Arsenal News
Arsenal News & Transfers
As featured on NewsNow: Arsenal newsArsenal News 24/7

Arsenal News, Only Arsenal, Blogs, Transfer News

Archives

August 2017
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

The Mulumbu – Wilshere incident: penalty or not? How the English media stands alone

By Walter Broeckx

I didn’t intend to talk about this any further. But as the comments are divided I thought it was time to try to bring some clarity to this incident.

There are roughly speaking  two versions. One is saying (in simple terms): Mulumbu played the ball first and then made contact with Wilshere and thus it is no foul.

The other version is: Mulumby went through Wilshere and then made contact with the ball so it is a foul.

What better way to resolve this matter with the pictures? We can all use hundreds of words to describe an incident. But the pictures are what they are. I have taken these pictures from the games as they were shown on Arsenal player.  Let us do the pictures do the talking then.

So the first picture I will show is taken from behind the goal.

Wilshere before the ball comes to him

You see the ball is at least one meter away from Wilshere and in the circle you can see that Mulumbu is diving in at Wilshere and is catching the right leg of Wilshere. His standing leg. The leg he needs to balance himself to take the shot he had in mind.  This picture clearly shows that Mulumbu hit Wilshere first.

In fact this should be enough to settle the argument. But for those who are not that easily satisfied I will show even more pictures.

Mulumbu makes contact with the ball after making contact with standing leg

Now this is the picture where Mulumbu makes contact with the ball. And you notice that he has both his legs clamped around the standing leg (by now Wilshere has no longer a leg to stand on one could say). But clamping your leg around an opponent his leg is always a dangerous tackle. It can tear ligaments, it can break bones. It just is dangerous.

Now you might say that this camera angle might be deceiving. So lets have a look from behind then. The refs view one could say.

From behind ball 1 meter away from Wilshere when Lumumbu clamps his legs around the leg of Wilshere

Again you see the ball coming in from the right and a distance of at least one meter between Wilshere and the ball. And again in the circle you see how Mulumbu is clearly making impact with the standing leg of Wilshere clamping both his legs around the standing leg of Wilshere.  And again I point at the fact that the ball was not with Wilshere and so Mulumbu clearly first played the man and then only made contact with the ball.

Coming in from behind, going through the player, first bringing down the player and then making contact with the ball.

Anyone still doubting is I fear someone who doesn’t want to see what is there.  Or he is from bad will. Or has an agenda.

If you notice the position of the ref it really is unbelievable that he didn’t do what he should have done: call the foul.

As far as I know all media outside England were unanimous in saying that this was as clear as a penalty can be. The only other version is the English version. Saying this was a tackle within the laws.  So are there different rules in England?  If so then the FA should notify FIFA and tell them that they play football outside the FIFA laws of the games. And thus the FA is no longer part of football as it is played in the rest of the world.

And as I said in an earlier article the fact that the media is very selective in showing different penalty incidents is somewhat strange. They wanted to declare the Koscielny-Long incident as a stonewall penalty but on the other hand refused to show images of the only stonewall penalty decision the ref had to give: the foul on Wilshere from Mulumbu.

“Che coincidenza, sembra che la TV italiana da 10 anni fa” *  as an Italian fan would say.

Forgive me for any wrong translation but Italian is not a language I am really familiar with.   But I think it goes like this….

* What a coincidence, it looks like the Italian TV 10 years ago.

Recent posts

96 comments to The Mulumbu – Wilshere incident: penalty or not? How the English media stands alone

  • Tasos

    Walter,

    There is also a third version of this event known as the BBC’S MOTD2 version whereby they do not show the Mulumba tackle on Jack, at all.

    Very selective coverage from the Beeb, certainly not impartial, definitely not unbiased.

  • Martin

    This was a true penalty please

  • El Gringo

    Walter, considering the excessive force used, the dangerous scissor effect, and the fact that the tackle was made from behind, shouldn’t the incident have been a foul and a red card even if Mulumbu had gotten the ball first?

  • Dilip M

    Can someone pls. forward this article to the Ref

  • Bigsix

    I am still not convinced about the referee’s decision. To me that is a clear penalty.
    Before we can even argue that Mulumbu, clipped JW10’s left leg, he was (Mulumbu) coming from behind.
    Rules are a tackle from behind is a punishable offence. It does not say, whether you got the ball first or player.
    Thats my piece.

  • Timothy

    had it been Man.Utd that would have been automatically a penalty

  • alex

    That was exactly my thought and you nail it . Thanks.

  • Rohan

    Even if Mulumbu did get the ball first … He went through Wilshere from behind .. Bringing him down and preventing him from getting to the ball after the tackle … That should be enough for the ref to award a penalty !

  • BaggieBird

    Firstly yes I am biased being a WBA fan. However I am absolutely shocked at this page and pages of talk on the internet regarding this incident. Do Arsenal fans do this every week, find an excuse for why you didn’t win?

    I notice you are not doing an analysis Laurent Koscielny shoving long in the back about 3 or 4 metres from the ball in the last minute? Bearing in mind Long had beaten him to every header prior to that

    I don’t argue that you have seen penalties given for Mulumbu’s tackle. However what people seem to fail to understand is “contact” is not a foul. You have to impede the opponent. Wilshire leg is not actually taken from under him until the ball is played. The ref will have a split second and will see Mulumbu clearly playing the ball, in fact Wilshire actually kicks Mulumbu.

    Equally the tackle from behind argument is also a bit vague, is Mulumbu’s body not level with Wiltshire’s? His left leg is wrapping round and tackling from the side. It accept that it’s a risky tackle but the argument I have seen saying red card, reckless etc are all laughable. Risky but calculated yes, for me that what makes it a great tackle.

    I guess I shouldn’t get wound up, after all most “fans” on this type of sites have never been to a match live let alone ever played football at a remotely decent level.

    As for the BBC being biased to Arsenal, seriously are you joking? We had five minutes of analysis on Jack Wilshire, who was average at best, why didn’t we have 5 minutes on what a great game Yousouf Mulumbu had?

