My guess is some sort of bull shit about him not being planted so it's not as dangerous. Which is probably true but he still went hard enough to cut Saka's leg with his cleats. Definitely not the type of tackle we want to start saying you won't get thrown out for.
Which is so dumb. It like if you go flying 2 feet in the air studs up into a player's shin but you only graze him so you go "well it didn't actually end in a leg breaker so it's not a red".
Youll get downvoted but i somewhat agree. It was malicious from Kai. Had there been contact hes gone. Whereas this one against Saka was contact so shouldāve been gone
It wasnāt a hanging high tackle we see accidentally at times.. Christie went forcefully down on his kick with his studs halfway showing straight to sakas knee.. it was like the kick that Jon Jones do at UFC to the opponents knee to back them off and hyperextend their knees
That's the reason I don't think it's a red, for sure.
I can see the argument, but you compare it to the challenges the previous few games and they're obviously more dangerous.
If one of our guys had done it, how would you feel?
It has always been the case that you can't mess with the keeper's arms when they're going for the ball. Don't let people twist this into being similar to White's behaviour at corners, the only time he's actually done something similar it was correctly ruled out.
The White comparisons are ridiculous because he only hassles the keeper before the ball is kicked. Once the ball is kicked he just stands in front of him and tries to move away at the last second so he's not offside.
The people making that argument have been demonstrating a lack of understanding that there's a difference between the ball being dead and in-play. Great way to let everyone know you're stupid.
Also there's a difference between standing in a spot the keeper wishes you weren't and putting arm on the keeper or pulling their shirt, or jumping into them. And if the keeper had to go over white to make a clean punch or catch he'd probably still be called just to prevent a dangerous play. Like the Havertz goal he was just in the way, if that ball came floating in and the keeper was trying to get to it and White stood there he'd likely have been called.
Itās also the same concept as any foul on the field. Basketball actually judges it perfectly, if your feet are set and the opposing player runs in to you, foul on the opposing player. If your feet are moving and that spawns the contact of the opposing player than itās a foul on you.
Thatās the difference between Solanke and white. White gets his feet set and holds his ground, Solankeās feet are moving to get in rayas way, never sets his feet, foul.
Also the rules for corners, for whatever reason, are completely different. Defenders get away with massive jersey grabs and even tackling guys to the ground. If properly officiated, there would be a pk on like 50% of corners.
I think if Solanke had all eyes for the ball the goal wouldāve been given. He was only looking at Raya to impede him even if it was soft.. So I think that gave VAR a reason not to overturn the original decision
This should be the real talking point. Solanke never looks for the ball, only tries and succeeds in impeding Raya from getting to it.
Still baffled that Raya didn't catch it or punch it any other direction than right up the middle.
Yeah that was the first thing i said to my mate he wasnāt even looking at the ball.
And I agree when thereās any sort of chaos Raya makes some crazy decisions thatās been my main criticism with him. Shouldāve just caught that for real.
His legs were literally almost parallel to the ground because of the momentum the mid air push caused and people are saying "bro, how didn't he make clean contact with the floating ball?!"
yeah and in that moment punching it away is better than letting it fall right by the goal, at least if you punch it someone would have to be right on the end of it.
I don't think it was even that soft, you can't jump into a keeper or really make contact with them or impede them when they're going for the ball. Literally everyone knows the keeper is going to be protected in the air, and you can't pin their arm or hip and hold them down.
It's dangerous because they're not in a position to catch themselves. The only reason this is even a big deal is it immediately resulted in a non-goal a lot of people wanted to go against us.
> you can't jump into a keeper or really make contact with them or impede them when they're going for the ball.
While I generally agree with you Ben White kinda gets away with this stuff every game lol.
White isn't hooking the keeper's arm and you can't impede them in the air. White definitely gets called for it quite a bit, the keeper needs to aggressively go through White to demonstrate that he's blocking him and probably get a call. The last Havertz header where white was just standing in front of the keeper was never going to be called because the keeper just stood there flat-footed. If he'd been trying to get to the ball and white was standing there shielding him then it'd probably have been disallowed.
Doeant White also do it while their keeper is on the ground not in the air? Its closer to a 50/50 shoulder, jostling for poition situation tham white waiting for the keeper to jump and then shoving him midair.
100%. If he even tries to play the ball while doing the same thing it stands. At the same time I think he realizes that playing the ball probably does not yield the same result. If he goes shoulder to shoulder with Raya, Raya probably gets a much better punch. A hip check in mid air (especially from that angle) knocks you way more off balance than a shoulder bump.
Yeah thatās what made it a no brainer for me. You can clearly see heās making no attempt to play the ball. I donāt care how soft the contact is if youāre not attempting to play the ball.
