You can **** off

It was never a penalty, he looked for the contact, there was barely a toe nail clipping in it. There'd be more contact if Andy Carroll's pony tail bitch slapped a player behind him in the face.

 

Arsenal are renowned for diving. No embarrassment either. Even had to dive last season to get past Huddersfield. (wasn't it Hudds)?
Steve Taylor said to the Ref. i accidentally elbowed him not Gerv. But he did smack him.

 

You know the thing about ponytails Tash... there's always an arse underneath one!

 

I accept that and its not something I like to see but if you leave a foot in or trailing leg then the modern day footballer will go over. Every team has players that do it.
For me Taylor's actions were worse than Barton (angry, rush of blood) or slap heads (instinct of a modern striker), Taylor (cynical lie)

 

The fact is we got a point and cheating is part of the game.

 

[video=youtube;yqw10dUf5to]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqw10dUf5to[/video]

 

My input

Alexandre Song should have been sent off for his stamp on Joey Barton.
Arsenal should have received a penalty as Gervinho was fouled, anywhere outside the box and that is a free-kick.
Joey Barton should have been sent off for his aggressive attack on Gervinho, it was enough to qualify as violent conduct.
Gervinho was correctly sent off for hitting Joey Barton on the face as intentionally and maliciously touching anyone on the face counts as violent conduct and is an automatic red card.

What have we learned?

That we still need video replays to be brought into the game in order so that the correct decisions can be made. Had the referee had the luxury of watching a replay then Song and Barton would both have retrospectively been sent off at least.

If Joey Barton believed that Gervinho had dived (after watching replays I believe that he was fouled and it was penalty although he went down easily) then he should have had a quick word with him, no need to act like he did and being hypocritical by diving and feigning injury at the faintest of touches like he did. Barton said that if there's contact it's ok to go down, probably to cover up for himself going down so easily, but that would mean that it was ok for Gervinho to go down as well since there was also contact in that instance.

 

This is my idea of football hell. I can see the argument for goal line technology, that's fair enough, but not in-play video refereeing. I can just imagine us playing against Man Utd and SAF asking for every single little decision, be it a corner, free kick or throw in to go to the video ref. And then he'd still moan about the decision afterwards.

 

Totally agree, can't have the game pulled up every 5 minutes. Even if you have replays different people will still have different opinions as we have seen with this whole Barton/slap head situation.

 

Before we take the easy way out and have every decision scrutinised during the match, the FA would do well to clarify the rules and introduce some kind of standard for refereeing as there doesn't seem to be one. Things the likes of Sunderland and Newcastle get pulled up for on a weekly basis, the likes of Man Utd and Chelsea seem to get away with. I've always thought referees should be interviewed after the game in the same way players and managers are. They get far too much protection from their own bad decisions and they never seem to be held accountable for howlers.

I suppose it's nothing new though, take this guy for instance! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tofik_Bakhramov

 

I disagree with just about everything written here (except song should have been sent off). Video replays?! **** off. Idiotic. Despite the obvious criticism of them slowing games and making them less exciting, how would they help? People are still debating what was the right action to take even after seeing replays.

 

You can put Stoke in that list too, cheat and cheat all game but the refs seem to have the attitude, oh its Stoke, its just what they are like and they get away with murder. Agree refs should give a recap of the game and be big enough to admit mistakes, nobody should expect them to get 100% of decisions correct but I just don't know what is going on in their heads sometimes.

 

Your going on about geordie shore ,dont know if you were in town,but if you were ,did you notice how nice it looked,all the windows were intact and the tv shops actually still had electrical goods on display.

 

Obviously it will be properly regulated. You will not be able to appeal every single decision and there will be times when the officials themselves decide something is worth having a second look at. When watching a match on TV, you have the capability to view things again and again, from different angles at different speeds while at the same time knowing a particular incident is about to occur so you're looking out for it. Referees can only see things once, from wherever it is they are standing, in real time and when they don't know what to expect. So mistakes are going to happen, big mistakes and several of them. If you are against video replays then don't feel hard done by when a decision goes against you and most certainly don't blame the referee.

Right because players gathering around the referee and arguing with him and the opposition, like yesterday, doesn't slow the game down? Joey Barton running up to the fourth official to complain about Alexandre Song didn't slow the game down? Peter Walton having to break up the fracas and then after sending off Gervinho and cautioning Barton, had to consult with the two linesmen, didn't slow the game down? Wojciech Szczesny running all the way to the other side of the pitch to contest the decision didn't slow the game down? Pretty much every controversial decision, sometimes even small ones, are contested by players which potentially slows the game down a lot more than a quick look at a video replay would.

Yes even after watching a replay sometimes a decision is still down to the opinion of a referee. But as long as he follows what is said in the rule book and is consistent with his decision making then you cannot ask for anything else. With every decision that is down to your own point of view (e.g. fouls), no matter how obvious what the call should be, there will always be someone who disagrees with it. Video replays will not change that, but it will allow the referee to decide what type action he believes should be taken and allows for consistency in his own performance.

 

wah wah waaaahhhhhh

 

After watching Arsenal's opening fixture yesterday that's all I needed to see to know that this season will be no less corrupted than the last. I wonder who's payroll the refs are on this season. Citeh? Still United? only time will tell but I'm not wasting my time or money to find out. Problem is that Wenger makes it soo easy for them to cheat us.

The country we live in is corrupt... If you think thats not extended to football you have your head in the sand.

Enjoy the scripted season everybody!

 

Are you trying to say that Arsenal are cheats?!!

 

I'm talking about slowing the game down in terms of stopping lots, not the delays between plays, that's not a problem as the game isn't being played at that point. Thought that was fairly obvious....

What I'm saying is, if someone goes down in the box and the ref doesn't give a penalty.... what happens, do you stop the game (and hence SLOW IT DOWN with all the stoppages to check video replays) or do you play on til the next break in play? In the meantime other major incidents could have occurred, such a as a goal. It's just idiotic, it doesn't make sense, it doesn't fit in with the game. No question.

 

Bitter.

 

The team who would feel that it was a penalty for them and it wasn't given would have the chance of making an appeal and play is stopped. A replay is watched and the referee decides whether or not it was a penalty. It is all decided within a matter of seconds. If the referee decides that it is a penalty then a penalty is awarded and the team gets to keep one of their appeals. If the referee decides that it is not a penalty, an indirect free-kick in awarded to the other team and the team who appealed loses one of their available appeals. Each team would have, say, three appeals to make and get an extra appeal at half-time. So they choose what to appeal wisely, not all the time. I think that slowing down the game for a few seconds and very rarely at that, is worth it in order for the correct decision to be made.