Location: The Go-Between Bridge

We have to account in our preparation for that’s what we have to face. You see good football, unfortunately, you see as well bad decisions. Games are spoiled by factors you cannot determine. It’s all opinions. But when your opinions go the same way – what is repeated is not coincidence.” Asked what he meant by saying that he “knew that as well before”, Wenger said: “I mean nothing. You are always more intelligent than everybody. So you can guess what happens.”

Also if you look at the above you see a man who is even less comfortable with words than with the concept of organised defending. Wenger is allegedly good at languages and yet it is a kind of angry gibberish with almost no coherent meaning let alone syntax. "It's all opinions, But when your opinions go the same way - what is repeated is not coincidence" is just the resentful noise of a graceless loser. And of course he ends by attacking the questioner with his familiar childish truculence. "You are always more intelligent" would disappoint me from a twelve year old. I am still astounded when people trot out the idea that this guy is smart or somehow distinct from other managers in his style.

In what way is this better than or different from Mourinho?


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479647  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:53 pm
Posts: 17047

Having watched it again this morning I have changed my mind. There is no way the amount of contact from Bellerin on the sole of Hazard's foot was sufficient to bring Hazard down in the manner the Belgian collapsed to the ground, whilst holding another part of his body, yelling in agony. As football is a contact sport that should never have been given - as Bellerin's contact was not enough to have felled the player w/o the exaggerated dive.

_________________
It's a terrible love and I'm walking with spiders.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479648  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:36 am
Posts: 9010
Location: The Go-Between Bridge

Niall wrote:
Having watched it again this morning I have changed my mind. There is no way the amount of contact from Bellerin on the sole of Hazard's foot was sufficient to bring Hazard down in the manner the Belgian collapsed to the ground, whilst holding another part of his body, yelling in agony. As football is a contact sport that should never have been given - as Bellerin's contact was not enough to have felled the player w/o the exaggerated dive.


Calls for a mural.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479649  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:53 pm
Posts: 17047

Daz wrote:
Niall wrote:
Having watched it again this morning I have changed my mind. There is no way the amount of contact from Bellerin on the sole of Hazard's foot was sufficient to bring Hazard down in the manner the Belgian collapsed to the ground, whilst holding another part of his body, yelling in agony. As football is a contact sport that should never have been given - as Bellerin's contact was not enough to have felled the player w/o the exaggerated dive.


Calls for a mural.

Nah, a referendum on cheating foreigners.

_________________
It's a terrible love and I'm walking with spiders.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479650  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:53 pm
Posts: 17047

Quote:
Of course they were. For me, this is one of those where people say ‘There was contact’, therefore it must be a penalty, but although Bellerin does catch him, there’s nothing in that contact that should provoke that kind of reaction from Hazard other than a dive. He made sure the referee knew he’d been caught, but clutching his shin when the Arsenal man barely touched his foot tells you everything you need to know.

Let’s be clear: Contact does not mean it’s a foul. If every contact was a foul, there’d be 10,000 free kicks in every game, 50 penalties in every game, and once more I think we were hard done by.


Arseblog.

_________________
It's a terrible love and I'm walking with spiders.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479651  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:55 pm
Posts: 11471
Location: Singapore

Daz wrote:
We have to account in our preparation for that’s what we have to face. You see good football, unfortunately, you see as well bad decisions. Games are spoiled by factors you cannot determine. It’s all opinions. But when your opinions go the same way – what is repeated is not coincidence.” Asked what he meant by saying that he “knew that as well before”, Wenger said: “I mean nothing. You are always more intelligent than everybody. So you can guess what happens.”

Also if you look at the above you see a man who is even less comfortable with words than with the concept of organised defending. Wenger is allegedly good at languages and yet it is a kind of angry gibberish with almost no coherent meaning let alone syntax. "It's all opinions, But when your opinions go the same way - what is repeated is not coincidence" is just the resentful noise of a graceless loser. And of course he ends by attacking the questioner with his familiar childish truculence. "You are always more intelligent" would disappoint me from a twelve year old. I am still astounded when people trot out the idea that this guy is smart or somehow distinct from other managers in his style.

In what way is this better than or different from Mourinho?