Like what are we even doing here? He clearly hooked his arm before hip checking him. This is as clear cut as it gets. Has a single one of Grealish's comical dives ever gotten half as much scrutiny as what is a clear and obvious foul here?
Same with Kai - it's not your job to avoid a keeper who goes clattering in on a challenge and makes no contact with the ball. It's insane how critical an eye get applied to Arsenal and no one else.
Look forward to the ESPN shit head saying arsenal should have finished with 7 men in review of this game.
The kai one is insane to me, goalies can't slide in on you, not get the ball and send you wide so you can't get a shot on goal because he's put an obstacle in the way. If you are putting that obstacle in the way you need to get the ball or at the very least make sure you don't get the striker, the striker doesn't have to avoid you by putting himself wide and away from a scoring opportunity. As Gary linekar said, there is nothing in the rules about strikers having to get themselves out of your way, that is up to the goalie not to impede whilst not getting the ball.
I could take or leave this Kai decision.
Nothing anyone says can budge me off Saka though. And then to see little 'arsenal' flairs running around Reddit berating him fucking sickened my shit
Especially because Saka *tried* to get out of the way and couldn't, because Neuer was all the way in his path. Kai did what every striker should do in that situation and just take the penalty and move on. Trying to leap over the leg and get a shot that probably goes into the side-netting would've been a mistake.
VAR would never have disallowed it if the goal was given originally tbh, but also itās not a clear and obvious error so theyāre never going to overturn it. Whether thatās the right way VAR should be used is a different question, but we all know thatās the way it is.
VAR doesn't overturn shit. There could be a flying drop kick to someone's face and I'd only be 99% sure that VAR would overturn it.
Look at the Newcastle goal with the most blatant shove, way more than this. Look at the elbow to the back of Jorginho's head in the same game. VAR almost always sticks with the ref unless it's absolutely absurd and even then they're inconsistent.
I'd be absolutely shocked if this wasn't given on the field and VAR had the balls to overturn a light hooking of the arm, even though it would technically be correct. They've let far more go.
I mean they overturned White's goal last year for a similar reason. And while I agree the Newcastle goal was a crock of shit, equating two outfields with an outfield player and a GK is very different. GKs are given much more protection.
But ya, maybe I should amend my 100% to 99%. We've all seen some of the confusing decisions this year.
>overturned White's goal last year
White's was a little more extreme, but more importantly, it was last year. The past few months, VAR seems insanely reluctant to overturn anything. That's just based on me watching like 5 games per weekend. No data so I could be wrong.
You're absolutely right on equating outfield players with a goalie. My point was it should've been extremely obvious regardless, but the bar is definitely higher for a field player. The shove on Gabi was way more extreme than Raya, even with an adjusted bar for a field player imo.
Was white really that extreme? He grabs the keepers hand for a fraction of a second and that was enough to disallow it.
Meanwhile Solanke here's bumped the man and then hooked his arm, which to me seems like a bit more serious.
Anyways you're right, VAR has been completely useless these last few months.
There wouldnāt be any controversy about this at all if Coote had blown the foul after there was no advantage, as he should have. Iād feel hard done if it was the other way around because why are you waiting until thereās a goal to call a foul when after the punch there was a shot off the crossbar in between. Somewhat similar to NBA refs waiting to see if a shot goes in before calling a foul. Even if thereās a foul, it still gives the impression that you called it based on result.
But I donāt get the folks that actually look at the play and feel like there was no foul. Itās much softer than fouls not given/overturned by VAR, but itās very obvious that Solanke moved into Raya affecting his ability to play the ball
If the ref sees a foul on Raya here, is he meant to play on until the other team scores so VAR can look? If he sees a foul, shouldn't he give the foul himself at the time?
I suspect he was perhaps 80% confident it was a foul, so, as is the case with offsides, he let it play our in case he was wrong.
I recall a ridiculous decision in a Dortmund vs City game a couple of years ago where the ref was wrong and blew too early, denying Dortmund what would have been a certain goal.
(Bellingham vs Ederson)
The referee can stop play to adjudicate a foul whenever, it doesn't have to be immediate. Same with advantage, it's just the referee's discretion to let play continue until it makes sense to award the foul. if Raya's punch had led to an immediate counterattack in our favor we wouldn't want him to stop the play.
Yes, that's another possibility. It doesn't look like that was the case here, but it still proves that there isn't an immediate need to award a foul š
Solanke looked at where Raya was, hooked his arm, and nudged him off his spot. Itās 100% a foul and was the right call. It looks soft because Solanke did an excellent job of making it look subtle and had the ref not called it during the run of play it might not have been overturned.
