Ref Review Arsenal – Hull. Farewell goodbye auf wiedersehen adieu to the ref.

30 Replies to “Ref Review Arsenal – Hull. Farewell goodbye auf wiedersehen adieu to the ref.”

1. i believe you’re wrong on first two handball decisions
   the distance was too small and ball arrived too fast for them to be deliberate – hence no fouls

   also Sanchez ‘dive’ seems like a genuine foul from Rannochia, deserving a yellow card (his second) as it was breaking a promising attack
   remember there doesn’t have to be a contact at all, anything impeding progress of the opponent is a foul

2. I have a few comments on your interpretation of the events in the videos
   A. I think in the Huddleston elbow incident, walcott was the one who jumped into Huddleston, in the 2nd incident it looks to me that Huddleston actually ran in to defuse the tension and walcott away from the hull player. He’s obviously not shoving walcott away.
   2. The handball events, both handballs look accidental, however Sanchez’s results in a goal which otherwise wouldn’t have been, should have been struck off
   3. I think clattenburg did a good job, though he shouldn’t have let Sanchez’s handball goal stand

3. When it comes to Gibbs’ decision, Kieran himself said after the game that “Mark” hadn’t sent him off because the Hull player had been going away from goal. As you might have noticed on the video, the Hull player sends the ball slightly to his left side in order to make a run away from Gibbs and not directly towards the goal.

   As for Alexis’ goal… I wouldn’t like Arsenal to be on the receiving end of those kind of goals but as the reviewers have pointed out, it was a tricky decision.

4. OlegYch,

   Yes the distance for the first handball by Clucas looks small, but the motion of his arms towards the path of the ball looks deliberate.

   For the Sanchez dive/foul, I think there was just bodily contact but not really a foul contact by Ranocchia.

   Walter may explain it better.

5. One of the problems with this website’s claim to have done all the research and collated all the data (and that, therefore, their theory about institutional bias against Arsenal is undeniable) is that, when all is said and done, we are not dealing with a science. Referees’ (and linesmen) decisions are still very much reliant on interpretation. And for all the repeated protestations of objectivity, it nevertheless seems perfectly apparent to me that there is a huge Arsenal bias in your referee team’s interpretation of many contentious incidents.

   The first handball, for instance…..undeniably, the ball hit Clucas’s hand. But at great pace; from a yard or two away; with the player having turned away from the ball. Yes, his arm moved fractionally away from his body as he turned. But there was nothing unnatural about the movement. So it is highly debatable whether it should even have been a penalty. And it most certainly shouldn’t have been a red card, as claimed.

   The Huddlestone / Walcott header….it’s quite clear to me that they both had eyes only for the ball; both raised their arms for leverage; and both jumped towards the other player. Their forearms clashed, sending Walcott’s arm lower and Huddlestone’s higher and that, in turn, caused Huddlestone’s arm to hit the back of Walcott’s head. There was no more intent or recklessness on Huddlestone’s part than on Walcott’s. So no yellow card the correct call.

   The Huddlestone / Walcott / Maguire incident…..Walcott was clearly shown yellow for petulantly throwing the ball at the linesman. Huddlestone did nothing more than to attempt to usher Walcott away from Maguire. Again, there should have been no yellow card for Huddlestone.

   I fully accept that each of the above is merely my interpretation of each incident and that you might well disagree. Fair enough. But many others will agree with me too, including Clattenburg obviously. And since you are in the business of trying to build a credible case for institutional corruption and / or bias, you have to be quite certain that each mistake that you highlight was unquestionably a mistake and not merely a narrow difference of interpretation. Too many of the mistakes about which you rage each week are, in fact, merely the latter. And that greatly undermines your case.

6. Usama, it only looks deliberate if you slow it down ten times, Clucas couldn’t have known where the ball would be in the next split second
   he wasn’t even spreading his hands like Leicester players used to do last season, just tried to turn his back towards the ball

   as for Rannochia – there was clear deliberate kick in the ankle (and no body contact), just like a few minutes ago

7. Josif,

   Hmm, Walter wrote above messed up the Gibbs red card. Some of rules explaining the “Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity”

   The following must be considered:
   • distance between the offence and the goal (roughly 25m from goal)
   • general direction of the play (Markovic was just about to control the ball as it was going forward in the direction of goal)
   • likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball (if Gibbs had not fouled, Markovic would easily have controlled and would have had fair goal-scoring chance)
   • location and number of defenders (no defending players in sight roughly within 45m from goal except for Gibbs)

8. ***Walter wrote above the messed up decision of Gibbs red card.

9. JimB,

   When a referee is giving a player a talking to (plus yellow card) for unsporting behaviour (Theo in this case), there is absolutely no need for anyone else to bump in to escalate the matter. And Huddlestone did exactly that, he indulged in unsporting behaviour even after the referee took notice of it from what Theo had done.

   For the elbow on Theo, Huddlestone’s elbow kept on rising and stretching out as he jumped, where as Theo dropped his arms and retracted them as he jumped. And Huddlestone hits the elbow straight on Theo’s right side of the head. That is clear reckless play. If more force had been used Theo would probably have got knocked out like Bellerin was made to.

10. OlegYch,

    Oh my bad, I mistakenly viewed some other Ranocchia clip when replying to your comment.

    For the dive/foul of Sanchez-Ranocchia, I personally think its soft but a foul, but Walter (the man with knowledge and experience 🙂 ) reviews all the decisions after I make a list, so he knows better. As I said, Walter may explain it better if he finds time.

11. > And for all the repeated protestations of objectivity, it nevertheless seems perfectly apparent to me that there is a huge Arsenal bias in your referee team’s interpretation of many contentious incidents.

