The conspiracy is that well organised that they didn’t review Gabriel’s violent conduct straight after going a goal down, which allowed him to score a late winner.
They don’t want to create too much suspicion of course.
But you are differentiating between a "good tackle", in your opinion, where Pope retains possession and what you deem to be a foul where the contact on the ball "doesn't dispossess the striker"
===
Yes, a tackle that dispossesses the person with the ball is a good tackle. A tackle where the person with the ball still has the ball is not a good tackle.
There were 4 occasions on Monday night where a player got a touch to the ball, but the tackle didn't dispossess the opponent of the ball. All were given as fouls. Only one was considered to be a foul worthy of a yellow.
The ref got all 4 correct as per the IFAB guidelines to refs as to what is considered a foul.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 6 minutes ago
But you said they concluded his arm was in a natural position. That is incorrect as per my post.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And they also concluded that Pope made a fair challenge, something you refute - so what’s your point?
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 18 seconds ago
But you are differentiating between a "good tackle", in your opinion, where Pope retains possession and what you deem to be a foul where the contact on the ball "doesn't dispossess the striker"
===
Yes, a tackle that dispossesses the person with the ball is a good tackle. A tackle where the person with the ball still has the ball is not a good tackle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He didn't still have the ball, he was tackled.
Tackling is nothing about possession...check those guidelines you cited but haven't shared
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 19 minutes ago
Nowhere does it say that. Never said it did say a tackle must retain possession.
However, in your example you describe a good tackle where Pope would have retained possession.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
but how can you say the keeper retains possession if the ball then drops closer to the attacker than the keeper ? if they were to both get up the attacker would get the ball first since he is closer. So despite the ball completely changing direction after the keeper made full contact the ball still stopped closer to the attacker than the keeper.
like I said there is no guidelines to determine how much of a touch on the ball is deemed enough.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 3 minutes ago
There were 4 occasions on Monday night where a player got a touch to the ball, but the tackle didn't dispossess the opponent of the ball. All were given as fouls. Only one was considered to be a foul worthy of a yellow.
The ref got all 4 correct as per the IFAB guidelines to refs as to what is considered a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets see these 4 tackles that seem to be underpinning your argument. You seem to be scraping the barrel but i'm sure these tackles exist
and dig out the guidelines while you are at it.
You keep referring to them.
West Ham vs Everton is available on Sky
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 19 minutes ago
Nowhere does it say that. Never said it did say a tackle must retain possession.
However, in your example you describe a good tackle where Pope would have retained possession.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
but how can you say the keeper retains possession if the ball then drops closer to the attacker than the keeper ? if they were to both get up the attacker would get the ball first since he is closer. So despite the ball completely changing direction after the keeper made full contact the ball still stopped closer to the attacker than the keeper.
like I said there is no guidelines to determine how much of a touch on the ball is deemed enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If DJ ever shares these guidlines you'll probably find that that test is whether the tackle is careless, reckless or dangerous.
If a keeper coming out and spreading himself in a very normal keeper way is deemed careless, then every keeper is going to have to change how they deal with 1 on 1s because this is what every keeper does.
It wasnt careless, it was normal. So if it aint careless then it certainly isnt the higher levels.
And this is what differentiates it from Sanchez. A GK out of his area carelessly going for a high ball is very different circumstances to Popes action.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 3 minutes ago
West Ham vs Everton is available on Sky
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You made the statement, the burden of proof is on you.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 11 minutes ago
A successful tackle is one where you get something on the ball first and not in a dangerous of overly forceful manner.
====
That is simply not true and totally contradictory of the IFAB guidelines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The IFAB guidelinesEvery Arsenal fan has them bookmarked no doubt
Go on then, what do they say that is relevant here?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BUMP!
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 3 minutes ago
West Ham vs Everton is available on Sky
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You made the statement, the burden of proof is on you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have given you the evidence. A full match replay.
Unfortunately courses aren't on the internet. Give me your fax number and I can send them over.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 28 seconds ago
Unfortunately courses aren't on the internet. Give me your fax number and I can send them over.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so your saying that you have attended the course ?? otherwise your just admitting that you cant make the claim either ?!
Absolute clown show from Webb as usual. Just contradicts everything he's said in the past.
You only have to listen to his daft explanation of the Saliba pen last season against Pedro. And by the way we havent seen a pen given for that since despite it happening all the time.
Pope didnt win the ball. His foot was planted and Gyorkeres played the ball first onto Pope.
Pope and the Newcastle players knew it was a pen. You can always tell by players reaction if they feel hard done by. The Newcastle players were like ah ffs i hope its not a red.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 8 minutes ago
Unfortunately courses aren't on the internet. Give me your fax number and I can send them over.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
argument fail.
Dont get me wrong.
The standard of reffing is appalling. There are inconsistencies every week and even within games. The rubbish that the likes of Webb spouts is just skewed to support the decision unless it is such an awful error that its indefensible. That isn't the case here.
Anyone who listens to Dermot Gallagher on the Sky ref review thing can see just how institutionalised these refs are, they're like a union that will never go against one of their own unless it is truly obvious.