Wenger is becoming more and more of a joke. Poor guy is sinking deeper and deeper into his own pit of sH**. I said earlier, he is painting himself into a corner of the corner he painted himself into. He must be a great artist to even paint himself, into another corner, of the corner of the corner. He is basically balancing on one toe right now. Picture that :icon_mrgreen:

_________________
Onwards and Upwards!


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479652  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:57 pm
Posts: 26677

Interesting point i've seen mentioned on some websites - in the games against man u, chelsea, spurs and liverpool at home we have had ups and downs but there was an intensity to our play. Where was that intensity against west ham, west brom, southampton etc. Can the manager only extract this from his players for the big games - or are the players only rousing themselves for the big games?

Either way it is a poor showing, and it isn't working as we've hardly won any of the big games - as always


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479653  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:36 am
Posts: 9010
Location: The Go-Between Bridge

My argument does not rest on contact though. My argument is whether it was a foul which I think it was (Bellerin kicks an opponent - whether that was intentional or not is irrelevant because the force only has to be deemed reckless or excessive) and whether it was in the penalty area which it definitely was. I don't care which part of his body Hazard clutched - totally irrelevant to anything (although having watched it again, a jarring kick forcing pressure up your leg could lead you to clutch a part other than the point at which contact was made so think this argument is dubious anyway)

Bellerin kicked the underside of an attacking player's foot instead of the ball in the penalty area. There is nothing "farcical" about a penalty decision in such circumstances and, with the benefit of repeated replays, a senior ex referee and pretty much all the pundits and commentators agree. There is no point arguing anti-Arsenal media bias (utter rubbish anyway in my opinion) as the same consensus applied in the opposite direction to the West Brom penalty.

They were not two penalties "like that". They were completely different.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479654  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 18399

Not sure what this debate is about. It's not a penalty, he threw himself on the floor and conned the ref. I thought that immediately and didn't need a replay to see it.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479655  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:53 pm
Posts: 17047

Wenger has been making a wider point about the standard of refereeing which of course is ignored as people go to town on Wenger having a whinge (and yes I accept he likes one and always has done).

The last few games I have watched have all had very poor or questionable decisions so Wenger clearly has a point on this. Penalties against Arsenal in the last 2 games, a penalty for Palace against Man City awarded fro ma dive; a blatant offside goal for Spurs against Swansea. I'm sure there were many more over the Christmas period that I haven't seen.

For me, Bellerin is not a penalty for the reasons given earlier. WBA was not a penalty either so I can understand Wenger's ire at the moment. Of course this doesn't excuse Arsenal's poor defending or poor performances away from home this season but on the last two games we have clearly been robbed by "generous" refereeing.

_________________
It's a terrible love and I'm walking with spiders.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479656  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:36 am
Posts: 9010
Location: The Go-Between Bridge

Rich wrote:
Either way it is a poor showing, and it isn't working as we've hardly won any of the big games - as always


Top four teams: three points from a possible eighteen so far I think. It is interesting though that in the bigger games we see flashes of what this team might be especially if we weren't run by a bunch of con-artists and their enabler-in-chief who will now hopefully get an ASBO preventing him from going within a mile of the stadium.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479657  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:36 am
Posts: 9010
Location: The Go-Between Bridge

Niall wrote:

For me, Bellerin is not a penalty for the reasons given earlier.


You haven't given any reasons and you don't understand the rules of the game.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479658  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:53 pm
Posts: 17047

Daz wrote:
Niall wrote:

For me, Bellerin is not a penalty for the reasons given earlier.


You haven't given any reasons and you don't understand the rules of the game.

I gave the reasons above re: contact and Hazard's reaction. Similar to Arseblog's quote. take another look.

_________________
It's a terrible love and I'm walking with spiders.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479659  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:36 am
Posts: 9010
Location: The Go-Between Bridge

TOP GUN wrote:
Not sure what this debate is about. It's not a penalty, he threw himself on the floor and conned the ref. I thought that immediately and didn't need a replay to see it.


In fairness, you are no stranger to idiotic unthought out opinions.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479660  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:36 am
Posts: 9010
Location: The Go-Between Bridge

Niall wrote:
Daz wrote:

You haven't given any reasons and you don't understand the rules of the game.

I gave the reasons above re: contact and Hazard's reaction. Similar to Arseblog's quote. take another look.


