Right. So the reason given why Diop wasn't given a red is because it was a genuine attempt to get the ball. If that's tha case, then how is Robertson's challenge not a genuine attempt to get the ball?
And the reason why a pen isn't given for Tete's challenge on Gomez is because it's a genuine attempt to block the ball. Now, when the **** is that a thing. Most pens re given for genuine tremors to tackle or block. It's a foul. It's a pen.
No he didn’t? You literally said in the reply to the one before this that Jiminez had a goal scoring opportunity. So how did it deny them that? Also, Wilson isn’t getting anywhere close to that ball or are you suggesting that Wilson would be able to run 15 yards across goal to the ball before Jiminez and vvd gets there?
I agree with you on this one. According to the laws of the game if the referee plays advantage (which he obviously did because he didn't blow the whistle but let play continue) for an offence for which a caution/sending off would have been issued had play been stopped, the caution is issued when the ball is next out if play. But here's the relevant bit "however, if the offence was (dogso) the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour, if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned". It should have been yellow not red. I think along with watching replays, the VAR should have a copy of the laws of the game to hand.
this… or just use common sense. Did it deny a goal scoring chance? No… not a red card. Didn’t think was particularly hard decision tbh. Also haven’t seen anything about the tackle on grav shown anywhere but at the time and Mike Dean saying was 100% red card
Playing with ten men for most part of the game did not help, rescuing a point is not too bad especially when Arsenal also dropped points too. Chelsea are becoming a serious title contender now.
Guys it's.very really Robertson was last man. The ref didn't wave advantage so it's entirely down to your opinion if he was playing advantage. Refs word is law still so he did what he did as Robertson gave him a decision. I fail to see how gomez running into tete is an ironed on pen. If it happened in our box we might think our player was fouled and injured by thr attacker. It's all opinion again. Diop one was marginal but a yellow imo. The perriera one was a yellow and a half at least imo. It was nasty as I said in real time.
the ball only went that way due to a tackle that was a foul therefore the direction it went in is irrelevant . Robbo took out the man running in on goal so red
That makes no sense. The ball went that way because Wilson touched it that way. Are you suggesting the ball would somehow go in a totally different direction if Robertson didn’t foul him?
He was sent off for DOGSO, that's been confirmed. However, in order for it to be DOGSO four criteria have to be met and only one was, distance between the offence and the goal. The other three factors weren't met at all - general direction of play, likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball and location and number of defenders. Play wasn't going towards goal; Wilson had no chance of controlling or gaining control of the ball and Virgil was advancing quickly to the point where he cleared the goal line. That's why I said that the VAR needs to keep the rule book handy because it didn't meet the criteria for DOGSO and therefore wasn't a red. I think it was 2 seasons ago we had a move ruled offside from a goal kick. Referees should at the very least know all the rules of the game they are officiating.
Looking at it again when Diop fouls Robertson he more through on goal than the Robinson one and Robertson is red carded. Robertson is actually running into the penalty box when he's fouled.
But that shouldn't matter. What Gallagher has said to sky is Wilson hadn't got the ball and vvd would get it first so it couldn't be a red. Tony is in trouble. However be that as it may Robertson was just running and so was gomez. Neither had the ball and neither were going to get it.
