Premier League 2016/2017: Page 60 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

Premier League 2016/2017

Clrnc

That is fantastic news for us. He is arguably their most important player this season.

banduan

I thought they said 4 weeks only?

goon

5 months sounds like BS to me, it's a hammy injury isn't it?

Art

The five month thing originated from a fake account posing as a well known City Watch twitter account.

Cannon

Jurgen Klopp on MNF

Very good IMO

banduan

Cannon wrote:
Jurgen Klopp on MNF

Very good IMO

Yeah just watched bits of it this morning. Very interesting. He's another one to just let things flow but he does identify things at a detailed level.

Qwiss

General wrote:
A bit premature. Swansea caused them all sorts of problems and the penalty was a joke. They remain the favourites but it's a long season ahead.

Don't think Swansea caused that much trouble Tbh and the penalty was a good call.

General

Not in a million years.

Tam

Agree with Qs, it was a good call. It's another one of those that looks like a bit of a gift for a penalty decision, but if you consider it to be anywhere else on the park it's a foul.

Tam

Qwiss! wrote:
General wrote:
A bit premature. Swansea caused them all sorts of problems and the penalty was a joke. They remain the favourites but it's a long season ahead.

Don't think Swansea caused that much trouble Tbh and the penalty was a good call.

I didn't see it but I caught a bit on MOTD and their analysis, and that showed enough of Swansea cutting through them easily enough but lacking quality up front to make it pay. I've no doubt bigger teams would find it tough, but Swansea certainly showed they aren't an impenetrable juggernaut.

Claudius

Penalty was an easy call. Can't be out here playing Money Mayweather on a football field.

Qwiss

Tam wrote:
Qwiss! wrote:
Don't think Swansea caused that much trouble Tbh and the penalty was a good call.

I didn't see it but I caught a bit on MOTD and their analysis, and that showed enough of Swansea cutting through them easily enough but lacking quality up front to make it pay. I've no doubt bigger teams would find it tough, but Swansea certainly showed they aren't an impenetrable juggernaut.

MOTD highlights are not an accurate reflection of a game. City were in control and never looked like dropping points to me. If Swansea had scored another City would have just scored more.

banduan

I thought the peno looked soft at first glance but the close-up shows the clear foul.

Tam

Qwiss! wrote:
Tam wrote:
I didn't see it but I caught a bit on MOTD and their analysis, and that showed enough of Swansea cutting through them easily enough but lacking quality up front to make it pay. I've no doubt bigger teams would find it tough, but Swansea certainly showed they aren't an impenetrable juggernaut.

MOTD highlights are not an accurate reflection of a game. City were in control and never looked like dropping points to me. If Swansea had scored another City would have just scored more.

I can't see anything in my post that contradicts what you wrote. I never said Swansea looked like taking points or that City couldn't have gone up a gear. Just that Swansea had the makings of a few chances, the makings of a few chances that teams with better front line players with better decision making and touch, could have made more of. MOTD highlights are sufficient to see that.

General

I'd be going insane if that penalty was given against us, especially when the game was evenly poised at 1-1. It's one of those fouls that would be given if it happened anywhere on the pitch but didn't have enough to warrant a penalty.

Clrnc

That was my opinion as well. I can understand if it's an elbow. It was just a slight push IMO and the City player reacted as if he was shot.

Tam

General wrote:
I'd be going insane if that penalty was given against us, especially when the game was evenly poised at 1-1. It's one of those fouls that would be given of it happened anywhere on the pitch but didn't have enough to warrant a penalty.

A foul is a foul regardless of where it occurs on the pitch. There isn't, quite rightly, a higher benchmark for fouling just because it happens to be in the penalty area.

General

Tam wrote:
General wrote:
I'd be going insane if that penalty was given against us, especially when the game was evenly poised at 1-1. It's one of those fouls that would be given of it happened anywhere on the pitch but didn't have enough to warrant a penalty.

A foul is a foul regardless of where it occurs on the pitch. There isn't, quite rightly, a higher benchmark for fouling just because it happens to be in the penalty area.

In video games maybe but reality is different. The rules allow referees to exercise professional judgement. Not every foul warrants a penalty the same way not every foul is a yellow card.

Tam

I wouldn't know, it's been years since I've played video games so your condescending reply is lost of me these days.

As for referees professional judgement, that's just plain wrong. A foul, by its very definition, requires action to be taken and will result in a free kick, or if it's in the box, a penalty. That's an undeniable fact. The referee can use his judgement to decide what is and isn't a foul and this subjectivity is what throws up some of the biggest inconsistencies and longest debates we have, but there is no place in the rules at all that says he can be more lenient on certain fouls just because they are in the penalty area. The rules make no distinction about what constitutes a penalty, a foul is a foul no matter where it takes place on the park.

Mirth

General wrote:
Tam wrote:
A foul is a foul regardless of where it occurs on the pitch. There isn't, quite rightly, a higher benchmark for fouling just because it happens to be in the penalty area.

In video games maybe but reality is different. The rules allow referees to exercise professional judgement. Not every foul warrants a penalty the same way not every foul is a yellow card.

There's nothing in the rules about a sliding scale for fouls.

« Previous Page Next Page »