They are not fit for purpose and lack objectivity. While i am not a fan of the idea of VAR being populated by ex-players, I think some ex-player presence within the organisation is needed to bring some common sense ground in real life experience to their decisions/law making.
As for the Gabriel handball.
I don't think his hand was in a natural position it was abit too high IMO however the rules state if there is a double touch which there was then a penalty cannot be awarded.
So based on that it doesn't matter where his hand is.
If there was no touch off his shin then its a clear penalty.
Strange how no-one is showing replays of Bruno handball from martinelli shot. That was a much clearer handball considering the distance the shot was taken from.
He shouldn’t have been on the pitch to handball it.
For a little shove on the big CF, barely touch him.
Same as what VVD does to every player.
comment by BO$$™ (U6401)
posted 43 seconds ago
For a little shove on the big CF, barely touch him.
Same as what VVD does to every player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean, I find that a bit of a silly summation, but you’re entitled to your opinion.
It’s quite clearly violent conduct under the rules.
Webb should be shown the door. Question is who will show it to him? He’s as useless as a sack of chit
comment by BO$$™ (U6401)
posted 4 hours, 8 minutes ago
As for the Gabriel handball.
I don't think his hand was in a natural position it was abit too high IMO however the rules state if there is a double touch which there was then a penalty cannot be awarded.
So based on that it doesn't matter where his hand is.
If there was no touch off his shin then its a clear penalty.
Strange how no-one is showing replays of Bruno handball from martinelli shot. That was a much clearer handball considering the distance the shot was taken from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules don’t state that at all. It’s a consideration along with everything else. A handball can still be called if the hand is in an unnatural position, making the body bigger etc, which was clearly the case in this situation.
If the referee saw the deflection and decided it wasn’t handball because of that, then I doubt VAR would get involved. Otherwise they could have if they thought it was handball after weighing up all considerations, including the slight deflection.
comment by BO$$™ (U6401)
posted 4 hours, 59 minutes ago
For a little shove on the big CF, barely touch him.
Same as what VVD does to every player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is correct imo.
If that’s violent conduct then you may as well change the name of the offence to ‘any slight aggression’. Laughable.
And absolutely, VVD did something worse than that at least five times last season.
Sign in if you want to comment
Howard "the duck" Webb
Page 2 of 3
posted on 1/10/25
The conspiracy is that well organised that they didn’t review Gabriel’s violent conduct straight after going a goal down, which allowed him to score a late winner.
They don’t want to create too much suspicion of course.
posted on 1/10/25
But you are differentiating between a "good tackle", in your opinion, where Pope retains possession and what you deem to be a foul where the contact on the ball "doesn't dispossess the striker"
===
Yes, a tackle that dispossesses the person with the ball is a good tackle. A tackle where the person with the ball still has the ball is not a good tackle.
posted on 1/10/25
There were 4 occasions on Monday night where a player got a touch to the ball, but the tackle didn't dispossess the opponent of the ball. All were given as fouls. Only one was considered to be a foul worthy of a yellow.
The ref got all 4 correct as per the IFAB guidelines to refs as to what is considered a foul.
posted on 1/10/25
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 6 minutes ago
But you said they concluded his arm was in a natural position. That is incorrect as per my post.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And they also concluded that Pope made a fair challenge, something you refute - so what’s your point?
posted on 1/10/25
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 18 seconds ago
But you are differentiating between a "good tackle", in your opinion, where Pope retains possession and what you deem to be a foul where the contact on the ball "doesn't dispossess the striker"
===
Yes, a tackle that dispossesses the person with the ball is a good tackle. A tackle where the person with the ball still has the ball is not a good tackle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He didn't still have the ball, he was tackled.
Tackling is nothing about possession...check those guidelines you cited but haven't shared
posted on 1/10/25
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 19 minutes ago
Nowhere does it say that. Never said it did say a tackle must retain possession.
However, in your example you describe a good tackle where Pope would have retained possession.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
but how can you say the keeper retains possession if the ball then drops closer to the attacker than the keeper ? if they were to both get up the attacker would get the ball first since he is closer. So despite the ball completely changing direction after the keeper made full contact the ball still stopped closer to the attacker than the keeper.
like I said there is no guidelines to determine how much of a touch on the ball is deemed enough.
posted on 1/10/25
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 3 minutes ago
There were 4 occasions on Monday night where a player got a touch to the ball, but the tackle didn't dispossess the opponent of the ball. All were given as fouls. Only one was considered to be a foul worthy of a yellow.
The ref got all 4 correct as per the IFAB guidelines to refs as to what is considered a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets see these 4 tackles that seem to be underpinning your argument. You seem to be scraping the barrel but i'm sure these tackles exist
and dig out the guidelines while you are at it.
You keep referring to them.
posted on 1/10/25
West Ham vs Everton is available on Sky
posted on 1/10/25
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 19 minutes ago
Nowhere does it say that. Never said it did say a tackle must retain possession.
