As we know, Chelsea supporters are very keen to point out VAR errors. After all they haven't stopped whingeing about the game against us yet. So can we therefore add this decision to the one they got in their favour last week, and applaud their moral compass in condemning VAR, even when (as usual) it goes in their favour. Oh hang on, not sure they've done that. Won't hold my breath then.
The praise for Taylor not giving any fouls is ridiculous, I suppose he has been consistent, consistently wrong
It doesn't matter how good your team is, if you leave space at the back then the long ball can always undo your best laid plans if your opposition have a fast forward like Sala or Son. Old fashioned English football as taught to South Koreans and Egyptians
The City disallowed goal was the result of appalling refereeing. He gave a goal kick to City instead of a Liverpool corner. From the goal kick, Haarland clearly fouled a Liverpool player but Taylor ignored it and then they scored. Shocking bit of refereeing tbh. City players got away with several deliberate fouls that are deemed yellows. Bentancur got a yellow yesterday when way worse fouls weren't even called as fouls today. Look at the joke of a decision in our favour v Chelsea. Look at the appalling tackle in the Chelsea game today which is a red card all day long yet only a yellow is given.
Would be better over the last two weeks if sending off Chelsea players was allowed. But I guess their anti-VAR campaign is now paying dividends.
Watching sky talking about the disallowed goal...no one mentioning the fact that it came from the city goal kick which should have been a Liverpool corner. Punditry is as poor as the refereeing
In the Leeds game the ref awarded a red card and a penalty, then changed his mind as he looked at the part on VAR where the Leeds player appears to be knocking the Arsenal defender over. If you were to look at the approach of the forward you can clearly see the defender getting ready to body check the forward. The decision is debatable, as many are in football, but the use of VAR did in fact muddy the waters in the way it was used. I would have awarded a penalty.
I would prefer no pundits, end of the game they should show black and white comedy films and reruns of the phil silvers shows
Gabriel stood his ground and Bamford clearly barges him over. It's a foul on the defender. There was no debate to be had. The only shocking thing about that was why it took Kavanagh so long to reach that conclusion after viewing it on the monitor multiple times. Giving a penalty for an incident where the defender has not committed a foul would have been a grave injustice.
That's not my opinion so there is a debate as you have just proved. Gabriel body checks Bamford and Bamford is stronger. Yes debatable.
But the opinion has to be supported by an objective reality which yours isn't. I'm sorry Spurf but you're viewing this incident with Lilywhite-tinted spectacles. Don't take my word for it, go onto the Leeds board. They themselves said it was the right decision to overturn it: https://www.not606.com/threads/leeds-utd-v-arsenal-match-thread.403029/page-16