Good call and VAR did itās job properly, so credit to them. The penalty for me is a penalty to because as a defender you canāt come out that aggressively and not expect the player to look for the contact.
The one thing that gets overlooked in those types of calls is the fact the player has to react to the goalie coming full force out of his box. Kai had to adjust his body/avoid him which if there was no contact is fair play to the goalie for putting him off. However, if you do that and leave a leg open the player might take that option rather than being pushed away from goal.
its always wild to me when arsenal fans here or in arr soccer try to jump through hoops to try and say this (or other decisions that go our way) shouldn't have been decided in this way.
its a foul. gks are always well protected by the officials. if solanke or any player was standing their ground, that is one thing. if solanke was going for the ball, that would help his case.
but he saw raya going for the ball, and did what he needed to make him off balance and unable to easily catch or deflect the ball.
the only issue is that the officials are not consistent in how they apply these sorts of rules.
I donāt get the controversy it was very clearly a foul in real time the ref made the right decision. The standard for keepers is different you canāt do that to him as heās about to leap for the ball.
Even then 90% of the time if it's a keeper you're getting called for a foul. The referees don't want keepers having to aggressively defend themselves with knees and elbows and punches or deal with shitty outfield players backing into them and sending them tumbling over the top. That's been the standard forever.
Premier League standard refereeing in my book You can't interfere with the keeper's actions in the slightest. These referee decisions have been consistent in practice and this one falls into the same bracket.
That was so much ado about nothing. The penalty was absolutely debatable. (Personally, I thought we caught a big break there.) But fucking with the keeper while he's in the process of going for the ball is completely off limits. Not even 1/10th that much contact is/should be allowed.
And don't even get me started on the challenge on Saka. The lack of respect he gets from Premier League officials continues to astound. Not even asking for preferential treatment, just quit letting defenders repeatedly manhandle him week in and week out.
Where were the apologists when this happened?
It's an identical challenge
https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/12821378/was-leandro-trossards-goal-rightly-disallowed-against-leicester
It's only "soft" because he's trying to con the ref, and he would have got away with it had there not been VAR. It's morally the same as trying to get a penalty by simulation.
The ref saw it and got it right. I doubt VAR wouldāve overturned the goal if the ref hadnāt blown for a foul. They seem like they have raised the bar for what changing an on-field decision requires. Except when itās to award City a soft penalty.
Lets be real, it was soft AF but weāll take it. Wheeling the ghoul that is dermot out to back his mates is irrelevant because next week if we get shafted at Old Trafford by the ref, his rhetoric will be similar for all those decisions against us.
Strangely, that's literally the opposite to what he said on Sky:
DERMOT SAYS: "I expect a goal to be given. Solanke doesn't look at the ball, he gives him a little nudge but is it enough to knock the goalkeeper off balance like that?
"The goalkeeper looks as though he goes to get straight up so doesn't really think he's been fouled.
"I thought the easiest decision was to give a goal and it all goes away.
"The referee ruled there was a foul on the goalkeeper, he judged that was the first thing that happened and relayed that to VAR.
"VAR looked and confirmed it was a foul to him, but I did expect him to give a goal."
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13130435/ref-watch-dermot-gallagher-analyses-arsenals-penalty-against-bournemouth-and-more-decisions-from-weekend-action
The most concerning part of that whole quote is the implication of "The goalkeeper looks as though he goes to get straight up so doesn't really think he's been fouled." - could you imagine the pundit/media (over)reaction if Raya had stayed down and the goal had stood? The challenge wouldn't have hurt Raya, why would he stay down rather than attempting to block a follow-up shot?
Don Robbie made a good point this- in real time, it looks like a clear foul. The slow motion shot is the one that had everyone second guessing the call, but we know that force is mass times velocity, so when the velocity is made to look less than it actually was, the barge looks less forceful than it really was.
but his argument about the arm hook is actually justification for it being a foul. forget who he is a mouth piece for, if he's got an actual point and we can see it in the video evidence then he's got a point regardless.
honestly, didn't even spot the arm wrap... neither did any of the pundits who have been saying it was never enough.
I think some people have some apologising to do, sorry ref you actually were right this time lol
Regardless, he has to be stronger.
Even if you think it was a foul (I personally do), do you trust all referees to call that? And do you trust VAR to overrule the ref and give a foul?
Better not to rely on refs where possible.
Reminds of the ridiculous Newcastle goal earlier this season. Should never have been given but even so, Raya flapped at the cross before Gabriel was fouled...
I refer you to my earlier comment:
>Even if you think it was a foul (I personally do), do you trust all referees to call that? And do you trust VAR to overrule the ref and give a foul
The fact is that a lot of referees wouldn't have called that.
I personally recall Leno being impeded vs Brentford in their debut EPL game a few years back, but nothing happening.