    You lack practice in thinking.

    If Walter and the referee review team had a _HUGE_ bias, they would never suggest that an Arsenal player fouled another, should be yellow or red carded, or give up a penalty.

    There are referee reviews were a substantial number of noted incidents, are directed against Arsenal players (rather than being in favour of Arsenal players). There is more than 1 such incident in this referee review alone.

    Now, if you are coming from the _assumption_ that the number of fouls, carded events or penalties in a game should on average be the same for both teams; I can see how you might arrive at a conclusion that Walter demonstrates more bias than you would like. The problem is, that assumption is false. There is no reason why one team should attract the attention of the referee the same number of times as any other team. There are rough teams and rough players on teams. Or players and teams that flout the rules if you will.

    But where you need to start, is to have a statistically useful number of reviews done by someone else and compare those reviews to the reviews Walter has done.

    To just “believe” that there is a problem, is not useful.

12. Couldn’t have said it better

13. Gibbs was right, “Mark” signalled with his left arm that the Hull forward was heading to the left, and Coqueline himself went in studs up on N’diaye, but no contact by the look of it, so fair outcome on both decisions.
    I have to say that Sanchez is a very poor diver, and needs to practice a bit if he thinks he’s going to fool anyone. He’s actually been denied a few genuine penalties this season. Has he been sussed?

14. Leon, why do you think it was a dive? don’t you see a kick on his ankle?

15. Sorry review team, but I have to go OT. It looks like we’ve made our first summer signing.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4412292/Arsenal-complete-deal-Schalke-left-Sead-Kolasinac.html

16. Leon, ‘complete’

17. OleYch

    If he hadn’t made such a drama out of it he probably would’ve got the penalty. It looked to me as though he had anticipated the challenge and made his dive accordingly.

18. Leon, the challenge was outside the penalty box
    guess that’s easy to forget when all you’re looking for is how to slag off Arsenal players

19. My mistake. Outside the box.
    He’ll probably be doing his diving for Man City next season, so it’ll be OK “to slag him off” then.

20. tbh i don’t remember him diving, in fact not much penalty shouts
    one thing i remember was an episode in Everton game in closing minutes, do you think that was a dive?
    just curious, would you also say Nacho is a drama actor? three or four fouls on him in penalty area ignored this season, so probably not that good of an actor, is he?

    do you think Kroenke should splash the cash on some highly rated actors like Suarez?

21. OlegYch

    I think you misunderstand me. I have no problems with Arsenal divers, we’ve had them way back to Anders LImpar and a good few since from Holland, Spain & France. I just want them to do it convincingly, that’s all.
    And since you ask, yes Suarez would be an asset dives or not.

22. …and sorry, forgot. Nacho is definitely not a diver, so he wouldn’t need to act.

23. Leon, i can only speak for myself, but i think most people here would be pretty disappointed if Arsenal players started diving and getting away with that
    guess that’s the only thing we can thank Mike Riley for

24. in fact most people who don’t watch football give diving as a primary reason why they aren’t

25. Perhaps if they didn’t think of it so much as diving but as an aversion to the perpendicular they’d find it more acceptable ?

26. this is not something comical mate
    i’m afraid it might drive the beautiful game into abyss very soon

27. ‘i’m afraid it might drive the beautiful game into abyss very soon’

    I think I’ll leave the discussion at this point.

28. 75:17 Alexis Sanchez (Arsenal)
    Looks like a foul to me.
    Observe the point of contact and the movement of the leg at contact. There must have been much force to cause the leg to move that far.

    Deliberate or not should’nt even come into it, a foul, it’s a foul.

29. Nominally OffTopic

    FIFA still has problems to work on. Job 1 is probably putting in a greater effort on getting rid of corruption. The effort so far has been sad.

    But, as FIFA has a seat on the IFAB, it has others. It has been derelict in its duties, with respect to “rogue” interpretations of the Laws of the Game.

    FIFA has an obligation to monitor all FIFA accredited officials, regardless of what jurisdiction is sanctioning a game. If a FIFA accredited official makes a “bizarre” interpretation of the Laws in _any_ game that they work in, they shall be called by FIFA to justify their action. Local interpretation of the Laws shall not be an acceptable excuse. If said official is found deficient, incompetent or acting on local interpretation, their name shall be suspended from the FIFA accreditation list. FIFA suspensions shall increment on successive occurences, and decrement on a yearly basis and when FIFA sanctioned games take place for which that country/homeFA has few enough demerits that it could be considered to supply officials.

    If a FIFA suspended official is found to have made a similar “bizarre” action, a demerit shall be assigned to the home FA. There is no limit as to how many bizarre actions can be investigated in any single game.

    When a FIFA sanctioned game is about to take place, and it has become time to assign officials to work the game, FIFA must consider officials from countries with lower numbers of demerit points first. At the conclusion of the game, all demerit counters shall be decremented by 1.

    If we take a country such as England, which has a huge number of bizarre rulings on a yearly basis by FIFA accredited officials, it could be entirely possible that England could not supply officials to FIFA sanctioned events for many years.

30. Walter – in the Referee program with Neville & Carragher, the referees said that they prepare for the game with information on the teams, players & their shortcomings. Isn’t that a basis of prejudice for any judge? If that were the case in Law, every case would be thrown out of court.

    The officials are meant to judge without any prejudice other than the Laws of the Game. How can their preparation allow prejudicial information of players? I will accept information of the pitch & shortcomings like pits or moats or even ambulance access, but not of players. The PGMOL officials are programmed by the bias & result in the most corrupt judgements in sport.