Snak

@Dan Burn

Neville´s beskrivelse af situation er dog ikke videre præcis. Hans udlægning bygger på, at Gabriel skulle være i gang med en bevægelse, hvor han header bolden væk, med kroppen i en bevægelse opad, og det skulle ramme Joelinsons hænder.

Men kører man langsomt henover klippet, omkring 4-6 sekunder, så kan man se det ikke er tilfældet.

https://arsenalist.com/f/var-ready-to-fuck-this-one-up-too-2023-11-04.html

Du misser helt konteksten. Det handler ikke om kendelsen men om hvordan han ser hele situationen. Jeg bringer ham ind (kunne være en hvilken som helst anden fornuftbaseret neutral person) fordi han ser på den som, om ikke værende noget der sker hver weekend, så ihvertfald milevidt fra det justitsmord Arteta (og nu klubben) mener der er blevet begået på dem. Det er helt kørt af sporet...

https://www.football.london/arsenal-fc/news/neville-carragher-arsenal-pgmol-var-28049509

Ok, men når du nu starter med at fremhæve, at han vurderer målet, og du tidligere har diskuteret situationen, så pegede det bare i retningen af et indspark, der også omhandlede netop dét.

Hvad angår det andet, så bryder jeg mig heller ikke videre om reaktionen. Omvendt mener jeg der skal reaktioner til for at skubbe til dommerstanden, og den kultur der tilsyneladende hersker. Antallet af mere eller mindre groteske fejl er alt for høj. Arteta´s og delvist Arsenals måde at reagere på var uelegant. Men der skal ske noget.

Og jeg mener det er overdrevet. Dommere har været et tema al den tid jeg har set fodbold. Uanset liga og niveau.. Fejlfrie dommere findes ikke af åbenlyse årsager. Nemlig at mennesker ser ting forskelligt.

Det er meget tydeligt at det er lettere at sidde på den høje hest, når man står med 3 point og Bruno der får lov at spille de næste 3 kampe. Det var en 0-0 kamp og skulle have sluttet sådan.

Måden Arteta og klubben har kommunikeret på, har ikke været så elegant. Det er dog absolut nødvendigt at træde i jorden, og markere at noget er helt galt med dommergerningen. Neville og Carragher kommer fra en anden tid, hvor VAR ikke fandtes, og fodboldspillet var noget anderledes. Det er tydeligt i deres refleksioner.

Bortset fra at jeg sagde det samme da Klopp kammede over for nogle uger siden. Og han havde endda væsentlig mere grund til det end jer.. Men du har ret. Metoo og altmuligt andet krænkelses-overdrev fandtes ikke dengang. Er dog ret sikker på at de ikke har sluppet fodbolden siden støvlerne blev lagt på hylden.

Og glem ikke. Uden VAR var der også dømt mål....

Set over en hel season, er det ikke forskellen på om Arsenal bliver mestre eller ej,
Hvis Arsenal skal blive mestre, skal de stå Man City, og ikke Newcastle.

Vi kan hurtigt blive enige i, at dommeren var ringe, uanset standard, men Arsenal havde 1 skud på mål, indenfor rammen, i ca. 100 minutter, og det er sjældent nok til at vinde.

Et eller andet sted er det egentlig dommeren som Arteta og Arsenal skal være utilfredse med, og ikke VAR. VAR melder sig på banen for at tjekke 1) om bolden har været ude af spil 2) Om Gordon er offside 3) Er det en åbenlys fejl ikke at dømme frispark til Gabriel? Hvis de vurderer at puffet til sidstnævnte ikke er klokkeklart, ja så skal de ifølge reglerne intet gøre men derimod lade dommerens beslutning stå ved magt.

Lidt ord på dramatikken fra én som har godt styr på VAR og hvordan dommerne dømmer ud fra reglerne✌🏻

Possible ball out of play / foul / handball / offside: Gordon goal

What happened: Newcastle took the lead in the 64th minute when Anthony Gordon stabbed the ball home from close range. However, the VAR needed to check a series of incidents before deciding whether to clear the goal (watch here.)