  • Previgo

    It’s just like pulling back a player then tip the ball away from him that’s a foul, he got the player before the ball.. This just simply means i can pull back a player then reclaim the ball and its not a foul so maybe the rules should sttate… “do what ever it takes but win the ball”. Which means the sterling penalty vs ceystal palace shouldn’t have been giving because the defender got the ball oh but just after he pulled back sterling.. See! Its just absurd not to give a penalty like that against mulumbu because it makes no sense, it only encourages more of the “Go through the player to get the ball-tackle”

  • Mandy Dodd

    Thought it was a pen at the time , sure it is now. The medias reaction, while saying so much also proves the case. There is some serious covering up going on, they need to be very careful, lots of match fixers and their agent bidders are being caught, and some of these guys will name names. No wonder Riley stays silent, things come out in the end

  • coastal gunners

    I thought it was a penalty when i saw the incident live as i was watching the game, n i watching on tv in mombasa, kenya miles away.
    was very bewildered and fustrated with that decision.
    Furthermore considering the penalty that
    man city were given one against everton, on a supposedly one arm shove/block by coleman!!!
    Is it me or refs in the premier league are gettin major decisions wrong?
    But am very happy with how the teams performing. Hope they carry on this way for the rest of the season.

  • Metalhead

    I can’t believe how pathetic the FA can be. Don’t they have a committee that reviews this? I mean seriously they are such a primitive body, they refuse to use technology, they don’t want to review questionable decisions, they don’t friggin understand their own rules. I’m wondering what good they are.

    Also, the punditry in England is just beyond belief. It gets worse by the minute. It was so much better when people like Andy Gray were around. He was at least fair.

  • WalterBroeckx

    Baggiebird,
    you are obviously not a ref.
    and if so I will pray for the players you have to protect on the field.

    The only reason you call this a good tackle is because of the outcome.

    In short: first ball and then man can be called correct (but can be called even a foul and a red card when the tackle is done with excessive force). Playing the ball is not an excuse for a tackle not being a foul.

    The man first and then the ball = foul. Always.

    Ball and man at the same time can be called correct (but can be called a foul also when the tackle is done with excessive force)

    the only way Mulumbu would not have made a foul would have been if he had done the tackle playing the ball without touching Wilshere. Or are you seriously saying that he didn’t impede Wilshere at all?

    I do would like to know then why Mulumbu was having his legs already around Wilshere before the ball got there.

  • Rag0

    If this was not a penalty, what about the penalty given to A.Villa against Kos?? The first home game of the season for arsenal…the match was ruined by that penalty!
    Does that ring a bell?? it was a similar tackle. Kos took the ball first..then the trailing leg got the player.
    No consistency in refereeing?

  • Sid

    Baggies Bird

    You basically only watched the pathetic MOTD2 highlights package didnt you?

    Dirty Birdy

  • Metalhead

    “As for the BBC being biased to Arsenal, seriously are you joking? We had five minutes of analysis on Jack Wilshire, who was average at best, why didn’t we have 5 minutes on what a great game Yousouf Mulumbu had?”

    What do you mean “We”. Do you work for BBC???

  • nicky

    Whether the Wilshere/Mulumbu incident was a penalty or not, the truth is the referee, right on the spot, didn’t award a penalty….end of story.
    Until there is a retrospective appeal system in place (not sure how this could work) these posts mortem achieve little, other than inflame the minds of Arsenal supporters.
    That is not to say that Walter’s incisive investigations should stop. Only that the actions of referees should be examined by an independent body.

  • nicky

    @Metalhead,
    Agree entirely with your view that the FA should have some sort of sub-committee looking into dubious actions of referees (now that the manipulating Ferguson has retired).
    And then you go and spoil it by suggesting the return of Thicko Gray (and no doubt his hairy friend Key). A pair of arrogant, ignorant fools who couldn’t explain the LBW rule.

  • dru

    I’ve not got much to say rather than saying that ref was a poor as he made the game to be. He was just a total mistake that day not to talk of those he made in the match. i could no longer watch the match due to poor refereeing. that was one of the ref who taught if any team could win Man United should also win Arsenal because for them arsenal is not a good team as Man United mean while Arsenal is a greater team than Man united. so let the ref get to hell

  • Metalhead

    @Nicky..I think there’s no doubting that he’s dick of a human being. But at least, I did not feel like smashing the television set when listening to his commentary. The currently lot of commentators irk me to no end.

  • Edu

    defiantly a penalty..but the ref. had also let-off our players withe some crunching tackles,i felt he was trying to balance those decisions

  • nicky

    @Metalhead,
    Yeah. Long live the mute button!

  • ARSENAL 13

    Lets for a second say that ref had to make decision and he was right. Then we will have to look back at aston Villa game and Koscielny penalty (yes he got the ball but he also got Adam). It was a lesser foul compared to Wilshere/Mulumbu one (He got the ball first, so what if he got Wilshere)……… See the difference in reactions

    How can we guarantee that the independent body will not be like the MoTD??

  • allan1340

    this is arsenal what do you expect the referee does? we are not MNU or City or Chesinsky!!!! when we are on the pitch the most of the time we play against 12 not 11, if the game was against other teams referee would blow of his whistle,we have to accept the fact we are not as strong as this mafia in footballs world. I don’t say we was better team against WestB but that was a clear penalty and no one with honesty denied the incident was not foul.

  • Edu

    oops!definitely a penalty..

  • Georgaki-Pyrovolitis

    @BaggieBird at 9:15 am

    Yes we do this a lot, you know, discuss football. It’s part of the fun.

    Anyway, if you have a habit of perusing Arsenal blogs after a game against the baggies you might be pleasantly surprised. There are plenty of gooners who credit the Baggies with a great game plan and overall performance. Also,Adrian Clark certainly does in his post match analysis on Arsenal 360 (which is only available on Arsenal Player). Oh, and Mulumbu’s challenge WAS a foul and Long’s antics were a poor attempt at getting one. And we were very fortunate Anelka didn’t put you two up. That would have made life very difficult for us. I couldn’t see us coming back from that. How’s that for impartiality dear Baggiebird?