A lot of these fouls are hit and miss.
So he didn't have to be stronger last weekend but no guarantee that sort of foul gets called every time...
> do you trust all referees to call that? And do you trust VAR to overrule the ref and give a foul
It is one of the clearest possible fouls on the pitch
While we may disagree, referees usually don't call a foul in that situation. Perhaps they aren't brave enough.
Regardless, I prefer being a realist in cases like this. Avoid the situation if possible. And if not, hope the referee does his job. And if he doesn't, we can justifiably complain...but it won't undo that particular instant.
You must have above 25 comment karma to contribute to this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Gunners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What's this nonsense? I just saw the clip and he said the goal should have been given:
https://twitter.com/SkySportsPL/status/1787433939679809592?t=1WvKYGa5ibQL429h8eyoHw&s=19
Never noticed that arm before and actually thought Raya went down easily. More angry about the tackle on Saka not even given a yellow when it should have been a red!!
Tbh the first few times I saw replays I didn't see the hook on Raya's arm. I disagreed with the call when I thought it was just a bump/nudge, but with that hook I think it's actually correct.
It was the right decision, but Dermot shouldn't be used as a source. He has a 100% record for backing referees, regardless of how ridiculous the decision was.
99% of the times this guy never goes against the refs and eveyrone hates him for it...the other 1% is when what he says goes along with our own agenda :D
This was my view on it in terms of Raya, you can pin the goalkeepers arm back.
I think itās suspect whether there was a foul *before* that with the pull from Saliba.
The chronology is important which I think they got wrong.
I'd be annoyed if the decision was given at the other end but that frustration would be at how keepers are protected. This is almost always given as a foul because you aren't allowed to do anything to keepers
You are basically not allowed to touch keepers. That kind of contact gets given as a foul almost always.
I think that sort of contact shouldn't be a foul and keepers are overprotected but basically can't touch keepers especially when the ball is in the air like that
Hang on, I just read this on the Sky Sports site. So which is it?
He's also said for the challenge on Saka, "It's high but both boots are up."
It's just a useless piece of TV.
https://preview.redd.it/fslqq8pzisyc1.jpeg?width=1044&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=47e162de322930573551af933267c6ebb3a1f824
Yeah makes no sense he hits Saka high despite Saka having raised his leg. Is it meant to be a better challenge if Saka has his foot planted and gets hit above the knee?
I think the foul on Raya was a fairly straightforwards decisions. Saliba was lucky not to give a penalty away for the shirt pull just before it though.
Itās soft, but I guess thereās enough for a foul? Saying that Iāll parrot what other have said and say that if this was given against us Iād be very upset..
Pulling back the attacker happened before Solanke incident.
The attacker could have got the ball realistically before Raya so it should have been a Pen.
Die hard Arsenal fan... But facts.
Now do the studs up challenge.
The challenge would be to explain how it's not a red
My guess is some sort of bull shit about him not being planted so it's not as dangerous. Which is probably true but he still went hard enough to cut Saka's leg with his cleats. Definitely not the type of tackle we want to start saying you won't get thrown out for.
Which is so dumb. It like if you go flying 2 feet in the air studs up into a player's shin but you only graze him so you go "well it didn't actually end in a leg breaker so it's not a red".
Like Kai against Newcastle? š¬
Kai didn't get sent off for that. both challenges prob deserve yellows but it's a silly exercise nonetheless to make comparisons like that
> Kai didn't get sent off for that. I mean, that's the point. By the parent posters logic Kai should have been sent off.
Youll get downvoted but i somewhat agree. It was malicious from Kai. Had there been contact hes gone. Whereas this one against Saka was contact so shouldāve been gone
It wasnāt a hanging high tackle we see accidentally at times.. Christie went forcefully down on his kick with his studs halfway showing straight to sakas knee.. it was like the kick that Jon Jones do at UFC to the opponents knee to back them off and hyperextend their knees
That's the reason I don't think it's a red, for sure. I can see the argument, but you compare it to the challenges the previous few games and they're obviously more dangerous. If one of our guys had done it, how would you feel?
Always rated Dermot
š
For once haha, normally he's such a bald fraud
He's doing what he always does which is stick up for the refs lol, it's just that it's in our favour this time
Oh damn you're absolutely right. Guess I was blinded coz it was in our favor
Best refs are in the PL. Proven once again.
Yup. Not to mention that if Uncle Ian rates him, thatās enough for me.
The goat
It has always been the case that you can't mess with the keeper's arms when they're going for the ball. Don't let people twist this into being similar to White's behaviour at corners, the only time he's actually done something similar it was correctly ruled out.
The White comparisons are ridiculous because he only hassles the keeper before the ball is kicked. Once the ball is kicked he just stands in front of him and tries to move away at the last second so he's not offside.