I have and have answered it. Both level of "contact" and Hazard's reaction are irrelevant in this instance. If you kick an opponent instead of the ball in the penalty you are likely to have a penalty awarded against you. Bellerin swings for the ball but hits Hazard instead who is competing for the ball. Under the rules of the game it is perfectly reasonable for the referee to avoid a penalty for foul play in such circumstances.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479661  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:36 am
Posts: 9010
Location: The Go-Between Bridge

If you have an issue with the rules of the game you might like to watch another sport - cricket might suit you quite well I feel.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479662  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:06 am
Posts: 16438

Decaf wrote:
Niall wrote:
So, does anyone subscribe to Wenger's view that the penalty was soft? He commented that there would be 10 penalties a game if all those types are given. I think it's the use of the word "farcical" that did sound a little embarrassing - but then Wenger has always liked a whinge and he's nicer about it than that arse Mourinho.

It's definitely a soft penalty.

But its hardly surprising that Wenger was upset. Two penalties like that in a row. Even Job would have been a bit irked.

But to be fair, I doubt Job would have put up with Wenger's intolerable utterances. I reckon he would have switched of the telly.

_________________
Hamba kakuhle, Madiba


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479663  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 18399

Daz wrote:
We have to account in our preparation for that’s what we have to face. You see good football, unfortunately, you see as well bad decisions. Games are spoiled by factors you cannot determine. It’s all opinions. But when your opinions go the same way – what is repeated is not coincidence.” Asked what he meant by saying that he “knew that as well before”, Wenger said: “I mean nothing. You are always more intelligent than everybody. So you can guess what happens.”

Also if you look at the above you see a man who is even less comfortable with words than with the concept of organised defending. Wenger is allegedly good at languages and yet it is a kind of angry gibberish with almost no coherent meaning let alone syntax. "It's all opinions, But when your opinions go the same way - what is repeated is not coincidence" is just the resentful noise of a graceless loser. And of course he ends by attacking the questioner with his familiar childish truculence. "You are always more intelligent" would disappoint me from a twelve year old. I am still astounded when people trot out the idea that this guy is smart or somehow distinct from other managers in his style.

In what way is this better than or different from Mourinho?


"Games are spoiled by factors you can't determine"

George Graham should have told this to the team before Anfield. Are these the words of a natural born Winner who can inspire his soldiers, I think not.

He's Sean spicer, the only thing the man has left is spin


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479664  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 18399

Daz wrote:
TOP GUN wrote:
Not sure what this debate is about. It's not a penalty, he threw himself on the floor and conned the ref. I thought that immediately and didn't need a replay to see it.


In fairness, you are no stranger to idiotic unthought out opinions.


Oh cheers mate. Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning.

It wasn't a penalty, your desire to see our self destruction is clouding your judgement Daz but I do understand it.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479665  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:36 am
Posts: 9010
Location: The Go-Between Bridge

TOP GUN wrote:
Daz wrote:

In fairness, you are no stranger to idiotic unthought out opinions.


Oh cheers mate. Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning.

It wasn't a penalty, your desire to see our self destruction is clouding your judgement Daz but I do understand it.


"It wasn't a penalty"

You will need a bit more than that but please avoid:

1) Setting up my own argument based on "contact" which I haven't made but you then destroy.

2) Hazard's reaction - totally and completely irrelevant, he could clutch his ear or his right gonad for all the difference it makes.

If you can persuade me that it was farcical for a referee to conclude that Bellerin struck Hazard in a way that could be considered intentional, reckless or excessive then I will concede your case. In my opinion, it was quite possible for a ref's judgement to be that Bellerin was either reckless or excessive in his attempt to prevent Hazard gaining control of the ball although I readily concede that not every ref would have given it or seen it in such a way. That too is irrelevant since in this instance the ref clearly both saw and interpreted the incident in that way and refereeing is largely an act of interpretation. If you still claim that it wasn't - even conceivably - a penalty then either you are not using rational argument or you run the risk of being forced into avenues of conspiracy that I think become increasingly ridiculous involving a cartel of refs and a media that sometimes - bewilderingly - breaks ranks and concedes that we were harshly done by as with West Brom.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479666  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:53 pm
Posts: 17047

Daz wrote:
Niall wrote:
I gave the reasons above re: contact and Hazard's reaction. Similar to Arseblog's quote. take another look.