  • kaius

    Twilight zone stuff over in the English Prem. Biased as i am, i still accept others may have different views. But it’s hard to see how the WBA tackler can reach that ball without impeding Wilshere. Thought it was man then ball and more a pen than not. Replay only proves it. The second penalty incident with Jack in the box was extraordinary for me because the defender so clearly catches Jack’s SHOOTING leg, not even his standing one. No discussion there.

    The nutty thing is that commentators and analysts don’t feel it necessary to replay these incidents in slo-mo or otherwise before making grand statements such as ‘tackle of the season’ or whatever.

  • WalterBroeckx

    Baggiebird,
    If I would be analysing the Long-Koscielny incident I could show you pictures where you could see that Koscielny is moving backwards till he jumps up in the air and that it is Long who is running in the direction of Koscielny and then jumps in to Koscielny.

    And if yo check the images seconds laters Long attempts the same thing: jumping backwards in to a defender to get a foul.

    I share your surprise the ref didn’t give a foul against Koscielny 😉 Not really as Untold knew he would show his penalty area fever again. As we predicted before the match.

  • The referee got it wrong, it was a clear penalty, and Mulumbu should have been cautioned because he made a dangerous kick on Jack.

  • kaius

    Nicky. These ‘post-mortems’ are what sports fans do in pubs and sportsbars, living rooms and offices for days, weeks, months and years after games. Your ‘ref didn’t give it, end-of-story’ line is trite and condescending. No discussion, no progress.

  • The greatest sin of all was committed by BBC’s MoTD. They highlighted Wilshere’s perofrmance in the game and showed all sorts of statistics BUT somehow, they find that Mulumbu tackle unworthy of discussion. If anyone is in doubt about how the media enhance biased officiating by collusion (in this case through omission), this is the proof you need.

    I don’t expect the MoTD pundits to call it a penalty but to not even bother to show it proves to me that they cannot defend it, hence they turned a blind eye.

    Biased officiating continues against Arsenal because the refs know that if they screw the team, they have very little to pay in terms of media scrutiny and criticism. But if they make any mistake that is perceived to favour Arsenal, it will be put under the microscope and they will get heavy criticism. Examples: Kos/Long incident on Sunday and the Altidore “disallowed goal” away to Sunderland.

  • AL

    My blood is boiling right now after watching these stills. I knew it a definite penalty and just watching this made me 120% certain we were robbed. Its 5 points now we have been robbed, and counting.

    But what annoys me most is the total lack of any mention of this incident in the media. Contrast that with the Altidore incident, which was replayed over and over and over, despite that the incident came after the ref had blown for a foul. Not only do they fail to mention it, but you get that oaf called hansen saying kos should have been penalised for standing his ground against long, totally ignoring the most legitimate penalty shout all match. I mean what kind of incompetence is that? In my job if I did something like that I would get the sack on the spot. It riles me that these guys get paid lots of monies from money we generate and they have the gall to stick two fingers up at us.

  • Mick

    @Baggiebird
    When Long went down after his back came into contact with Koscielny’s chest why was he writhing on the ground holding his face?

  • AL

    Bootoomee 11:23
    Yes. The fact they edited it out proves the collusion you point out.

  • nicky

    @kaius,
    You’re missing the point. There’s a big difference between discussions in pubs between fans and a detailed survey on Untold by referees like Walter.
    The latter by a professional can only disturb the fans UNLESS the mistakes can be rectified.

  • bjtgooner

    I have replayed a recording of the Sky coverage of this incident several times & it clearly shows Mulumbu catching Wilshere before the ball. The ref was close to the incident and chose to do nothing. The media debate should be concerned with why the ref failed to act rather than their present policy of covering up for the ref/PGMOL.

    How can England ever develop a good international team when some players e.g. Rooney are rewarded in domestic football for diving, while others & Wilshere is the prime example, are repeatedly kicked off the park. The PGMOL bears a heavy responsibility in hindering the development of indigenous talent.

  • nicky,

    The fans are disturbed nonetheless! Every fair minded person who saw that tackle expected a penalty. The fact that it was not given and will never be retrospectively given is no reason to sweep it under the carpet like MoTD did. Talking about it raises awareness and with awareness can you get support in numbers. When we have enough supporters on any issue, the policy makers and executioners must pay attention. They will only act to change things if we get their attention.

    This is the reason why despite my not really being a fan of Walter’s ref reviews (they depress me as you rightly seem to be pointing out here) but I am happy that someone is talking about it. Our silence on this matter will be interpreted as agreement with and acceptance of the state of officiating in the English game. We must not let that happen.

    Walter, more power to you!

  • ARSENAL 13

    @bjtgooner,

    Nice point raised there….I was wondering how the refs will act when, in 2-3 years time may be, we have 5-6 English players on the pitch wearing ARSENAL colors.

  • rantetta

    Thanks, Walter.

  • marcus

    In Spain they had a doctor associated with several famous sportsmen and women rigging several sports with performance enhancing drugs. A Spanish judge decreed that the evidence contained a several hundred blood tests be destroyed.

    Several top tennis players were none too amused.

    All sports seem pretty tainted these days; it’s the nature of the beast.

    The BBC has never been an impartial organ.

    I was watching one of their talking heads on the Syrian issue, and he slipped on the word ‘again’ into his report. One word. Did it matter? Well yes, quite a lot. He was discussing Assad’s chemical weapons and how Assad had agreed to have the weapons destroyed, and not to use them…..again.

    Again? When was it ever proven that he had already used them.

    Where did he say ” I will not use chemical weapons AGAIN”

    If he had said that, the US would be bombing the shit out of him.

    This kind of appalling devious journalism is par for the course for the BBC. When George Orwell wrote 1984 it was originally titled 1948….I believe Orwell also had experience of working at the BBC….

