Nah, a referendum on cheating foreigners.

Arseblog.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?