Football / Soccer / Calcio / Futebol / Fußball

I'm done listening to all the mental gymnastics needed to conclude that Joelinton didn't foul Gabriel

although Joelinton does have his hands on Gabriel, there isn't enough to award a foul as Gabriel had made an action to play the ball before any contact

The ball falls through the gap between Joelinton's arms and Gabriel's neck that's being forced down. The only reason that gap exists is because Joelinton is forcing Gabriel's head down, but that doesn't matter because an "action" by Gabriel already occurred? It's nonsense, they wanted to give the goal, it's that simple.

Anyone else find it worrying that two of five people looked at the Bruno G incident and thought "Nah that's all fine"?

“Independent”

If the goal was disallowed because of the foul. This doesn’t get spoke about 30 seconds after the incident.

It’s far from controversial to say that that’s a foul… because it is one. Sometimes you have to look at how it may of been handled had it gone the other way. I don’t think Newcastle would of said a word had it been a foul.

A player with two arms on the back of another player, pushing them downwards, not looking at the ball but looking at the player they are fouling.

Any other circumstances it would be a foul.

"We've actually found ourselves to be completely innocent."

Let me get this straight, they were unanimous that Havertz was a red as it was "a very dangerous challenge and the type of tackle that needs to be eradicated".

They then say that all the decisions in the Spurs game were correct so they are happy with a two footed challenge and that it didn't fall into the above category?

"Gabriel had already made a movement to play the ball before any contact" what the fuck kind of reasoning is that? How does that make it not a foul?

???

You know, when 2/5 panel members don't believe an intentional forearm to the head away from the play is not worthy of a red, it kind of takes away their credibility.

It's more annoying that a couple of seasons ago, Martinelli had a goal ruled offside against Brighton because the officials weren't sure where to draw the line accurately. On-field decision was goal, but was chalked off after a review.

If they couldn't find conclusive evidence for the offside on this one, why give it?

Somehow the Kai Havertz is a unanimous sending off by the panel, but the Bruno Guimares elbow/forearm to the back of the head is not deemed a red card by 2 people. Make it make sense

Bruno Guimarães' arm to the head of Arsenal's Jorginho in the 45th minute was also a missed red card, but on a split 3-2 decision.

This tells you everything you need to know about how brainless the panel is. Deliberately smashing your forearm into someone's head is not a red card according to 2 panel members.

Who actually is the independent key match incident panel? Are they a bunch of ex referees, players, fans, lawyers?

Anyone who doesn't have a bias against us thought exactly this.

Entitled Arsenal fans get back into your bin.

You people in this sub like to complain so fucking much there's no point in this anymore. Coming here sucks all the joy out of football.

Everyone is a fucking refereeing expert and there's zero respect for the difficult job. How the hell have you not noticed that football is and always has been full of gray areas and subjective decisions to be made by the refs. There sometimes isn't a call everyone will agree with. It's just obvious. You got to take it with the sport.

It feels all of you don't like football and would want it to be a different sport. Esoecially when you lose.

Oh boy. Another Arsenal club statement incoming…

good thing Arsenal fans are very calm about the situation

A panel of idiots

>ESPN

So the panel judged the club that was screwed over by the refs at the weekend was Newcastle. The goal was correct and Bruno's red card was a split decision but Havertz's red card was unanimous that he should have been off. This is just too delicious. Got to wonder how much we paid the panel.

No shit.

I love how the goal was chalked up to ‘“we see nothing conclusively wrong because we don’t have the camera angles to prove otherwise” and the panel are like “yeah that’s all right with me”