  • marcus

    In Spain they had a doctor associated with several famous sportsmen and women rigging several sports with performance enhancing drugs. A Spanish judge decreed that the evidence of several hundred blood tests be destroyed.
    Several top tennis players were none too amused.
    All sports seem pretty tainted these days; it’s the nature of the beast.
    The BBC has never been an impartial organ.
    I was watching one of their talking heads on the Syrian issue, and he slipped in the word ‘again’ into his report. One word. Did it matter? Well yes, quite a lot. He was discussing Assad’s chemical weapons and how Assad had agreed to have the weapons destroyed, and not to use them…..again.
    Again? When was it ever proven that he had already used them.
    Where did he say ” I will not use chemical weapons AGAIN”
    If he had said that, the US would be bombing the shit out of him.
    This kind of appalling devious journalism is par for the course for the BBC. When George Orwell wrote 1984 it was originally titled 1948….I believe Orwell also had experience of working at the BBC….

    Sorry redacted version

  • jambug

    @Baggiebird

    I think you’re missing the point. Yes we are moaning about not getting a penalty that was for all intense and purposes a ‘stone waller’. But in addition to that, and even more importantly to a lot of us, is the biased way these kind of incidents are, or indeed are not, reported and anylised in the media.

    We are particularly focusing on MOTD because of the stark contrast in the way they anylised a similar (tho much less obvious) incident involveing KOS in the Villa game and the incident on Sunday. I mean you can be as biased in your view as you want, but tellingly, it is THIS site you had to come to to at least see an in depth analysis. Surely even you must conceed that it is very strange how they made time to focus on Jack, even though he had a very ordinary game, yet didn’t deem it even worth showing the penlty incident, let alone anylise it. And yet they also found time to show and anylise your much less contecious penalty claim.

    Before you comment, have an in depth look at the hard work people do on this sight (not all Arsenal fans by a long way I may add) regarding exposeing the incompetence, level of bias, of our referees. Yes we are pissed off because we do get an inordinate amount of bad calls, but surely it is in everyones interest to bring to light, bad, and even biased referees. Don’t you think ???

  • SouthernGunner

    Penalty should have been awarded, regardless of what other instances did or didn’t happen during the match. Better refereeing would have improved the game & benefited both WBA & Arsenal teams. As of yesterday, even the British tabloids have started printing stories about refs not doing a good enough job in the PL, so it looks like the cat is finally coming out of the bag.

  • jambug

    Oh and by the way Baggiebird on the ballance of the game WBA deserved their point, at least. As has been said you could of, possibly should of been 2 up and out of sight before any of these issues arouse. But you wasn’t and in the end they was potentially game changeing decisions.

    So please don’t infer we are being ingracious to WBA because we are not. We are just calling it as it is. The ref had a shocker and the media don’t give a shit. Thats the point !!!!

  • jambug

    @Mick

    Thanks for that link. Certainly sounds good, but a way off yet.

    For the time being maybe we should look at getting Wright, Smith, Robson, Merson et el back. That would be fun !!!!!!!

    Playing crap football, getting relegated, going broke…..they’d be loving it !!!!

  • marcus,

    We need to be careful about bringing politics here even if we are only trying to make a larger point.

    I must, however, say here that for someone lamenting dishonesty and misinformation from others, you sound either ignorant, dishonest or just plain trying to misinform on the Syrian issue.

    Here is the timeline of the chemical weapon crisis:

    – Assad initially claimed to have no chemical weapon when first accused of gassing his own people. How could he use the weapon if he does not have it?

    – American threatened to start bombing if he does not surrender his chemical weapons. This in order to stop him from using it again.

    – Then all of a sudden, he agreed to surrender the chemical weapons that he originally claimed not to have to Russia. And America instantly dropped the idea and threat of bombing Syria.

    These are the facts of the matter and they verifiable by all.

    You wrote and I quote:

    “Where did he say ” I will not use chemical weapons AGAIN””

    “If he had said that, the US would be bombing the shit out of him.”

    This last sentence is so wrong, it’s difficult to respond but I’ll try:

    The US could not be bombing the shit out of him for admitting to have used chemical weapon when the US never believed him when he said he didn’t and were going to start bombing based on what they believed to be the truth.

    It’s like someone threatening to beat you if you hit your wife again despite your protestations that you did not beat your wife in the first place. You cannot say that this person would have beaten the shit out of you if you had admitted to beating your wife. They are not trying to avenge your wife beating; they are trying to stop you from doing it again. Huge difference.

    America was not trying to punish Assad for using chemical weapons against his people, they were trying to stop him from doing it AGAIN.

    Agree or disagree with their stand but at least be honest in your reporting. Especially while complaining about the dishonesty of others.

  • Mick

    @jambug
    I doubt S Robson would lower himself to come back, he is over qualified after all. Why would he want to coach at Arsenal having achieved the lofty positions of reserve team coach at Southend and Technical director at Rushden and Diamonds.

  • jambug

    @Mick.

    Damn…..and I was so looking forward to his return. Oh well, I suppose we’ll just have to suffer Monsieur Wenger for a while longer.

  • Spozza

    On your third picture it cleary shows an Arsenal player being held on the line, another foul.

  • Andrew Crawshaw

    Regarding the incident – it should have been a penalty but as I predicted in the Ref Preview was never going to be given. Sorry but I told you so in advance.
    Regarding the BBC it is interesting that we have just announced a pertnership deal with BT Sport, joining Manchester City, two clubs not noted for getting favours from the PGMOL. I have no idea what difference, if any, that will make in the future but with the little football the BBC have it might prove to be a sound move even if Me Halsey is the ex-ref on the BT team. Also Hansen is in his last season as a MOTD pundit which by itself is a reason to rejoice.

  • kaius

    Nicky. Respectfully, I don’t think readers of this site or fans who discuss controversial sporting decisions in any sport need someone like you sitting as some kind of arbiter telling us not to “disturb” our little heads fretting over decisions we can’t change. Or is it only Arsenal supporters whose heads you don’t want “inflamed”? Who do you support, the PGMOL?