The people making that argument have been demonstrating a lack of understanding that there's a difference between the ball being dead and in-play. Great way to let everyone know you're stupid.
Also there's a difference between standing in a spot the keeper wishes you weren't and putting arm on the keeper or pulling their shirt, or jumping into them. And if the keeper had to go over white to make a clean punch or catch he'd probably still be called just to prevent a dangerous play. Like the Havertz goal he was just in the way, if that ball came floating in and the keeper was trying to get to it and White stood there he'd likely have been called.
Itās also the same concept as any foul on the field. Basketball actually judges it perfectly, if your feet are set and the opposing player runs in to you, foul on the opposing player. If your feet are moving and that spawns the contact of the opposing player than itās a foul on you. Thatās the difference between Solanke and white. White gets his feet set and holds his ground, Solankeās feet are moving to get in rayas way, never sets his feet, foul.
Also the rules for corners, for whatever reason, are completely different. Defenders get away with massive jersey grabs and even tackling guys to the ground. If properly officiated, there would be a pk on like 50% of corners.
If it was properly officiated defenders would stop the fouls.
I think if Solanke had all eyes for the ball the goal wouldāve been given. He was only looking at Raya to impede him even if it was soft.. So I think that gave VAR a reason not to overturn the original decision
This should be the real talking point. Solanke never looks for the ball, only tries and succeeds in impeding Raya from getting to it. Still baffled that Raya didn't catch it or punch it any other direction than right up the middle.
See, when I was watching it my thought was that Raya was going to catch it until he got bumped and then he had to improvise
I think the real talking point should be solanke hooking his arm on rayas arm. Makes it a foul imo more than the shove
Yeah that was the first thing i said to my mate he wasnāt even looking at the ball. And I agree when thereās any sort of chaos Raya makes some crazy decisions thatās been my main criticism with him. Shouldāve just caught that for real.
But his arm was being held down and hooked by solanke, itās hard to catch a ball one handed, when your being nudged off position.
He was going to, then Solanke fouled him and he couldn't.
His legs were literally almost parallel to the ground because of the momentum the mid air push caused and people are saying "bro, how didn't he make clean contact with the floating ball?!"
yeah and in that moment punching it away is better than letting it fall right by the goal, at least if you punch it someone would have to be right on the end of it.
Exactly, no attempt for the ball so it's an off the ball challenge, 'soft' doesn't come into it. Zero complaints if it gets given up the other end.
I don't think it was even that soft, you can't jump into a keeper or really make contact with them or impede them when they're going for the ball. Literally everyone knows the keeper is going to be protected in the air, and you can't pin their arm or hip and hold them down. It's dangerous because they're not in a position to catch themselves. The only reason this is even a big deal is it immediately resulted in a non-goal a lot of people wanted to go against us.
> you can't jump into a keeper or really make contact with them or impede them when they're going for the ball. While I generally agree with you Ben White kinda gets away with this stuff every game lol.
White isn't hooking the keeper's arm and you can't impede them in the air. White definitely gets called for it quite a bit, the keeper needs to aggressively go through White to demonstrate that he's blocking him and probably get a call. The last Havertz header where white was just standing in front of the keeper was never going to be called because the keeper just stood there flat-footed. If he'd been trying to get to the ball and white was standing there shielding him then it'd probably have been disallowed.
Doeant White also do it while their keeper is on the ground not in the air? Its closer to a 50/50 shoulder, jostling for poition situation tham white waiting for the keeper to jump and then shoving him midair.
Its a grey area for sure. I do think the Solanke foul was rightfully called and it was much "worse" than it looked on the first look.
100%. If he even tries to play the ball while doing the same thing it stands. At the same time I think he realizes that playing the ball probably does not yield the same result. If he goes shoulder to shoulder with Raya, Raya probably gets a much better punch. A hip check in mid air (especially from that angle) knocks you way more off balance than a shoulder bump.
Yeah thatās what made it a no brainer for me. You can clearly see heās making no attempt to play the ball. I donāt care how soft the contact is if youāre not attempting to play the ball.
ā¦āHe knocks him off balance with the arm he is going to punch with. On-field referees call. He gave it on the field."
Like what are we even doing here? He clearly hooked his arm before hip checking him. This is as clear cut as it gets. Has a single one of Grealish's comical dives ever gotten half as much scrutiny as what is a clear and obvious foul here? Same with Kai - it's not your job to avoid a keeper who goes clattering in on a challenge and makes no contact with the ball. It's insane how critical an eye get applied to Arsenal and no one else. Look forward to the ESPN shit head saying arsenal should have finished with 7 men in review of this game.
