Snak

Man begynder jo snart at mistænke dommerne inklusiv VAR har noget imod Arsenal.

Det giver vel ikke mening, at nogen decideret bestikker en dommer for at dømme imod Arsenal?
Hvis jeg tager sølvpapirhatten på, så ville det give mere mening at betale dommerne for at hjælpe ens eget hold.

Kan ikke svare omkring motivationen, men vi ser det jo gang på startende med det frispark i United kampen sidste sæson.
Eneste er vel Arsenal ikke er ejet, men kun sponsoreret af en klub i mellemøsten.

Dommeren straffer Arsenal ved ikke at smide Havertz ud…

Der har generelt været mange spøjse kendelser (og manglende kendelser) denne sæson.
Liverpool har vel fået en undskyldning 2 gange allerede. Det samme med andre klubber mener jeg.

Der er vist nogen som endnu ikke har forstået VAR, YNWA. Man kom frem til at det ikke var en klar og tydelig fejl at dømme straffe. Men ja, det burde max have taget 1 min. Man kunne se den 500 gange uden at være sikker på noget.

Elsker når fans af de holder der igennem tiden har haft dommertække som for vildt piver over de ikke mere får de kendelser de plejede at få. Gælder både utd og ars fans. Kom nu ind i kampen, vi er næsten altid 11 mod 12 så i kan nok godt klare endelig at prøve 11 mod 11

Der er vist nogen som endnu ikke har forstået VAR, YNWA.

Jo det mener jeg nu jeg har sat mig meget godt ind i. Men jeg og sikkert en masse andre mener, det var en “klar og tydelig” fejl, at straffesparket fik lov at stå.

Og ligeså mange mener det modsatte. Ergo er det alt andet end klart og åbenlyst.

Men du kan da godt få Dale Johnson syn på kendelsen/ VAR :

Possible penalty overturn: Hwang on Schar

What happened: Referee Anthony Taylor awarded Newcastle United a penalty on the stroke of half-time when Fabian Schär went down after appearing to be caught by Hwang Hee-Chan. The VAR, Jarred Gillett, began a check on the spot kick.

VAR decision: Penalty, scored by Callum Wilson.

VAR review: This was a lengthy VAR review, and the better outcome would have been for the penalty to be cancelled. You can see why Taylor would award it from his position on the pitch and while contact was present, it didn´t seem enough to make Schar go to ground.

When a penalty has been given by the referee for lower body contact, it will usually be upheld if the VAR identifies this was present. There´s an exception when an attacking player has initiated the contact, and there has been no challenge by the defender.

Gillett has perhaps taken the evidence of contact and decided there couldn´t be a clear and obvious error. Hwang´s first touch is heavy, and he then goes to clear the ball. At the last moment he realises that Schar is coming across so tries to pull out and put his foot on the ground. Schar gets to the ball (which then rebounds off Hwang´s standing foot) first, his left foot makes contact with Hwang´s kicking leg and he goes to ground very easily.

The starting point for the VAR is that the on-field decision is a penalty. Hwang was making a challenge (that he may have tried to pull out can only be a consideration), there was contact between the two players, but not clearly initiated. Gillett decided there wasn´t enough evidence for him to send Taylor to the monitor.

This is where VAR protocol and penalty judgements collide. If we are saying that contact has to have a consequence for a penalty to be awarded, surely the VAR should be able to make judgements to those standards? But in the VAR hub it´s "clear and obvious" which carries the weight, rather than the consequence of the level of contact in a challenge.

It took almost four minutes from the award of the spot kick to Wilson actually striking the ball. Gillett was in two minds about the nature of the contact -- but opted against a review.

VAR overturns are down a third year-on-year in the Premier League as VARs try to not re-referee games, but you can´t help but feel this also leads to some second-guessing.

It was the same refereeing team for the Arsenal vs. Manchester United game last month -- Taylor in the middle and Gillett in the VAR hub -- when a penalty for a foul by Aaron Wan-Bissaka on Kai Havertz was cancelled on review. The Independent Key Match Incidents Panel ruled that spot kick shouldn´t have been overturned (an opinion that won´t be shared by PGMOL) because there was evidence of contact by Wan-Bissaka.

Perhaps the experience of that game at the Emirates was on Gillett´s mind. It remains the only overturned penalty awarded for a foul this season.

Kunne ikke være mere ligeglad med enkeltpersoners meninger.