    We don’t say “unless the mistake can be rectified” that there’s no point in discussing these “mistakes” because that’s what large parts of the lamestream media do and why many of us are here reading sites like Untold where, agree or disagree, we can enjoy a deeper analysis of the wider issues in the game. I don’t agree with anyone frothing at the mouth over issues they have no control over, but mainly we have considered, analytical responses by most people here so there’s no need for alarm. Are there any other points you imagine I have missed Nicky?

    Bootoomee, you’re right on many levels. And the guys at Untold should continue to highlight, document and archive decisions whether there are official panels to review them or not. Just because the FA is still in the 20th century doesn’t mean we all have to be as well.

  • Rufusstan

    @Baggiebird — Firstly, its an interlull; what else have we got to talk about :).

    More seriously as pointed out, there is no anti-west Brom feeling about this. I posted on Sunday the best complement it is in me to make about an opposition team, that I was honestly feeling that we could lose the game, something I have hot experienced in a few months.

    I don’t even blame Mulumbu. It was the 77th minute of a game where the ref had simply not imposed himself and let far too much go. Players will push the limit, and its the ref who is meant to point out where the line is.

    During the game, I was worried less about the penalties then the gnawing fear that if things kept on going, someone was going to get hurt.

    @Walter, I posted something like this elsewhere last night, but had a second frame from a fraction of a second earlier. It does not show the collision, but you can already see Mulumbu’s legs lining up to wrap around Jacks. I’d link to it here, but I might have already killed the account where I hosted it.

    To get the whole picture, you also have to watch the tackle at full speed, because then you see the speed at which Mulumbu comes in and the way he dives in.

    @Nicky — I understand the Idea of the need for qualified/professional individuals to review incidents rather than fans, but it is not happening right now, and there seems to be no interest from the authorities to change the system. Continually bringing things like this up and exerting pressure, seems to be the only way the PL and FA will change things.

    On a related note, on Monday I finally bit the bullet and made an official complaint to the BBC about MOTD(2), with Sunday’s program being the final straw. I don’t expect to get anywhere, but you have to take a stand sometime.

    Lastly, one thing that struck me about amateurs is that there are people on here (largely due to Walter’s excellent teaching), who can analyze a challenge far more effectively that Hansen or Shearer ever do.

  • nicky

    @Kaius,
    I think you are so confused over the points I made earlier in one of my comments, that I’ll start again. I’ll make it simple for you.
    Walter’s detailed criticisms of match officials and their duties are so professional that all they do at present is to inflame or irritate Arsenal supporters, on reading that our Club has been unfairly treated.
    If only his reports could be acted upon by the powers that be, their purpose would be more than worthwhile.
    One day perhaps……

  • Brickfields Gunners

    PENALTY !

  • BILL FROM MANHATTAN

    Bootoomee, Not showing important incidents in a match isn’t just limited to your country. I was watching on Fox Sports the Real Madrid vs Levante highlights. They showed all three goals that Real scored, they didn’t show not even one Levante highlight. The game ended at 3-2 with Real coming back twice from a goal down and needing a stoppage time goal to win the game. Levante was winning twice, But Fox couldn’t be bothered to show none of their goals. The way things are now the media could put together a highlights package that shows what wonderful chaps Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Saddam were. I always thought that videotape doesn’t lie, It does if you have selective editing. These highlight shows are nothing but FUCKING PROPAGANDA

  • marcus

    @Bootoome

    Why should we refrain from bringing politics to the site?? Not sure I follow that one. Besides, even if it was a political comment, it was made about an issue that is beyond politics, namely the BBC.

    Re your statements, they look patently false. As it is not a political blog I won’t deconstruct them though, because we will be going down a different alley then.

  • Nelson Wong

    Its a clear penalty.

    So when FA complains that they have no talent and they do not have players to select, just remind them that they do nothing to protect their valued talent and let him get injured by misconduct and dangerous play.

    When one of the player retreat from international duty, do not complain about Wenger.

    It is because of the failing of FA.

  • jambug

    BILL FROM MANHATTEN

    One thing I’ll say for you Bill is that you say it as you see it. Mostly agree with you as well.

    In the UK it is so obvious that SKY want nothing but victories for Barca and Madrid it’s embarrassing. I’m just surprised they don’t sit in the studio with the appropriate shirt and scarf on.

  • I have been relaxing as my conquering GUNNERS do their ting and what a pleasant atmosphere.
    The sewer rats are talking a different language from mars which is music to me. I just love it.
    Gunners ,as far as we are a danger to the Mafiosi’s we will remain in their firing rage until we are a threat no more.
    We have to win with class,strength and flair expect no favours from shitland and just saften your belts as of this season we have to be like that season of the untouchables, unbeatable oozing with class and only then will we be there.
    We have a little bit of it and if all our seniors come back and the Prof as he always promises and fulfils brings us a top top striker in the January transfer window, be assured we will prevail.
    Happy Independence Day(We are celebrating the 51st independence day in B(Uganda)today.

  • Rufusstan

    @Nelson — have to agree. its strange that after all the digs at Arsenal for foreign players, we could be providing 4-5 of England’s starting line up in the next few years from our current squad.

    Of course with this article all about the lack of protection given to Jack, and 2 of the others currently out injured*…..

    *Yes, I know Alex’s injury was probably self-inflicted, and who knows how Theo did his, but they have had other injuries that can be put down to other players, and Gibbs has already lost match time to a head injury this season.

  • jambug

    @Rufusstan.

    Not that I wish it to happen but I’m waiting to see what happens the first time Ozil is taken out and misses a few games, especially German internationals.

    Personally I can’t see the Germans putting up with it quietly !!!

    Alas I fear it wont be too long before we find out.