VAR decision: Goal stands.

VAR review: This unique and complicated review took four minutes and six seconds and included three possible reasons to disallow the goal. Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta was fuming after the game, calling the decision "embarrassing," with Arsenal doubling down on that criticism as a club on Sunday.

It was a remarkable reaction and completely removed from the reality of the situation. You could understand Liverpool´s anger when Luis Díaz´s goal wasn´t allowed against Tottenham, but this isn´t remotely close to that. It´s a series of situations that are fully explainable. There´s no smoking gun over a VAR error. Arsenal´s reaction was over the top and unnecessary, creating added pressure when unwarranted.

The Gunners have a fair argument about a possible foul, but it doesn´t justify the reaction.

PGMOL´s promise of greater transparency under chief refereeing officer Howard Webb since the start of the year has backfired to a degree, as now fans and clubs on the wrong side of 70-30 or 60-40 subjective decisions think they have been cheated. Yet truly egregious mistakes are rare, and in most cases a decision will always leave one side feeling aggrieved -- which is why this system of VAR is always going to have serious issues.

The Independent Key Match Incidents Panel has logged fewer VAR errors than last season, but debate around them has intensified. Errors like that for the Díaz goal cannot happen, and that has understandably added to the furore about refereeing standards. But Arsenal´s statement adds nothing, and there will be no response from the Premier League or PGMOL

One incident outside of the three was straightforward: the claim that the ball touched the arm of Joelinton before Gordon scored. Accidental attacking handball before a goal now applies only to the scorer, so Joelinton would need to deliberately handle or have his arms in an unexpected position for his movement; neither applied, so the VAR would not consider the handball further.

The other situations are more contentious, but for two of them the only outcome for the VAR was to stay with the on-field decision.

The first concerns Joe Willock and whether he managed to keep the ball in play by the corner flag. As it happened so far away from the goal area, it was out of shot of the camera on the goal line, which is concentrated on the area around the goal.

When Rasmus Højlund´s goal was disallowed for Manchester United against Brighton & Hove Albion in September, Marcus Rashford´s attempt to keep the ball in play was in shot on that goal-line camera, allowing the VAR to take the decision that the ball was definitely out.

The VAR in this game, Andy Madley, has to take into account the angle of the camera and the curvature of the ball; it´s impossible to say -- without doubt -- that the whole of the ball was out, so the decision stays with the on-field call. Remember the goal Japan scored against Spain at the World Cup, when it looked as if Kaoru Mitoma had failed to keep it in before Ao Tanaka scored? Initial television replays had viewers convinced it was out, but later angles proved the VAR was correct to allow the goal; the curvature from other angles had been deceptive.

There´s no prospect, in the near future at least, of technology to track whether the ball stays in play outside of goal-line technology. There´s too much space to cover.

Then there´s the possible offside against Gordon. When Joelinton touches the ball, Gordon needs to be behind it to be onside. But there is no camera angle that shows both the ball and the whole of Gordon´s body.

It´s very possible that Gordon was marginally ahead of the ball, but the VAR cannot change the on-field call on a hunch -- so the decision of onside must stand.

Even with the increased number of cameras being used for offside this season, it will never be possible to completely rule out a situation like this. Indeed, it wouldn´t be solved by semi-automated offside, as the system used by UEFA -- which was adopted by Serie A in January and will likely be added by the other top European leagues next season -- doesn´t have a sensor to track the ball, only the players.

So while Gordon´s position could be calculated, it wouldn´t be possible to manually plot the front of the ball -- and create the offside line. UEFA had a similar problem last season when a lengthy offside review led to a late Harry Kane winner for Tottenham against Sporting CP being ruled out for offside. That decision needed a manual process to see the ball, but it was in view, which meant the decision could be made.