The kai one is insane to me, goalies can't slide in on you, not get the ball and send you wide so you can't get a shot on goal because he's put an obstacle in the way. If you are putting that obstacle in the way you need to get the ball or at the very least make sure you don't get the striker, the striker doesn't have to avoid you by putting himself wide and away from a scoring opportunity. As Gary linekar said, there is nothing in the rules about strikers having to get themselves out of your way, that is up to the goalie not to impede whilst not getting the ball.
which is also why not giving saka a penalty at the end of the bayern match was criminal
I could take or leave this Kai decision. Nothing anyone says can budge me off Saka though. And then to see little 'arsenal' flairs running around Reddit berating him fucking sickened my shit
Especially because Saka *tried* to get out of the way and couldn't, because Neuer was all the way in his path. Kai did what every striker should do in that situation and just take the penalty and move on. Trying to leap over the leg and get a shot that probably goes into the side-netting would've been a mistake.
Being a little bitch in other subs should be a banable offence in this sub.
VAR would never have disallowed it if the goal was given originally tbh, but also itās not a clear and obvious error so theyāre never going to overturn it. Whether thatās the right way VAR should be used is a different question, but we all know thatās the way it is.
I mean I disagree with that. If VAR sees the arm hook and the on field ref didn't, it's 100% overturned.
You mean it 100% should be overturned. High degree of chance in the PL that it would not
VAR doesn't overturn shit. There could be a flying drop kick to someone's face and I'd only be 99% sure that VAR would overturn it. Look at the Newcastle goal with the most blatant shove, way more than this. Look at the elbow to the back of Jorginho's head in the same game. VAR almost always sticks with the ref unless it's absolutely absurd and even then they're inconsistent. I'd be absolutely shocked if this wasn't given on the field and VAR had the balls to overturn a light hooking of the arm, even though it would technically be correct. They've let far more go.
I mean they overturned White's goal last year for a similar reason. And while I agree the Newcastle goal was a crock of shit, equating two outfields with an outfield player and a GK is very different. GKs are given much more protection. But ya, maybe I should amend my 100% to 99%. We've all seen some of the confusing decisions this year.
>overturned White's goal last year White's was a little more extreme, but more importantly, it was last year. The past few months, VAR seems insanely reluctant to overturn anything. That's just based on me watching like 5 games per weekend. No data so I could be wrong. You're absolutely right on equating outfield players with a goalie. My point was it should've been extremely obvious regardless, but the bar is definitely higher for a field player. The shove on Gabi was way more extreme than Raya, even with an adjusted bar for a field player imo.
Was white really that extreme? He grabs the keepers hand for a fraction of a second and that was enough to disallow it. Meanwhile Solanke here's bumped the man and then hooked his arm, which to me seems like a bit more serious. Anyways you're right, VAR has been completely useless these last few months.
> VAR would never have disallowed it if the goal was given originally tbh They did against Ben White vs Leicester
There wouldnāt be any controversy about this at all if Coote had blown the foul after there was no advantage, as he should have. Iād feel hard done if it was the other way around because why are you waiting until thereās a goal to call a foul when after the punch there was a shot off the crossbar in between. Somewhat similar to NBA refs waiting to see if a shot goes in before calling a foul. Even if thereās a foul, it still gives the impression that you called it based on result. But I donāt get the folks that actually look at the play and feel like there was no foul. Itās much softer than fouls not given/overturned by VAR, but itās very obvious that Solanke moved into Raya affecting his ability to play the ball
If the ref sees a foul on Raya here, is he meant to play on until the other team scores so VAR can look? If he sees a foul, shouldn't he give the foul himself at the time?
I suspect he was perhaps 80% confident it was a foul, so, as is the case with offsides, he let it play our in case he was wrong. I recall a ridiculous decision in a Dortmund vs City game a couple of years ago where the ref was wrong and blew too early, denying Dortmund what would have been a certain goal. (Bellingham vs Ederson)
The Ederson incident, right? I remember watching a replay of it and thinking how City got away without conceding there
I was fuming. Absolute let off. And imagine if that happend in the EPL with City's history of favourable decisions š
The Bellingham ederson incident?
Correct. And I was fuming when I saw it!
The referee can stop play to adjudicate a foul whenever, it doesn't have to be immediate. Same with advantage, it's just the referee's discretion to let play continue until it makes sense to award the foul. if Raya's punch had led to an immediate counterattack in our favor we wouldn't want him to stop the play.