  • Mandy Dodd

    Kampala, we certainly have one in our ranks who has taken on such Mafiosi, our coach Boro Primorac played a major part in exposing what was going on at Marseille, and jailing Tapie a few years back. Boro, a man of bravery and principle paid for it then, breaking what some saw was a code of silence in football, I sometimes wonder if this still follows him, he upset the applecart for a lot of people, in and out of the shadows, and embarrased the rulers of football, who true to form, would much rather keep such things covered up…

  • jambug

    @Mandy Dodd

    All this crap and all the likes of Durham at Talkshite wants to do is drum up some story about Arsenal ‘Cheating’ by trying to get Flamini deliberately yellow carded to ensure he’s available for the Liverpool match. Apparantly the little prick has put the footballing World ‘on alert’ about the devious goings on at Arsenal.

    Honestly how what this station, and that bloke in particular gets away with is not contrary to broadcasting regulations on ‘impartiality’ or even ‘Legality’ I’ll never know. But, having asked the quistion on here several times with no response I can only assume that slander is now legal.

    SLANDER: False report maliciously uttered to persons injury; uttering of such reports calumny; false oral defamation.

    If what that Durham guy does EVERY DAY doesn’t contravene at least some, if not all of that, almost every day (or at least he did back when I was mug enough to listen) then I don’t know what does.

    Why the fuck doesn’t someone who can, do something to shut that bloke up

  • Rufusstan

    @Jambug — I remember someone saying exactly that not long after he arrived, that the German FA are pretty protective of their players (international ones at least), and if Özil gets Shawcrossed (TM pending), they will not let it go.

  • Gord

    @OT

    Arsenal Ladies have won the first game of their Champions League tie (round of 32) with Kairat, 7-1!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24465741

    In order for Arsenal Ladies to play Champions League next season, I believe they must win Champions League this year (due to finishing 3rd in their league).

    Congratulations on this first step in that direction!

  • Isn’t it interesting that after collecting TV licence fees from ALL football fans across the UK, BBC only serves the interest of a selected few clubs? I may be sounding like a broken record on their failure to show that Mulumbu incident but it is just so wrong that I don’t even know where to start. The tossers showed some mundane events involving Wilshere but overlooked the most important event apart from his goal. I continue to ask WHY?

    That Mulumbu tackle is like Marmite, agree or disagree about it being a foul and a penalty but no honest person can disagree or ignore the fact that it is a key event in the game.

    Why again, did the BBC MoTD edited it out of their highlight show? I am not a petition enthusiast but I feel so strongly about this that I have written a complaint to BBC. I don’t think much will come out of it but I felt a little better after sending it.

  • jambug

    @Bootoomee

    Head and wall springs to mind.

    As you say, it will be very surprising if you do get a reply but I can tell you exactly what it will say if you do. Something like this I would suggest.

    Dear Mr Bootoomee

    Thank you for your letter regarding the Wiltshere/Mulumbu incident on MOTD. Having given your letter careful consideration we have looked at the incident again and consider it to be of no futher interested to the wider public. We are grateful for your feedback and always welcome the views of the public. We hope you continue to enjoy MOTD for the fair and impartial coverage it offers.

    Your faithfully.

    BBC Numbnuts

  • BILL FROM MANHATTAN

    Jambug. You are one funny Motherfucker. And I mean that with the up-most respect. Your parody of the B.B.C. reply to Bootoomee’s Complaint was fucking hilarious. Shades of Monty Python. Couldn’t stop laughing for five minutes. Almost peed my pants. Here in the States I used to get my World News from the B.B.C., I do not trust these American News Programs. They all have their own Agenda, Their own Slant on World Events. Now I can’t even trust the Good Old Beeb. What is the World coming to. Sorry state of affairs.

  • jambug,

    That is a very funny response! I will be really surprise though if BBC’s is much different, apart from being signed by Numbnuts (which will be a shame because that’s exactly what they are).

    I think I am going to stop paying TV licence though. I mean what’s the point? They cannot even do highlight shows without devious and corrupt editing. Those who never saw the game live will not know what we are talking about and will see us as whiny Arsenal fans. This is why I am so mad about this. If they had showed the incident, at least there would be a real debate about it.

  • AL

    I have submitted a complaint too on the BBC website. I don’t pay my licence fee to watch such biased reporting, or propaganda.

  • kaius

    Nicky.
    At least offer a counter-argument, rather than repeating your initial point, which still sounds condescending.

    I suppose Edward Snowden, Laura Poitras, Alan Rusbridger and their fellow collaborators should have simply sat on those NSA documents as well, so as not to make people a bit “inflamed”. Let the “powers that be” decide what to do with the information right? Wrong.

  • nicky

    @Kaius,
    I looked up the meaning of the word “condescending”. Then I read the last paragraph of your comment.
    And I understood.

  • Tom

    Walter.
    You touch on something that is very telling about how the rules of the game are interpreted differently in England as opposed to everywhere else on the continent.

    There’s been a slew of articles by England’s former greats ,on how the art of crunching sliding tackle is fast disappearing and how they don’t see enough of it in the game anymore.

    Axel Witsel of Zenit St Petersburg was shown a red card for a dangerous studs up challenge during recent CL clash against Austria Vienna and the match commentator , another former England international, called the decision ” a yellow card offense at best”.
    Never mind that Witsel is a repeat offender and was banned eight games for a similar tackle on Wasilewski in the Standard – Anderlecht game, that resulted in a double fracture of the Polish player’s leg.

    It’s hardly a coincidence that after Eduardo and Ramsey’s leg breaks , the same pundits opined that those were just accidental by products of playing football , so called occupational hazard and not at all an over aggressive and dangerous play.

    I’m however mystified when the same pundits call the Mulumbu / Wilshere tackle clean but Koscielny/ Agbonlahor tackle a foul – lack of consistency perhaps , or is it bias?

    As you probably remember I am not big on this whole anti -Arsenal conspiracy, however I’m concerned with the lack of penalty decisions Arsenal have been subjected to and a number of soft penalties given against us.