The only part of this decision that Arteta can have legitimate complaints about is the potential foul on Gabriel, when Joelinton appeared to push down on his back with extended arms. The freeze-frame images look damning, but in real time it doesn´t look anywhere near as incriminating. Indeed, on the initial replays few people seemed to think there was even a foul to look at. It´s a borderline decision for a VAR overturn; some will think this is definitely a foul, others that there´s not enough in it. Is it clear and obvious? Arteta at least has a case on this, but the series of events on the goal didn´t warrant the response from Arsenal.

Possible red card: Havertz challenge on Longstaff

What happened: Sean Longstaff had the ball by the touchline when Kai Havertz jumped into a challenge on the Newcastle United player. Referee Stuart Attwell produced a yellow card, but was it worthy of a red?

VAR decision: No red card.

VAR review: Havertz is fortunate, because he could easily have been sent off, but the caution from Attwell is just about an acceptable disciplinary outcome. As with Gabriel, if the referee gives this, the VAR wouldn´t get involved.

The Arenal player leaves the floor to make the tackle -- but leads into the space in front of the ball rather than at Longstaff.

Earlier this season, Eddie Nketiah made a similar challenge on Tottenham Hotspur goalkeeper Guglielmo Vicario in the North London derby. The striker led with his right foot in front of Vicario, but caught his opponent with his folded trailing leg as he landed into the tackle. The independent panel agreed that a yellow card for Nketiah was an acceptable on-field decision and will likely made the same judgement on Havertz.

Possible red card: Guimarães challenge on Jorginho

What happened: Just before half-time, Bruno Guimarães raced into a challenge on Jorginho and appeared to leave his arm up to make contact with his opponent´s head. The referee had his back turned to the incident, with the VAR checking for a possible red card.

VAR decision: No red card.

VAR review: When does an arm to the head become violent conduct? It´s a good question, because we´ve seen three incidents this season -- coincidentally all by Fulham players -- with different judgments reached by the independent panel.

It was said that Carlos Vinicius´ actions towards Chelsea´s Thiago Silva and Sheffield United´s Auston Trusty did not cross the threshold for violent conduct, yet on a split vote, the panel felt João Palhinha should have been dismissed against Brighton last weekend.

As Attwell could not have a view, it came down to the opinion of the VAR, who has decided contact with the forearm rather than the elbow wasn´t enough for a red card. Yet the Newcastle player runs in at speed and has no concern for the safety of his opponent when he leads with his forearm.

Guimarães is luckier than Havertz, and probably should have received a red card through a VAR intervention for a serious missed incident.

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/38799451/the-var-review-newcastle-goal-guimaraes-red-vs-arsenal

Jeg bringer ham ind (kunne være en hvilken som helst anden fornuftbaseret neutral person

At omtale Neville som fornuftsbaseret og neutral burde nærmest være diskvalificerende i sig selv. Han er muligvis den mest biased og talentløse af alle de elendige engelske “eksperter”. Han er dygtig til at skabe omtale og det er vist dét.

Det er desuden lidt mærkværdigt, at man ikke må beklage sig over dommernes niveau, fordi de altid har været elendige. Betyder det, at man bare skal acceptere det? Der er jo heller ingen, der efterspørger perfekte præstationer, blot at man undgår skandaler, der ændrer fodboldkampes gang, uge efter uge. Dommerstanden, hvordan man afvikler VAR osv. er niveauer under det man ser i Italien, Tyskland og Frankrig fx, og det er pinligt for verdens største og med længder rigeste liga.

Desuden kunne det være fedt, hvis nogen påtalte den massive interessekonflikt det er, at engelske dommere bliver betalt af Saudi for at flyve ned og dømme en kamp her, for tre dage siden at dømme en kamp i PL, hvor det ene hold er ejet af de samme mennesker. Problemet er, at ingen giver en fuck, og den engelske dommerstand er en organisation, hvor man går mere op i at holde sammen og beskytte sine venner end at holde et højt fagligt niveau, stå til ansvar for sine fejl og sørge for, at det ikke sker fremover. Det er vel egentlig lige så meget dét, som det er de mange elendige kendelser, som PL-fans er trætte af.