Arsenal v WBA

[BrunelGooner]

Complete domination in the second half. Still had a few nervy moments, but well worth the win in the end.

West Brom deserve a lot of credit, as they actually posed a threat going forward. Which can't be said for a lot of the times they have come to The Emirates.

That Krychiowiack (sp?) that WBA got from PSG looks a cut above anyone in their midfield. He'd get into our midfield too, to be fair.

 

[PINKIE]

Just watched the post match interview with Tony Pulis crying about the pen, calling Sanchez a diver and a cheat and saying that we should have been down to 10 men. Bitter ****, just makes the win even more satisfying seeing him acting like a bitch about it

 

[winifred122]

Just watched the post match interview with Tony Pulis crying about the pen, calling Sanchez a diver and a cheat and saying that we should have been down to 10 men. Bitter ****, just makes the win even more satisfying seeing him acting like a bitch about it

Pulis is a dinosaur. His players were outclassed in the long run as they have never been taught to play by him. Have you noticed how all the best managers in the league dress sensibly whilst the track-suited ones are not so good. He winds me up with the baby cap he has to wear. Oh, pardon me, don't quite know where all the vitriol is coming from. He's not worth worrying about. I feel rally sorry for Gibbs.

 

[----HistoryRepeating----]

I'm no Pulis fan, but some of the comments on here are very strange. They were denied a clear penalty......no matter how stupid his cap looks.
The better team won, but you have to allow someone to air their grievance when there is a issue. Its not like Mourinho who just moans about nothing to deflect attention.

 

[ToledoTrumpton]

I'm no Pulis fan, but some of the comments on here are very strange. They were denied a clear penalty......no matter how stupid his cap looks.
The better team won, but you have to allow someone to air their grievance when there is a issue. Its not like Mourinho who just moans about nothing to deflect attention.

They were not denied a clear penalty. The ref is racing back and has his whistle in his hand. He doesn't have time to think and raise it to his mouth (less than 2 seconds) and blow it before the West Brom player gets up and shoots. Once the shot is taken, he cannot pull the play back to the foul. The player has played on, the decision is out of the referee's hands.

You can argue that the laws of the game are wrong, but those are rules we play to.

 

[PINKIE]

They were not denied a clear penalty. The ref is racing back and has his whistle in his hand. He doesn't have time to think and raise it to his mouth (less than 2 seconds) and blow it before the West Brom player gets up and shoots. Once the shot is taken, he cannot pull the play back to the foul. The player has played on, the decision is out of the referee's hands.

You can argue that the laws of the game are wrong, but those are rules we play to.

Pretty sure the rules state that the ref can pull it back and award a spot kick if he wants. Even if the attacker got up and played on. The problem is though, if the ref had blown up for a pen and they missed it, they would have been arguing that the ref should have played on because there was a clear goal scoring opportunity.

Anyway, regardless all of this has ****ed Tony Pulis off no end, so that's a bonus in my book

 

[ToledoTrumpton]

Pretty sure the rules state that the ref can pull it back and award a spot kick if he wants. Even if the attacker got up and played on. The problem is though, if the ref had blown up for a pen and they missed it, they would have been arguing that the ref should have played on because there was a clear goal scoring opportunity.

Anyway, regardless all of this has ****ed Tony Pulis off no end, so that's a bonus in my book

The point I was trying to make was that the referee hadn't even had a chance to blow the whistle. So if the shot had gone in, it would have been a goal. Regardless of what his decision might have been on the original foul. He couldn't disallow the goal because, in that case there would have been a clear advantage, and he would have no grounds to disallow the goal.

So, if he blows after the shot missed, and awards a penalty, he would have been giving WBA a sort of double bonus for the foul, and that is not considered good refereeing, least not on the course I was on.

 

[PINKIE]

The point I was trying to make was that the referee hadn't even had a chance to blow the whistle. So if the shot had gone in, it would have been a goal. Regardless of what his decision might have been on the original foul. He couldn't disallow the goal because, in that case there would have been a clear advantage, and he would have no grounds to disallow the goal.

So, if he blows after the shot missed, and awards a penalty, he would have been giving WBA a sort of double bonus for the foul, and that is not considered good refereeing, least not on the course I was on.

Yeah I agree with this. Although he could have pulled it back for pen, or indicated an advantage (he did neither) The player kind of took the decision out of his hands by playing on with a clear goal scoring opportunity and didn't really give the ref any time to blow up. So you're right, because if he'd scored and then the ref pulled it back for a pen, WBA would have gone mental.