However, in your example you describe a good tackle where Pope would have retained possession.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
but how can you say the keeper retains possession if the ball then drops closer to the attacker than the keeper ? if they were to both get up the attacker would get the ball first since he is closer. So despite the ball completely changing direction after the keeper made full contact the ball still stopped closer to the attacker than the keeper.
like I said there is no guidelines to determine how much of a touch on the ball is deemed enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If DJ ever shares these guidlines you'll probably find that that test is whether the tackle is careless, reckless or dangerous.
If a keeper coming out and spreading himself in a very normal keeper way is deemed careless, then every keeper is going to have to change how they deal with 1 on 1s because this is what every keeper does.
It wasnt careless, it was normal. So if it aint careless then it certainly isnt the higher levels.
And this is what differentiates it from Sanchez. A GK out of his area carelessly going for a high ball is very different circumstances to Popes action.
posted on 1/10/25
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 3 minutes ago
West Ham vs Everton is available on Sky
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You made the statement, the burden of proof is on you.
posted on 1/10/25
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 11 minutes ago
A successful tackle is one where you get something on the ball first and not in a dangerous of overly forceful manner.
====
That is simply not true and totally contradictory of the IFAB guidelines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The IFAB guidelinesEvery Arsenal fan has them bookmarked no doubt
Go on then, what do they say that is relevant here?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BUMP!
posted on 1/10/25
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 3 minutes ago
West Ham vs Everton is available on Sky
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You made the statement, the burden of proof is on you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have given you the evidence. A full match replay.
posted on 1/10/25
Unfortunately courses aren't on the internet. Give me your fax number and I can send them over.
posted on 1/10/25
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 28 seconds ago
Unfortunately courses aren't on the internet. Give me your fax number and I can send them over.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
so your saying that you have attended the course ?? otherwise your just admitting that you cant make the claim either ?!
posted on 1/10/25
Absolute clown show from Webb as usual. Just contradicts everything he's said in the past.
You only have to listen to his daft explanation of the Saliba pen last season against Pedro. And by the way we havent seen a pen given for that since despite it happening all the time.
Pope didnt win the ball. His foot was planted and Gyorkeres played the ball first onto Pope.
Pope and the Newcastle players knew it was a pen. You can always tell by players reaction if they feel hard done by. The Newcastle players were like ah ffs i hope its not a red.
posted on 1/10/25
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 8 minutes ago
Unfortunately courses aren't on the internet. Give me your fax number and I can send them over.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
argument fail.
posted on 1/10/25
Dont get me wrong.
The standard of reffing is appalling. There are inconsistencies every week and even within games. The rubbish that the likes of Webb spouts is just skewed to support the decision unless it is such an awful error that its indefensible. That isn't the case here.
Anyone who listens to Dermot Gallagher on the Sky ref review thing can see just how institutionalised these refs are, they're like a union that will never go against one of their own unless it is truly obvious.
They are not fit for purpose and lack objectivity. While i am not a fan of the idea of VAR being populated by ex-players, I think some ex-player presence within the organisation is needed to bring some common sense ground in real life experience to their decisions/law making.
posted on 1/10/25
*grounded
posted on 1/10/25
As for the Gabriel handball.
I don't think his hand was in a natural position it was abit too high IMO however the rules state if there is a double touch which there was then a penalty cannot be awarded.
So based on that it doesn't matter where his hand is.
If there was no touch off his shin then its a clear penalty.
Strange how no-one is showing replays of Bruno handball from martinelli shot. That was a much clearer handball considering the distance the shot was taken from.
posted on 1/10/25
He shouldn’t have been on the pitch to handball it.
posted on 1/10/25
For a little shove on the big CF, barely touch him.
Same as what VVD does to every player.
posted on 1/10/25
comment by BO$$™ (U6401)
posted 43 seconds ago
For a little shove on the big CF, barely touch him.
Same as what VVD does to every player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean, I find that a bit of a silly summation, but you’re entitled to your opinion.
It’s quite clearly violent conduct under the rules.
posted on 1/10/25
Webb should be shown the door. Question is who will show it to him? He’s as useless as a sack of chit
posted on 1/10/25
comment by BO$$™ (U6401)
posted 4 hours, 8 minutes ago
As for the Gabriel handball.
I don't think his hand was in a natural position it was abit too high IMO however the rules state if there is a double touch which there was then a penalty cannot be awarded.
So based on that it doesn't matter where his hand is.
If there was no touch off his shin then its a clear penalty.
Strange how no-one is showing replays of Bruno handball from martinelli shot. That was a much clearer handball considering the distance the shot was taken from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules don’t state that at all. It’s a consideration along with everything else. A handball can still be called if the hand is in an unnatural position, making the body bigger etc, which was clearly the case in this situation.
If the referee saw the deflection and decided it wasn’t handball because of that, then I doubt VAR would get involved. Otherwise they could have if they thought it was handball after weighing up all considerations, including the slight deflection.
posted on 1/10/25
comment by BO$$™ (U6401)
posted 4 hours, 59 minutes ago
For a little shove on the big CF, barely touch him.
Same as what VVD does to every player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is correct imo.
If that’s violent conduct then you may as well change the name of the offence to ‘any slight aggression’. Laughable.
And absolutely, VVD did something worse than that at least five times last season.
Page 2 of 3