Not nailed on by any means, possibly even soft ... But the media [Sky in this case] are already showing their Watford hating colours. Even though we were playing a supposedly good team McMannamon in particular could do nothing else but slag us off all game ... mostly for no reason but even he thought it wasn't a dive, however the rest?!?!? and Poll's a tosser for even agreeing with the twunts! ... Expect a two match ban for our superhero. In the meantime I can't stop grinning and my Mrs is getting sick of it. Yay!
It will be a 2 match ban. Perfect chance for them to make an example of someone without upsetting the big 6.
Hope it isn’t a ban. Both going full tilt, Richarliason the quicker of the two. Kneees clash the faster full momentum goes to ground. No dive. Decision is therefore refs
Would miss Stoke at home potentially - probably no bad thing maybe as they'd try to kick him and no doubt Hughes will have a comment or two before the game. The Arsenal players weren't exactly moaning at the time though and the ref was pretty sure. Anyway I thought the media hated Arsenal as well so its a bit of a conundrum for them!
Exactly as I saw it ... obviously from the ref's viewpoint it looked like a pen but you can't blame RDA for that, at least he did get to the ball first. If I was reffing I'd be thinking he'd pushed it too far in front to stop it going out so no penalty despite any contact so not even a question of a dive .... Personally I don't think any penalty should be given if a player has no chance of scoring or laying off to a teammate but that's not them thar rules
Little contact, but why is everyone missing the push by Bellerin in the back? Would be dissapointed if it was given against us, but don't think it was a dive.
So now that's McManaman, Savage, Murphy and Wright that all think there was either a case for a penalty, (even if it was a bit soft) or it wasn't a dive. How can a panel possibly say that he categorically cheated now and ban him? I'm sure they will but it will be an absolute nonsense if they do so.
I think the decision has been given harsh criticism. I thought it was a clear foul by Bellerin. Richalison was running at pace, Bellerin made contact with his leg and shoved him the back for good measure. It had to be a penalty. But because Wenger moans about it, just as Klopp did with the "offside" goal, it gets a lot of coverage. For me it was a correct decision, just like the Britos goal against Liverpool. These top managers just cannot believe they can't beat a team like Watford, so try to confuse the result with a referee's decision being the reason for it.
Some Arse fans claiming offside for the second .... I've not yet seen a replay but I usually notice these things so I'm saying bullsh!t
Deeney was level from the original shot. On MOTD the pundits focused on the fact that Cleverly was simply standing still waiting for the ball to drop to him. If I were Wenger I'd be more concerned about the lack of defensive awareness of my players.
It's not as well. The brain-dead Arsenal fans are using a picture done by BT Sport that shows Deeney a foot offside- problem is that was when Holebas shot the ball. Holebas' shot hits off someone else (Capoue?), at which point if I remember the offside rule correctly, the offside has to reset itself to the moment the ball hits off Capoue. At that point in time, Deeney is level
In arsenal fans teeny little brains they couldn't possibly have lost to watford therefore there must have been cheating
I'd be very surprised if it even got reviewed. The panel was brought in for the type of simulation where a player would leave their foot in to be clipped, and thereby instigating the contact (technically, a foul in its own right!). With Richarlison, the contact, slight though it was, was a result of the two players going for the ball, a challenge which our man won, and Richarlison went straight down, without the need to 'create' any contact, nor did he throw himself up in the air, or raise his arms calling for the penalty before he'd even hit the floor, a la 'Muff. Yep, I think it was a bit soft, but that don't mean it wasn't a justifiable penalty call, or that Richarlison went down without contact. Poll has got this very wrong IMHO, and done his credibility few no favours. I felt he lacked conviction even when he was saying it was a dive, and would not be at all surprised if he was getting a word in his ear to big it up so as to pressurise a first diving ban; BT being able to say they covered it and called it. Pity. I thought he (Poll) did well with the Britos tackle in our win against United last season, despite Fake Pumphries highly offended Man U sensibilities.
Oh come on.. if that had been given against us you'd be on about your fifth post by now telling us how hard done by we were and how all the officials have got it in for us! That was a soft pen & a marginal decision that 90% of managers would have had a moan about.. and you can hardly "shove" someone who's already on their way down. You know you can always tell when a player is happy to go down when you see them trail their rear foot like this.. http://cf.c.ooyala.com/QxNGYxZDE67uNcr1A0BBIadMr5qrokZD/promo332278224
Nope. Richarlison wanted a foul, forced a foul, went down fairly easily, BUT he got the wrong side of the defender, got shoved and tangled and it was a definite penalty.
Hardly a definite penalty if he "wanted a foul" & "went down fairly easily" No sorry it is in modern football. My bad.
Stevo, you've summed it up there. It's a pen. It's not a dive, nor is it simulation. Unfortunately in today's game, the three things you picked up on in LB's post aren't mutually exclusive any more. Should we go back about 10 years where this kind of stuff isn't a foul? Yes 100%. However as of today, it is a very soft foul but a foul nonetheless. We've gotta let that kind of stuff go now
Not a dive, shouldn't have been a pen .... how diplomatic is that FFS? Deeney should have passed it to Cech and apologised
But i dont want to.. i live in the past you see! We do seemingly accept "looking for it" as a legit move these days.. and the question isnt about that any more, it's about whether there was any (merest) contact. In my book no one should go over like that with that amount of contact we saw today.. especially not from the "shove" in the back, which looked like it had all the force of an asthmatic ant. I'm not fully in agreement with it but i cant change anything, so yes i have to go with it.. or find another sport. Is Ping Pong a contact sport?
I don't think he fell because of the shove in the back, more so because there was knee-to-knee contact. And yes, ping pong is a contact sport when I lose the 3rd game in a row without scoring and I throw the paddle at my opponent
Absolutely no contact was there, Graham Poll?? Bear in mind number 11 is hiding the push in the back. It's soft - but it's 50/50 in today's game. I thought BT were a disgrace with how they have clearly tried to influence the "diving" panel. If Harry Kane had done this, it would be classed as clever, experienced centre-forward play.