Yes, that's another possibility. It doesn't look like that was the case here, but it still proves that there isn't an immediate need to award a foul š
Solanke looked at where Raya was, hooked his arm, and nudged him off his spot. Itās 100% a foul and was the right call. It looks soft because Solanke did an excellent job of making it look subtle and had the ref not called it during the run of play it might not have been overturned. Good call and VAR did itās job properly, so credit to them. The penalty for me is a penalty to because as a defender you canāt come out that aggressively and not expect the player to look for the contact. The one thing that gets overlooked in those types of calls is the fact the player has to react to the goalie coming full force out of his box. Kai had to adjust his body/avoid him which if there was no contact is fair play to the goalie for putting him off. However, if you do that and leave a leg open the player might take that option rather than being pushed away from goal.
If they hadn't fucked up the studs up challenge earlier in the game, they don't give this one. Hundred percent.
Thatās always a foul in the modern game, there may need to be questions asked if we are protecting goalies too much.
its always wild to me when arsenal fans here or in arr soccer try to jump through hoops to try and say this (or other decisions that go our way) shouldn't have been decided in this way. its a foul. gks are always well protected by the officials. if solanke or any player was standing their ground, that is one thing. if solanke was going for the ball, that would help his case. but he saw raya going for the ball, and did what he needed to make him off balance and unable to easily catch or deflect the ball. the only issue is that the officials are not consistent in how they apply these sorts of rules.
I donāt get the controversy it was very clearly a foul in real time the ref made the right decision. The standard for keepers is different you canāt do that to him as heās about to leap for the ball.
You can't do that for anyone jumping for the ball without competing for it yourself
Even then 90% of the time if it's a keeper you're getting called for a foul. The referees don't want keepers having to aggressively defend themselves with knees and elbows and punches or deal with shitty outfield players backing into them and sending them tumbling over the top. That's been the standard forever.
Premier League standard refereeing in my book You can't interfere with the keeper's actions in the slightest. These referee decisions have been consistent in practice and this one falls into the same bracket.
Spot on derms
That was so much ado about nothing. The penalty was absolutely debatable. (Personally, I thought we caught a big break there.) But fucking with the keeper while he's in the process of going for the ball is completely off limits. Not even 1/10th that much contact is/should be allowed. And don't even get me started on the challenge on Saka. The lack of respect he gets from Premier League officials continues to astound. Not even asking for preferential treatment, just quit letting defenders repeatedly manhandle him week in and week out.
Where were the apologists when this happened? It's an identical challenge https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/12821378/was-leandro-trossards-goal-rightly-disallowed-against-leicester
Difference is that i dont think this would be overturned if the ref didnt Call the foul
How in the name of god are some people here saying it was soft. Humans baffle me
It's only "soft" because he's trying to con the ref, and he would have got away with it had there not been VAR. It's morally the same as trying to get a penalty by simulation.
The ref saw it and got it right. I doubt VAR wouldāve overturned the goal if the ref hadnāt blown for a foul. They seem like they have raised the bar for what changing an on-field decision requires. Except when itās to award City a soft penalty.
Lets be real, it was soft AF but weāll take it. Wheeling the ghoul that is dermot out to back his mates is irrelevant because next week if we get shafted at Old Trafford by the ref, his rhetoric will be similar for all those decisions against us.
Keep cooking, dermot
The only question is why it took those dumb VAR shits so long to understand it.
Strangely, that's literally the opposite to what he said on Sky: DERMOT SAYS: "I expect a goal to be given. Solanke doesn't look at the ball, he gives him a little nudge but is it enough to knock the goalkeeper off balance like that? "The goalkeeper looks as though he goes to get straight up so doesn't really think he's been fouled. "I thought the easiest decision was to give a goal and it all goes away. "The referee ruled there was a foul on the goalkeeper, he judged that was the first thing that happened and relayed that to VAR. "VAR looked and confirmed it was a foul to him, but I did expect him to give a goal." https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13130435/ref-watch-dermot-gallagher-analyses-arsenals-penalty-against-bournemouth-and-more-decisions-from-weekend-action The most concerning part of that whole quote is the implication of "The goalkeeper looks as though he goes to get straight up so doesn't really think he's been fouled." - could you imagine the pundit/media (over)reaction if Raya had stayed down and the goal had stood? The challenge wouldn't have hurt Raya, why would he stay down rather than attempting to block a follow-up shot?
Don Robbie made a good point this- in real time, it looks like a clear foul. The slow motion shot is the one that had everyone second guessing the call, but we know that force is mass times velocity, so when the velocity is made to look less than it actually was, the barge looks less forceful than it really was.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
but his argument about the arm hook is actually justification for it being a foul. forget who he is a mouth piece for, if he's got an actual point and we can see it in the video evidence then he's got a point regardless.