    As things stand Arsenal are a negative 3 in penalties given for and against.
    While a positive number of penalties given for to penalties given against doesn’t guarantee success (Arsenal had the league’s highest positive number +7 in 2005-06 and +8 in 2006-07 season and still came in fourth). No club has won the league in the last decade with that number being negative ,except once . Man U did it in 2010-11 season with a negative 1.

    Clearly it is a reason for concern if the recent trend were to continue ,so bringing attention to it can only be a good thing.
    Keep up the good work and take care.

  • Mandy Dodd

    Tom , have a feeling you will soon have have little doubt something is wrong and this has been the case for a while. A possible hypotheses, the better we do and the more of a threat we become the more we will see of this. I once doubted this but have now seen too much to doubt. But sounds like you have an open mind and no need to take anyone else’s word just watch and see for yourself and draw your own conclusions

  • Unbelievable belief

    Spozzy @ 1:30pm
    Yeah, I noticed that too in the pics, I was so incensed at the time about the bad and dangerous tackle in jack that I forgot about the ‘hans on’ defending WBA were doing.
    Well spotted!

  • BILL FROM MANHATTAN

    Bootoomee. What is a television license fee. Living in the United States I have never heard of it. Is it like paying for cable television service like I do over here. Would appreciate anyone for enlightening me. I apologize for my lack of question marks, not really computer savvy. I am a two finger hunt and peck typist.

  • marcus

    We have two types of TV channel Bill. Govt and independent. BBC is govt TV. BBC has no advertising. It is financed by the licensing fee, which is obligatory. If you have a TV, you have to pay the licensing fee, I think. You can’t opt out.

    If you are not happy about the BBC you write to a programme called “Right to Reply” hosted by an on old harridan who has had a face-lift. She reads out your complaint in a facetious tone, and then winks at the end of the letter.

    The BBC is presently enmeshed in scandal, since throughout the 60’s, 70’s and beyond they employed a serial rapist and child molester called Jimmy Saville. His antics were well known, but treated with a nod and a wink.

    Other employees, whilst not as highly dangerous as Saville, have been charged with sexual offences also.

    Saville also had some sort of friendship apparently with Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper. One of Sutcliffe’s victims was found very close to Saville’s house.

    I don’t know much else about the BBC except that my grandparents refused to watch it. I didn’t understand why at the time, but it is starting to make more sense to me now….

  • BILL FROM MANHATTAN

    Marcus. Many thanks for your reply to my inquiry. Government t.v. to me sounds like really scary shit. I for one wouldn’t want my government trying to force their agenda down my throat. And to boot, You guys must pay for that privilege. The BBC sounds a bit like Pravda or those Nazi Propaganda radio broadcasts. This Saville character sounds like he makes Herr Goebbels look like Edward R. Murrow. To once think that the BBC was a shining light of hope to half of Europe during the Nazi occupation is incredulous. How do you guys put up with this bullshit. Over here newscasters have lost their jobs for using the wrong types of words. This Saville miscreant is the spokesperson for the BBC. Feet of clay, The Emperor has no clothes, Oh how the Mighty have fallen. It stands to reason why the Arsenal can’t get a fair shake over there, Your xenophobic government controls the media. Now I see why when the revolution starts the first thing the Usurpers do is to take hold of the radio and television station.

  • Marcus

    That is why we are such a docile nation Bill. The sheeple’s sheeple if you like……in 1995 a peadophile with very high connections gunned down a load of children , or toddlers and kids in newspeak. After that firearms were banned in the uk. There was little protest. Apparently though we still have a higher murder rate per capita than the US…..

  • Bill from Manhattan,

    The TV licence is collected for BBC from all UK households where broadcast TV is watched or accessible. It’s about $200 per year. You don’t automatically pay the fee because you have a TV and you are not automatically exempt just because you don’t have one. If you only watch DVDs and stuff on your TV, you don’t have to pay but if you watch live TV broadcasts on your laptop, you have to. It is all about TV broadcasts and your ability to watch or record them.

    The BBC is given this money because they don’t advertise. They don’t advertise so that they can be neutral and not be beholden to anyone. I don’t get my news from TV or the mainstream media but among all these, the BBC is still by far, the most trustworthy. They are not perfect but they are neither Fox, MSNBC nor CNN. They are much much better.

    Their children’s channels used to bore me (probably because I am an adult) but my 2 year olds love CBeebies, so I kind of feel like my licence fee is not wasted. I started appreciating BBC after watching the equivalent children’s channels of BBC’s private rivals. Lord have mercy, they are terrible! All I saw in their commercials (and there are loads of them) are blatant attempts to goad children to harrass their parents into buying stupid and EXPENSIVE junk.

    Funny enough, Match of The Day (MoTD), the show that highlights all the key events in all premier league games is their 1st and only programme that I will ever really have any problem with. I may not like the others but they don’t drive me nuts like MoTD does.

    Like the news, dishonesty from BBC on this programme does so much damage because of the people of the UK’s faith in the programme and the company responsible for it. Many today believe that Anthony Taylor, the ref against Villa did a great job and Arsenal only played badly because of what they saw on MoTD.

    To be honest, I have never been happy about the TV licence fee but as a law abiding person, I pay as I should. The problem is that by being biased and showing preferrential treatment of teams, BBC through MoTD is violating the rationale for us having to pay them the licence fee i.e. neutrality and objectivity.

    While marcus’ summation about BBC is true, it is not my issue with them. There are rotten people in every organisation, especially where the government is in control. I only have a problem with their lack of objectivity in MoTD. Also, I can opt out of TV licence fee pay payment as long as I don’t watch broadcast programmes on my TV. I won’t be able to though because of my toddlers and their mum. Especially their mum.

  • Marcus,

    Using the word ‘apparently’ does not excuse falsehood. United Kingdom had 722 homicides in 2012 while the US had 14,612 over the same period. The US has less than 5 times UK’s population but over 20 times it’s murders. How does that constitute higher murder rate per capita? Basic arithmetic tells us that the US has over 4 times the murder rate per capita of the UK.

    I don’t know about you but I love the fact that guns are restricted in the UK. It is for me, one of the best things about the country. I really don’t care how the restriction came about. I love its implication.