 

[BobbyD]

The point I was trying to make was that the referee hadn't even had a chance to blow the whistle. So if the shot had gone in, it would have been a goal. Regardless of what his decision might have been on the original foul. He couldn't disallow the goal because, in that case there would have been a clear advantage, and he would have no grounds to disallow the goal.

So, if he blows after the shot missed, and awards a penalty, he would have been giving WBA a sort of double bonus for the foul, and that is not considered good refereeing, least not on the course I was on.

I shall remember this quote when it happens to Arsenal

When your player gets clumped and you play on and sanchez ineivitably loses the ball trying to dribble past somone and the free kick doesn't get bought back... this will be the perfect argument

 

[cini65]

I shall remember this quote when it happens to Arsenal

When your player gets clumped and you play on and sanchez ineivitably loses the ball trying to dribble past somone and the free kick doesn't get bought back... this will be the perfect argument

Depends on the scenario. But Rodriguez did have an advantage given to him. He got to his feet and had a shot at goal. Because he missed, should the ref be allowed to blow up and give a second advantage of a penalty? If he misses the penalty should the ref be allowed to give a third advantage and give another penalty? When do you stop?

The grey comes in when you try and weigh up whether there was enough of an advantage given. If he got to his feet but there was no option for a shot or the ball got taken away from him or he was facing away from goal then fair enough, a penalty is valid. But he did get up, he had a shot at goal, it almost went in. He got an advantage. The offensive tackle (which was clearly a foul) didn't stop a clear goal scoring opportunity because he got up and still had a clear goal scoring opportunity. Just because he missed it doesn't mean he automatically should get a second chance.

if Rodriguez had not been fouled he would have had a 1-on-1 from a tight angle which he probably would have taken a shot from on. He was fouled, got up and had a 1-on-1 from a tight angle which he took a shot from. While it was a foul, it didn't prevent him from doing what he was wanting to do anyway and didn't stop the goal scoring opportunity. So either the ref immediately blows for a pen, or he allows play-on. He can't play the advantage and then blow for a pen to give a second advantage.

The grey area is... do you penalise someone and give a penalty for something that doesn't impede a goalscoring opportunity or drastically affect the chances of the opportunity being taken?

 

[BobbyD]

Depends on the scenario. But Rodriguez did have an advantage given to him. He got to his feet and had a shot at goal. Because he missed, should the ref be allowed to blow up and give a second advantage of a penalty? If he misses the penalty should the ref be allowed to give a third advantage and give another penalty? When do you stop?

The grey comes in when you try and weigh up whether there was enough of an advantage given. If he got to his feet but there was no option for a shot or the ball got taken away from him or he was facing away from goal then fair enough, a penalty is valid. But he did get up, he had a shot at goal, it almost went in. He got an advantage. The offensive tackle (which was clearly a foul) didn't stop a clear goal scoring opportunity because he got up and still had a clear goal scoring opportunity. Just because he missed it doesn't mean he automatically should get a second chance.

if Rodriguez had not been fouled he would have had a 1-on-1 from a tight angle which he probably would have taken a shot from on. He was fouled, got up and had a 1-on-1 from a tight angle which he took a shot from. While it was a foul, it didn't prevent him from doing what he was wanting to do anyway and didn't stop the goal scoring opportunity. So either the ref immediately blows for a pen, or he allows play-on. He can't play the advantage and then blow for a pen to give a second advantage.

The grey area is... do you penalise someone and give a penalty for something that doesn't impede a goalscoring opportunity or drastically affect the chances of the opportunity being taken?

As you say its about the advantage and a penalty from centre of goal is far better than where Jay was shooting and having to rush his shot because he had less time to take another touch closer because he was tripped up.

Anyway we shall see whether you see things the same way if this happens to arsenal.

As for your example that is ridiculous. we are not saying to award the goal or give as many goalscoring opportunities but you often see refs bring the ball back when an advantage is played but possession is immediately lost as a consequence to the play before

 

[PINKIE]

As you say its about the advantage and a penalty from centre of goal is far better than where Jay was shooting and having to rush his shot because he had less time to take another touch closer because he was tripped up.

Anyway we shall see whether you see things the same way if this happens to arsenal.

As for your example that is ridiculous. we are not saying to award the goal or give as many goalscoring opportunities but you often see refs bring the ball back when an advantage is played but possession is immediately lost as a consequence to the play before

If Rodriguez had stayed down, he would have got a penalty. But he thought he could score so he got up and took the shot, thereby playing the advantage. As Wenger said after the game. If he'd of scored and the ref then brought it back for a pen and they missed, they would have been complaining about that.

Ultimately the play happened so quickly that the decision whether to play an advantage was already taken before the ref had a chance to signal either for an advantage or a spot kick. Fair play to Rodriguez, he was honest enough to get up and play the ball, it didn't work out for him and yes we got lucky with that decision.