Both level of "contact" and Hazard's reaction are irrelevant in this instance

This is clearly nonsense.

_________________
It's a terrible love and I'm walking with spiders.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479667  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 18399

Daz wrote:
TOP GUN wrote:

Oh cheers mate. Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning.

It wasn't a penalty, your desire to see our self destruction is clouding your judgement Daz but I do understand it.


"It wasn't a penalty"

You will need a bit more than that but please avoid:

1) Setting up my own argument based on "contact" which I haven't made but you then destroy.

2) Hazard's reaction - totally and completely irrelevant.

If you can persuade me that it was farcical for a referee to conclude that Bellerin struck Hazard in a way that could be considered intentional, reckless or excessive then I will concede your case. In my opinion, it was quite possible for a ref's judgement to be that Bellerin was either reckless or excessive in his attempt to prevent Hazard gaining control of the ball although I readily concede that not every ref would have given it or seen it in such a way. That too is irrelevant since in this instance the ref clearly both saw and interpreted the incident in that way and refereeing is largely an act of interpretation. If you still claim that it wasn't - even conceivably - a penalty then either you are not using rational argument or you run the risk of being forced into avenues of conspiracy that I think become increasingly ridiculous involving a cartel of refs and a media that sometimes - bewilderingly - breaks ranks and concedes that we were harshly done by as with West Brom.


No I don't abide by the terms of your referendum. Hazard saw a player moving his leg and threw himself on the floor. It's conceivable the ref could give a penalty due to the movement of Bellerin but shouldn't have as it wasn't a foul.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479668  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:36 am
Posts: 9010
Location: The Go-Between Bridge

Niall wrote:
Daz wrote:

Both level of "contact" and Hazard's reaction are irrelevant in this instance

This is clearly nonsense.


No it clearly isn't, the only thing that is clear is that you as unfamiliar with the actual rules of the game as you were over a certain French footballer and his "performances".


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479669  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:36 am
Posts: 9010
Location: The Go-Between Bridge

TOP GUN wrote:
Daz wrote:

"It wasn't a penalty"

You will need a bit more than that but please avoid:

1) Setting up my own argument based on "contact" which I haven't made but you then destroy.

2) Hazard's reaction - totally and completely irrelevant.

If you can persuade me that it was farcical for a referee to conclude that Bellerin struck Hazard in a way that could be considered intentional, reckless or excessive then I will concede your case. In my opinion, it was quite possible for a ref's judgement to be that Bellerin was either reckless or excessive in his attempt to prevent Hazard gaining control of the ball although I readily concede that not every ref would have given it or seen it in such a way. That too is irrelevant since in this instance the ref clearly both saw and interpreted the incident in that way and refereeing is largely an act of interpretation. If you still claim that it wasn't - even conceivably - a penalty then either you are not using rational argument or you run the risk of being forced into avenues of conspiracy that I think become increasingly ridiculous involving a cartel of refs and a media that sometimes - bewilderingly - breaks ranks and concedes that we were harshly done by as with West Brom.


No I don't abide by the terms of your referendum. Hazard saw a player moving his leg and threw himself on the floor. It's conceivable the ref could give a penalty due to the movement of Bellerin but shouldn't have as it wasn't a foul.


Bellerin attempts to kick the ball and kicks Hazard instead. The ref decides that it was done with either reckless, intentional or excessive force and decides it is a foul. Penalty.

Hazard could have put on a unicorn onesie and spat out his liver for all the difference it makes to the issue.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479670  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:53 pm
Posts: 17047

Daz wrote:
Niall wrote:
This is clearly nonsense.


No it clearly isn't.


Lets discuss the quality of a steak but the taste and the way it is cooked are irrelevant.

_________________
It's a terrible love and I'm walking with spiders.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479671  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:31 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:04 am
Posts: 7373
Location: Townsville Australia

Things getting a bit heated so let's all join hands, hum and talk about some of the good points from the ref.

Wilshire dived, should have been carded and sent off. The ref chose to give us a break. Over to the forum.

_________________
If this policy does not deliver then I would say we have to change it.
AW 150810


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479672  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 18399

Nooooope doesn't kick hazard. touched maybe but not kicked.


