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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

"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

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.

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, 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".

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.

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

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.

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.

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".

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.

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

That metaphor doesn't really work sorry.

This is demonstrably false though.

Just watch this at around 0:18.

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.

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, even that moron Neville said it wasn't a penalty

Love can only get you through this. Hate won't work.

We are underperforming. Financially only Man City are ahead of us.

http://www.espnfc.com.au/english-premie ... rsenal-psg

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)

Again, demonstrably false.

i think there are 2 things going on here.

Penalty for Chelsea for Bellerin's infringement (and i like this word because it sort of implies "ok, it was just about a foul").

Yellow card for Hazard for simulation as his reaction to the infringement was to feign injury and to make an attempt to deceive the ref with regards to the severity of the contact.

I'm not sure the simulation laws allow such things so will happily be corrected, but I think its the way to go. You can have yer penalty, but have this card too you divey little bitch. Whilst his reaction should have no impact on the ref's decision, its just another of the things that makes you hate the game so there should be a sanction.

I thought the conservative MP for Arsenal (who looks very nice indeed btw, well done Hodd) had his boot nudged by the chelsea fellas knee which made him tangle his own feet. Unintentional, but a foul. Ainsley didn't embelish the contact with a screaming triple salcow hard onto the deck. So because he didn't sell the contact like Eden Lightfoot he doesn't get the pen and also gets called a diver by the orcs of Pundit Land. How crap is this game?

Jack dived like a weasel. Crap dive. More crap.

Nothing really. Just maintaining my post count. hehehe

No, actually, I watched the match till the 2nd goal and left the bar. Didn't know we equalized and although its good news, I'm not regretful of leaving the bar.
The PK was a farce. The problem for me is how fast they equalized. When are we going to spend on quality defenders who have built a reputation? A known name.

"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?

Yeah right.

Also somewhat baffling given my last post to you was agreeing with your point that Hazard's reaction was not relevant.

It is tempting of course to descend into the personal abuse you have clearly initiated there for whatever purpose but that would just give you the opportunity to berate my rhetorical excesses so I'll leave that one with you and your arguably diminished powers of self-reflection.

I have no choice but surrender in the face of such articulacy.

Anyway as I say you changed a discussion on a penalty into an utterly uncalled for personal attack - I can't be arsed with that this morning especially as you will then snipe at any retaliation as an example of my argumentative nature so I'll depart with nothing more than a cheery: go *%^@ yourself, you apologist for mass murder and prissy, self-regarding, lily-white-handed, Boutique Bolshevik.

Make it easier for me then by not being an idiot. (I haven't called anybody morally corrupt).

My whole POINT is that the penalty decision was debatable. Actually the sentence you quote is not debatable. That IS what the ref decided and my point was simply that Hazard's reaction had no bearing on that once the referee had decided the nature of Bellerin's kick on Hazard was excessive or reckless (I assume he didn't think it was intentional but that would have been another possible factor).

It is others who are calling the decision farcical or saying categorically it was NEVER a penalty who are adopting closed positions (usually with nothing other than restating it in different words or reaching for a straw man).

Your entreaties for me to be less abrasive sit uneasily anyway with a person who opened their comunication with me with a barrage of personal abuse and a piss-poor attempt to revive an argument about *%^@*** Zionism (while simultaneously complaining that I go in for rhetorical excess!!) I actually don't mind a bit of robust abuse in my direction I do have more of an issue with pinch-and-shriek-for-miss playground hypocrites.

This reads like a treatise for a movie but I fear it's probably true.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... trump.html

Anyway, whatever to all that, THIS is how to do a post-match interview I imagine it will be right up kiwi's strasse.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_AeszKJ-yI[/youtube]

Great game.
We played well and didn't deserve to lose.
Funnily enough when Hazard went off I breathed a sigh of relief thinking that was the end of their attacking intent. How wrong I was.
How brilliant was young Ainsley. Looks so confident and calm on the ball. Very assured and exciting. How better would he be in his natural position.
Great goal by Bellerin but we could have lost it again. We just lose concentration so easily and it could have cost us.

What the fck is wenger playing at with Jack's new contract???
Does he want him to stay or not???
Surely should have been done by now.