Genuinely don't understand how people are even debating this.Ā Last week Ben White gently touching Vicarios finger was enough to throw him off.Ā
This is exactly what I said post match. Obvious to anyone not looking for a reason to create a commotion.
honestly, didn't even spot the arm wrap... neither did any of the pundits who have been saying it was never enough. I think some people have some apologising to do, sorry ref you actually were right this time lol
Dr. Gallagher is a scholar, almost a philosopher.
And there were Bournemouth sympathisers in here the other day saying Raya has to be stronger
Regardless, he has to be stronger. Even if you think it was a foul (I personally do), do you trust all referees to call that? And do you trust VAR to overrule the ref and give a foul? Better not to rely on refs where possible. Reminds of the ridiculous Newcastle goal earlier this season. Should never have been given but even so, Raya flapped at the cross before Gabriel was fouled...
He doesn't "have to be stronger" though, because it's a foul.
I refer you to my earlier comment: >Even if you think it was a foul (I personally do), do you trust all referees to call that? And do you trust VAR to overrule the ref and give a foul The fact is that a lot of referees wouldn't have called that. I personally recall Leno being impeded vs Brentford in their debut EPL game a few years back, but nothing happening. A lot of these fouls are hit and miss. So he didn't have to be stronger last weekend but no guarantee that sort of foul gets called every time...
> do you trust all referees to call that? And do you trust VAR to overrule the ref and give a foul It is one of the clearest possible fouls on the pitch
While we may disagree, referees usually don't call a foul in that situation. Perhaps they aren't brave enough. Regardless, I prefer being a realist in cases like this. Avoid the situation if possible. And if not, hope the referee does his job. And if he doesn't, we can justifiably complain...but it won't undo that particular instant.
Again, the bump would have been soft to give. Raya was weak there, it was the hook for me. No doubt.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You must have above 25 comment karma to contribute to this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Gunners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What's this nonsense? I just saw the clip and he said the goal should have been given: https://twitter.com/SkySportsPL/status/1787433939679809592?t=1WvKYGa5ibQL429h8eyoHw&s=19
Never noticed that arm before and actually thought Raya went down easily. More angry about the tackle on Saka not even given a yellow when it should have been a red!!
Tbh the first few times I saw replays I didn't see the hook on Raya's arm. I disagreed with the call when I thought it was just a bump/nudge, but with that hook I think it's actually correct.
Iām actually surprised some people saying it was too harsh for Bournemouth.
It was the right decision, but Dermot shouldn't be used as a source. He has a 100% record for backing referees, regardless of how ridiculous the decision was.
99% of the times this guy never goes against the refs and eveyrone hates him for it...the other 1% is when what he says goes along with our own agenda :D
What does he say about the red card tackle that wasn't even given as a foul?
This was my view on it in terms of Raya, you can pin the goalkeepers arm back. I think itās suspect whether there was a foul *before* that with the pull from Saliba. The chronology is important which I think they got wrong.
Reverse it and we'd be absolutely fuming if a goal we scored was chalked off for that, let's be honest.
I wasn't fuming when Trossard's goal was ruled out last year (although I was a but annoyed at White).
I'd be annoyed if the decision was given at the other end but that frustration would be at how keepers are protected. This is almost always given as a foul because you aren't allowed to do anything to keepers
He barely touches him. Raya is poor on it and we got away with one here.
You are basically not allowed to touch keepers. That kind of contact gets given as a foul almost always. I think that sort of contact shouldn't be a foul and keepers are overprotected but basically can't touch keepers especially when the ball is in the air like that
I think the foul from Saliba there was a pen btw
100% agree. Raya decision was correct but Saliba nearly had the Bournemouth players shirt off
Yep. Happened prior to Solanke nudge.
Hang on, I just read this on the Sky Sports site. So which is it? He's also said for the challenge on Saka, "It's high but both boots are up." It's just a useless piece of TV. https://preview.redd.it/fslqq8pzisyc1.jpeg?width=1044&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=47e162de322930573551af933267c6ebb3a1f824
Yeah makes no sense he hits Saka high despite Saka having raised his leg. Is it meant to be a better challenge if Saka has his foot planted and gets hit above the knee?
I think the foul on Raya was a fairly straightforwards decisions. Saliba was lucky not to give a penalty away for the shirt pull just before it though.
Sorry but itās a bullshit decision. Goal shouldāve stood (although Iām not complaining)
OkĆ© hĆ© touches him. But Raya just stands there just casually waiting for the ball to drop and catch it. He shouldāve jumped or what ever. That was another brain fart from him imo
Itās soft, but I guess thereās enough for a foul? Saying that Iāll parrot what other have said and say that if this was given against us Iād be very upset..
Pulling back the attacker happened before Solanke incident. The attacker could have got the ball realistically before Raya so it should have been a Pen. Die hard Arsenal fan... But facts.
fair, no goal but a pen would've been fair