Your bitterness towards Wenger is clouding your judgement my friend.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479673  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:06 am
Posts: 16438

Niall wrote:
Daz wrote:

You haven't given any reasons and you don't understand the rules of the game.

I gave the reasons above re: contact and Hazard's reaction. Similar to Arseblog's quote. take another look.


Does Hazard's reaction matter? To me it looked like there was sufficient contact to make it a better than 50/50 call.

_________________
Hamba kakuhle, Madiba


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479674  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:06 am
Posts: 16438

TOP GUN wrote:
Nooooope doesn't kick hazard. touched maybe but not kicked.


Your bitterness towards Wenger is clouding your judgement my friend.


That's true. But in this case he's right. There is no ways you can call that an 'absurd' penalty ... unless you being absurd yourself.

_________________
Hamba kakuhle, Madiba


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479675  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:36 am
Posts: 9010
Location: The Go-Between Bridge

Decaf wrote:
Niall wrote:
I gave the reasons above re: contact and Hazard's reaction. Similar to Arseblog's quote. take another look.


Does Hazard's reaction matter? To me it looked like there was sufficient contact to make it a better than 50/50 call.


It really doesn't.

There seems to be no disagreement that Bellerin kicked the base of Hazard's foot competing for the ball. In these circumstances it is not contact per se but a kick which might be considered excessive or reckless that decides if it is a foul. The ref interprets that in a way the is arguably a bit harsh but we just have to live with that. It is certainly not "farcical".


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479676  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:21 pm
Posts: 16415
Location: Stockholm

Just watched the highlights again and counting the big chances for both teams. I counted it to eight each until Chelsea had those last two after we equalized (Moratas attempt and then Zappacosta hitting the crossbar). So roughly equal on chances, a couple of good saves from both keepers although Courtois clearly made the most difficult saves.

What stood out to me was how our big chances came after intricate play and excellent combinations that are hard to defend against for any team, while several of Chelsea's big chances were gifted by us. It's been said many times before, but it's frustrating how hard we need to work for scoring opportunities compared to our opponents who are simply gifted a couple of chances per game.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479677  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 18399

Decaf wrote:
TOP GUN wrote:
Nooooope doesn't kick hazard. touched maybe but not kicked.


Your bitterness towards Wenger is clouding your judgement my friend.


That's true. But in this case he's right. There is no ways you can call that an 'absurd' penalty ... unless you being absurd yourself.

I wouldn't describe it as absurd, it's just not a pen and just because your fed up with Wenger shouldn't mean you have to say it was. Even a broken clock is right twice a day


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479678  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:36 am
Posts: 9010
Location: The Go-Between Bridge

Niall wrote:
Daz wrote:

No it clearly isn't.


Lets discuss the quality of a steak but the taste and the way it is cooked are irrelevant.


That metaphor doesn't really work sorry.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479679  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:21 pm
Posts: 16415
Location: Stockholm

TOP GUN wrote:
Nooooope doesn't kick hazard. touched maybe but not kicked.

This is demonstrably false though.

Just watch this at around 0:18.


 Profile  
 
 
Post #479680  Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:36 am
Posts: 9010
Location: The Go-Between Bridge

TOP GUN wrote:
Decaf wrote:

That's true. But in this case he's right. There is no ways you can call that an 'absurd' penalty ... unless you being absurd yourself.

I wouldn't describe it as absurd, it's just not a pen and just because your fed up with Wenger shouldn't mean you have to say it was. Even a broken clock is right twice a day


But you just sound like a child insisting it's not bedtime. You give no basis for your argument. It's stupid to say it wasn't a kick, Bellerin swings to KICK the ball and connects instead - clearly and visibly even from a sofa - with the base of Hazard's foot. That's just a fact. Neither the force with which he connects nor the reaction it provokes are relevant to the ref's right to interpret that challenge as a foul and therefore a penalty in the way that he did.


 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
     [ 571643 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 11989, 11990, 11991, 11992, 11993, 11994, 11995 ... 14292  Next

All times are UTC

Gooners Online - Click to see what Everyones Doing

Colour Key:  Visited Profile    Members Profile      Admin

Get Latest Post

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Gaz from Oz, Terry Henry, warrior and 171 guests


Search for:

Go to Top

Powered by php BB © 1993 - 2018