    Those who seek equity must come with clean hands. You cannot be complaining about dishonesty in the media while spreading falsehoods yourself. ‘Apparently’ or not.

  • marcus

    Ditto for you Bootoome, you cannot preach from the moral high ground, when you disseminate falsehood. Check yourself bro before you say things like this.

  • marcus

    And the word apparently is used advisedly, since whenever I discuss statistics, I see them as open to abuse.

  • Mike

    Apparently (!) 68% of all statistics are made up………..

    Seriously though guys, the country in the world with the highest level of crime per capita is Vatican State. That doesn’t mean all catholics clerics are crooks……………….doesn’t mean they aren’t either!!!

    Anyway we’re missing the point. Mulumbu either made a fantsatic tackle or committed a clear cut penalty. Either way the BBC chose not to show it because they’re a bunch of sychophantic Arse’s……………..and you don’t need statistics to prove that 🙂

  • jambug

    BILL FROM MANHATTEN

    As much as I too have issues with the BBC overall it’s unique status and method of funding does offer certain benefits.

    One of the main ones being NO COMERCIAL BREAKS !!

    But secondly, being goverement/publicly financed it is beholdn’t to certain criteria laid down by governent as to the types of programmes it makes. This can be good as well as bad.

    On the good side it will make certain types of very expensive, some would say minority, type programes. Many times it will do this to a far superior level than any ‘independent’ broadcaster would. Why? Well because they don’t have to, for want of a better word, dumb down, just for audience figures. Although they are importent they are not the be and end all which means we can end up with a programe with extremey high production values for ‘reletively’ low audience return. These type of programes tend to come from there ‘Natural History’ department more than anywhere else. You may of seen programes fronted by David Attenborough, The living Planet, Life of plants etc. They’re all BBC.

    Saddly though they often seem to throw money down the drown by sitting Kate Humble (over used, over rated, flavour of the month, rubbish presenter) beside a Volcano, cooing away about what an amazingly wonderful, life changeing, experience of a lifetime it all is. Well maybe for her, but after 3 days I’m just wishing the damn thing would errupt and just shut her up !!!!!

    Overall there are many pros and cons to the BBC but, for now, I woul keep it, warts and all.

  • Marcus,

    I apologise if I appear fixated on this matter but it very wrong to say that x is ‘apparently’ more than y when y is 4 times bigger than x. If unsure of your statistics use Google. It’s what I did. This is particularly important when discussing dishonesty of others.

  • Jambug,

    Like you, I’d rather have BBC with their imperfections considering the alternatives. I do think that if enough people complain about MoTD, they are very likely to improve. That’s why I sent my complaint despite the tiny likelihood of it being effective in causing a change.

  • BILL FROM MANHATTAN

    I want to thank Bootoomee, Marcus, and Jambug for enlightening about the BBC. For many years now the only news show I watched was the daily half hour BBC World News shown on PBS, Which also accepts no advertising. I also do love those nature programs shown on PBS from the BBC. In my soccer bar I’ve met people from around the globe. My English pals bring me newspapers when they go back home. I am shocked and appalled at the Anti-Wenger and the Anti-Arsenal sediment in some of those newspapers. They don’t even try to disguise it, It is plain to see. I have friends from other countries and they say in their country Wenger and Arsenal are greatly admired. I guess Arsenal and our boss is loved everywhere except the country where they ply their trade. FUCKING UNBELIEVABLE.

  • jambug

    BILL FROM MANHATTEN.

    It is, for me at least, hard to put my finger on exactly why the hatred of Wenger runs so deep in our Media. But I have my own idea.

    He is open and honest with them. He will have banter with them at conferences. Then, the same journos laughing with him will twist his words and skrew him over big time the very next day. They are truely shameless at times. I don’t know how he puts up with it.

    The bigger man I suppose.

    All I can think is, that as much as we are, by and large, an open minded and multi cultrual Country, as a Nation we still can stand the ‘French’. A generalisation I know but fundermentaly true I think.

    I don’t know what it is. A throw back to all the wars? Who knows. All I know is that it is most likely the simple fact that he is French, but worse than that, a cleverer and much much better manager than any of our stone age equivalents. The fact that ‘Arry’ is probably our best puts in to perspective just what a bunch we have.

    Needless to say our Media love Dear old ‘Arry

    That being said the amount of vitrial aimed at him says there must be some deeper underlying issue but I’m buggered if I know what it is.

  • BILL FROM MANHATTAN

    Jambug, You are right. I have an artist pal from Tyneside who just had to get out of there. He told me that for centuries England had this Island Mentality, Us against the World. He also said that basically the English really don’t trust outsiders, Especially the French who they feel abandoned them during World War II. I don’t know if it is true or not, I will say I find him to be highly intelligent and trustworthy.And I do value his opinions.

  • jambug

    Whatever Bill, it is shameful and not a little embarrassing.

  • Rufusstan

    @BILL — The relationships between the English and our neighours are complex and longstanding. WWII might have been part of it with both the French and Germans, but it stretches back far further than that.

    It isn’t logical, but having been at war on and off with the French for almost 1000 years, it has slipped into the culture at an almost subconscious level.

    In addition, being an Island nation on the edge of Europe, we are sort of part of it, but a bit…..different as well.

    Its wrong, and if you look at it dispassionately its highly embarrassing, but it is there, and the media try to tap into it.

  • Rufusstan

    By the way, Marcus, the Murder rate in the US is around 4.7 people per 100,000 per year, about the highest amongst any first world nation.

    The UK is roughly in line with the rest of Europe at about 1.2 people per 100,000.

    There is a spike in the UK murder numbers in the mid 2000s which looks bad. It is actually due to the victims of a single serial killer (who had operated for over 25 years) being added to the statistics.

    Last word from a comedian who has sadly long since left us: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkOf5lnYY9g Probably NSFW warning on the link (Nothing specific, but Bill Hicks tended to be offensive on principle)