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

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.

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.

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

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

“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?

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.

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

"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.

This is clearly nonsense.

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.

No it clearly isn't.

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

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


Your bitterness towards Wenger is clouding your judgement my friend.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

This is demonstrably false though.

Just watch this at around 0:18.

You'd do better to argue with a drunk or a Unionist. This is the guy who thinks that a mild critique of Zionism is tantamount to anti-semetism, and whose rhetorical style is guaranteed to escalate even the most trivial disagreement into WWIII. Thank god he didn't go into the diplomatic service ...

Actually Zero contact

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.

Woah way to change the terms of the debate!!!!

Putting aside a pathetic attempt at escalation that makes you at the very least a rank hypocrite you will see from my posts I have confined myself to nothing more than a discussion of why I think the referee was entitled to give a penalty.

(Ps I do not think that a mild critique of anti-Zionism is tantamount to anti-semitism I have simply saiid that Zionism is a debased term and that anti-semites SOMETIMES hide behind it)

Yeah right.

"reckless, intentional or excessive force and decides it is a foul". You must admit that is debatable? It was pretty 50/50 about whether there was anything there. And you should also be able to accept that people who argue against you on such debatable questions neither idiotic nor morally corrupt?