 

[BobbyD]

If Rodriguez had stayed down, he would have got a penalty. But he thought he could score so he got up and took the shot, thereby playing the advantage. As Wenger said after the game. If he'd of scored and the ref then brought it back for a pen and they missed, they would have been complaining about that.

Ultimately the play happened so quickly that the decision whether to play an advantage was already taken before the ref had a chance to signal either for an advantage or a spot kick. Fair play to Rodriguez, he was honest enough to get up and play the ball, it didn't work out for him and yes we got lucky with that decision.

That's the point though. Imagine he stayed down and didn't get a penalty, people would have been saying play to the whistle.

Steven Gerrard got a penalty when he fluffed up his shot when he was through on goal but was off balance against Sheffield United many years ago. The advantage was played and he got another go. Fairly i would say.

Anyway the ref bottled the call but at least you as a fan base have set your precedent should it happen again in the future to you

 

[PINKIE]

That's the point though. Imagine he stayed down and didn't get a penalty, people would have been saying play to the whistle.

Steven Gerrard got a penalty when he fluffed up his shot when he was through on goal but was off balance against Sheffield United many years ago. The advantage was played and he got another go. Fairly i would say.

Anyway the ref bottled the call but at least you as a fan base have set your precedent should it happen again in the future to you

If it happens again and the decision goes against us then it will be an incorrect decision of course

 

[cini65]

That's the point though. Imagine he stayed down and didn't get a penalty, people would have been saying play to the whistle.

Steven Gerrard got a penalty when he fluffed up his shot when he was through on goal but was off balance against Sheffield United many years ago. The advantage was played and he got another go. Fairly i would say.

Anyway the ref bottled the call but at least you as a fan base have set your precedent should it happen again in the future to you

Steven Gerrard was in a worse position. He wouldn't have been off balance without the foul. He had a significantly impacted advantage and therefore more sensible to call back.

Rodriguez being fouled made no difference to the chance he had to score. He had as good an advantage as he would have had if he hadn't been fouled.

 

[BobbyD]

Steven Gerrard was in a worse position. He wouldn't have been off balance without the foul. He had a significantly impacted advantage and therefore more sensible to call back.

Rodriguez being fouled made no difference to the chance he had to score. He had as good an advantage as he would have had if he hadn't been fouled.

Nonsense, if he hadn't have been fouled he could have taken a touch towards a better angle/composed himself.

Either way as you say the theirs a gray area between blowing up for a better opportunity or playing an advantage is they are in a more promising position. How can centre of goal from 12 yards out not be a far more beneficial opportunity than a **** angle from goal with very little to aim for either side.

 

[cini65]

Nonsense, if he hadn't have been fouled he could have taken a touch towards a better angle/composed himself.

Either way as you say the theirs a gray area between blowing up for a better opportunity or playing an advantage is they are in a more promising position. How can centre of goal from 12 yards out not be a far more beneficial opportunity than a **** angle from goal with very little to aim for either side.

Well of course. But that opens up the whole debate about why penalty kicks exist anyway. Should Rodriguez get a free shot at goal with more composure time when no-one has stopped him having the shot he wanted to have at goal anyway? Should any foul inside a box really automatically result in a free shot at goal which is likely to be scored more often than not? Surely, logically, it should just be for fouls which prevent goal scoring opportunities with more menial fouls resulting in free kicks inside the box.

Anyway, advantage seems to have been played. Debatable grey area about whether it should (although the main argument against it being given and going straight for a penalty is rule pedantry and that Rodriguez somehow deserves a free shot from 15 yards) but it was given and you can't then give a penalty subsequently.

 

[ToledoTrumpton]

Actually, it happens a lot more than people think. It usually is a lot quicker though, and often a less obvious foul. The player doesn't go down and takes a lousy shot off-balance and misses.

A few games ago Walcott was through on goal and he got charged in the back and fluffed his shot just as he got hit. At the 1:00 mark.

I'll agree, it is a 50:50, Vardy would have hit the deck like a sack of potatoes, and might have got it. But the referee breathes a sigh of relief; he doesn't even need to make a decision.

You must log in or register to see media

 

[PeterRICK]

Wasn't Krychiowiack the chap we were quite heavily linked with? Agree with Brunel he looked decent and, as you say, he'd not look out of place in our current midfield.

 

[TheBear]

Wasn't Krychiowiack the chap we were quite heavily linked with? Agree with Brunel he looked decent and, as you say, he'd not look out of place in our current midfield.

Yep - He's a quality player. Would be a good signing.