Don’t think it was 100% a goal scoring opportunity though so the right call imo.
========
Evanilson wasn't 100% goal scoring opportunity either. Not sure why you would back him and not Jota, both 40-45 yards out running at goal. If anything Jota would have been to the ball quicker so has more control over the situation. Evanilson is in a race with White both angling into the centre of the pitch, whereas Jota is in front of Colwill, so Colwill would have to get round or through Jota to make a clean tackle.

I would back White to get back in the Evanilson situation, but of course refs shouldn't judge on potential speed of a defender or attacker - but that also applies to Colwill. Without the foul Jota would have had a 10 yard start on Colwill.

There was one obvious difference.

comment by Tu Meke (U3732)
posted 11 hours, 23 minutes ago
comment by Neo (U9135)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
If not fouled, Jota has a clear and direct run at goal. Colwill is behind and we cannot take into account things like pace of the players. Contrary to what the refs voice-piece Dean said, the ball was not heading wide, it was directly in front of Jota. There were mitigating factors that mean a yellow is justifiable as would a red - same with Saliba.

But, for me, the big issue with the Saliba red was the ref gave a yellow and the stance of the PGMOL is that refs call is "critical", and VAR should not intervene as the bar is set high for interventions. They did not apply that yesterday. Webb has preached numerous times this season that VAR won't re-ref games but that went out the window for an objective call.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah, there were no mitigating factors on the Saliba one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Distance towards goal is a mitigating factor. It's actually in the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It´s Neo guys. He has no clue....

https://x.com/FootieCenter/status/1848072354309525735

Enough said.

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 12 hours, 30 minutes ago
Identical apart from the fact there were several Chelsea defenders between Jota and the goal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

For me both offences are just yellow cards. Both tackles were only just in the defending teams half of the pitch and both had other defenders in the same half as the tackles. Both forwards still had almost half the length of the pitch to run and would have had other defenders chasing them , so how on earth could the ref be certain it was a goal scoring opportunity

The last man rule was binned ages ago, it’s now ‘Denying a goal scoring opportunity’ and neither incident falls into that category

Lovely you've created a thread where the 2 whiniest sets of fans can come together and share their conspiracy theories about the refs/FA.

#whingetherapy

Thought they were quite different situations but mainly there was a covering defender close to Jota and the direction of the ball was going wide rather than towards goal.

Thought both decisions were correct, although don’t agree with the Arsenal sending off being clear and obvious, so bad luck on that one. Thought they got the overturning of the penalty on Jones right too though.

VAR had a good weekend in general actually.

comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 24 minutes ago
Thought they were quite different situations but mainly there was a covering defender close to Jota and the direction of the ball was going wide rather than towards goal.

Thought both decisions were correct, although don’t agree with the Arsenal sending off being clear and obvious, so bad luck on that one. Thought they got the overturning of the penalty on Jones right too though.

VAR had a good weekend in general actually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty much agree with this.

Don't know where the myth the ball was going wide comes from, it was a straight long ball that, without the foul, would have put Jota straight through on goal.
Also, the "covering defender" was behind Jota, so not only would he have to make up the distance (which would have been even greater without the foul) he would also have to get through or round Jota.

Yeah, well I thought he was closer to Jota than White was to Evanilson (mainly because he was) and that the direction of the ball was different too (because it was) so not really sure how they’re up for debate tbh.

Not seen any pundits or heard any podcast disagree with this. In fact the ONLY disagreement that I’ve seen has been from Arsenal fans, many of whom seem to think there is a genuine conspiracy, so I feel this is all pretty much cleared up really.

White doesn't have to be close to Evanilson, Evanilson did not have the ball. White just has to be in a position where he can affect the chances of a goal, which he was. The ball was a diagonal pass from touchline into the middle of the pitch towards Whites channel.


Not sure what you mean by direction of the ball was different. The direction of the ball in the Jota one was directly into his path running towards goal. It was not going out towards the sideline for a throw.

It was Ben White not Johnson. White IMO was never getting close, hence the red card.
The only issue I have is the ref should have seen that first off, though do they play it safe knowing VAR is there to intervene if needed?

Not really what to say then DJ, everything I’ve written is absolutely 100% true. White was what, 20m away? By the time Jota had hit the floor, Colwill was level. Not even remotely comparable, which is why not a single person outside of Arsenal thinks they are similar.

Really not sure what you’re seeing tbh, they are quite clearly very different situations.

comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 2 minutes ago
It was Ben White not Johnson. White IMO was never getting close, hence the red card.
The only issue I have is the ref should have seen that first off, though do they play it safe knowing VAR is there to intervene if needed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah it’s not a clear and obvious error, so imo Arsenal have a genuine grievance there.

Arne Slot the Arsenal fan

You saw a straight ball going wide, so not sure your testament is worth anything tbh.

i always think there should be a certain distance away from goal where you only give a yellow there

loads more can happen to deny a 'clear goal scoring opportunity' from that far out, including the actions of the forward

especially for slightly clumsy grappling

hardly shirt pulling, rugby tackle or blatant trip/cynical foul

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 18 minutes ago


You saw a straight ball going wide, so not sure your testament is worth anything tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Just rewatched it on MOTD2 and you can see by the line in the cut if the grass that the ball is going slightly away from goal. Not even remotely comparable imo, and tbh a bit weird to say it is.

comment by Phenom (U20037)
posted 19 minutes ago
i always think there should be a certain distance away from goal where you only give a yellow there

loads more can happen to deny a 'clear goal scoring opportunity' from that far out, including the actions of the forward
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Agree with this though. The thresholds for red cards and penalties needs to be higher imo.

There was no covering defender for Jota ffs. There was one playing catch-up to him though.

Slightly? Jota is running directly onto the ball, wouldn't be heading wide.


Arne Slot "And then there was, of course, the decision of the red card, which I saw yesterday [William Saliba vs AFC Bournemouth], was a red card in a similar situation."

Weird bloke that Slot

Yeah, he’s saying Saliba’s was a red card too.