GWT: EPL - Matchweek 5

[Savant]

Fair point. I guess we’ll wait and see whether his red card suspension is lengthened.

I mean Virgil got a game for the red card , and a game for “(using) abusive and insulting words towards a match official”. If the point of this is to make sure that the refs are being respected, why do you need a red card to be suspended a game for “(using) abusive and insulting words towards a match official” ?

Does that mean you can curse the ref out until you get a red card for something else?

 

[Pink Mist]

I’m not whining about the suspension. I had no problem with the suspension. I am curious what the difference was here, and I don’t understand how this is “derailing” when it’s referencing something that happened this Matchweek. This is certainly on topic.

I am saying if suspensions are given out for cursing at the ref, it would be consistent if Pickford got a game. The suspension and fine was for “(using) abusive and insulting words towards a match official”. How is this different?

If anyone disagrees I would be happy to hear what they think the difference is

You clearly have a problem with the suspension because you talk about it any chance you can get

 

[Savant]

You clearly have a problem with the suspension because you talk about it any chance you can get

My problem is with inconsistency. I am bringing this up in the Matchweek 5 thread because this incident happened in Matchweek 5. Also this is a clear example of a player doing the same; arguably worse. Let’s see what happens next. Let’s see if the powers that be will be consistent

 

[bluesfan94]

I mean Virgil got a game for the red card , and a game for “(using) abusive and insulting words towards a match official”. If the point of this is to make sure that the refs are being respected, why do you need a red card to be suspended a game for “(using) abusive and insulting words towards a match official” ?

Does that mean you can curse the ref out until you get a red card for something else?

It’s pretty obvious the connection between the two and you’re the only one that can’t see it. I’m sure @Live in the Now has strong opinions about how good this troll attempt is.

 

[Savant]

It’s pretty obvious the connection between the two and you’re the only one that can’t see it. I’m sure @Live in the Now has strong opinions about how good this troll attempt is.

I don’t think this is clear and obvious. I think what this is telling me is :

- you can curse at the ref but you can’t curse one of their calls

- you can curse until you are red carded

Why would anyone interpret this any other way? This is literally what happened.

 

[hatterson]

I don’t think this is clear and obvious. I think what this is telling me is :

- you can curse at the ref but you can’t curse one of their calls

- you can curse until you are red carded

Why would anyone interpret this any other way? This is literally what happened.

What it should be telling you is that as long as you aren't repeatedly accosting an official for 20 seconds after VAR confirms your red and the ref tells you to leave the pitch, you have a good amount of latitude in cursing at the officials.

 

[Savant]

What it should be telling you is that as long as you aren't repeatedly accosting an official for 20 seconds after VAR confirms your red and the ref tells you to leave the pitch, you have a good amount of latitude in cursing at the officials.

“(using) abusive and insulting words towards a match official”

Those aren’t my words. That’s what the Suspension and fine was for. Does “Pr*ck not qualify as an abusive and insulting word?” Does tell the ref personally to F off not?

 

[hatterson]

“(using) abusive and insulting words towards a match official”

Those aren’t my words. That’s what the Suspension and fine was for. Does “Pr*ck not qualify as an abusive and insulting word?” Does tell the ref personally to F off not?

Notwithstanding the guidance that a player may remain on the field of play during a VAR review, the commission found that, following the completion of the review of the incident, VvD did not leave the pitch for approximately another 15 seconds.

This contributed to the prolonged nature of the incident. The commission further noted the impact of the actions used by VvD. Despite the clear frustration he felt at the time, it was inappropriate to display it in the manner he did; specifically his body language and hand gestures towards the referee.

This was further exacerbated upon leaving the field of play when he continued to protest to the fourth official on the touchline, and only ceasing when his manager intervened. Such actions are highly inappropriate and avoidable.

 

[Savant]

Okay so gesticulating > cursing out an official. Got it

 

[hatterson]

Okay so gesticulating > cursing out an official. Got it

That's definitely what you should pick up from that. A+ on the comprehension.

 

[Savant]

That's definitely what you should pick up from that. A+ on the comprehension.

Why would I pick up something else? It’s stressing that the body language is what made a difference

 

[LOGiK]

Everton is so horrible. I hope they get relegated.

Absolutely miserable to watch. Can't pass. Can't hold possession. Boring everything...
Arsenal didn't make the game much to enjoy either for the first 70 minutes.
Just a brutal match to watch.

 

[hatterson]

Why would I pick up something else? It’s stressing that the body language is what made a difference

Yep, definitely. Absolutely nothing else in the statement beyond body language.

 

[Savant]

Yep, definitely. Absolutely nothing else in the statement beyond body language.

There isn’t? It’s one incident. It’s not like one event happened afte t the other and it kept stacking up. And it’s kind of interesting for lack of a better word that the initial statement heavily leaned on the foul language, and they one you’ve produced makes it more about those fifteen seconds.

 

[hatterson]

There isn’t? It’s one incident. It’s not like one event happened afte t the other and it kept stacking up. And it’s kind of interesting for lack of a better word that the initial statement heavily leaned on the foul language, and they one you’ve produced makes it more about those fifteen seconds.

Yea for sure those lean really heavily on the language used and definitely don’t mention behavior or the fact that it was after being sent off. Again, excellent job parsing their statements.

 

[Savant]

One set of statements says abusive and insulting words. What you posted did not have any mention of verbal language. Only body language. So yeah I would say the priorities shifted a bit from one to the other

 

[bluesfan94]

Why would I pick up something else? It’s stressing that the body language is what made a difference

Let me pick out some phrases from that for you:
"did not leave the pitch" "prolonged nature" "continued to protest"

One set of statements says abusive and insulting words. What you posted did not have any mention of verbal language. Only body language. So yeah I would say the priorities shifted a bit from one to the other

The second statement is only what van Dijk admitted to, not what the commission decided based upon. It also says, and I want to quote here so you can't twist too much "Full written reasons for this case will be published in due course." Here to help.

 

[hatterson]

Also to note, the “statement I produced” was part of the full written report the commission published. It doesn’t mentioned language in the quoted part because that wasn’t relevant. I was quoting it in response to your claim that it was only language they suspended him for.

 

[Savant]

Let me pick out some phrases from that for you:
"did not leave the pitch" "prolonged nature" "continued to protest"


The second statement is only what van Dijk admitted to, not what the commission decided based upon. It also says, and I want to quote here so you can't twist too much "Full written reasons for this case will be published in due course." Here to help.

Okay so let’s go back to this.

If the issue is not leaving the pitch, wouldn’t that mean that someone would need to be red carded for this to matter? We are choosing to focus on that part of it, right? If he didn’t have to leave the pitch, then this wouldn’t have happened?

I think your second paragraph is completely fair. Not really sure what I’ve twisted though. I honestly hadn’t seen the second statement before today; but I guess some people have been paying closer attention than I have. If that’s the latest and greatest, that is more than fine by me. The initial statement made it seem that the primary issue was the the “F’n Joke” comment. The updated one makes it seem like the prolonged time in the field was the biggest issue. Again, I am a consistency guy; I still think this is clear as mud, and yeah to me it seems the goalposts might have moved a bit (not by anyone on here) but it is what it is.

Also to note, the “statement I produced” was part of the full written report the commission published. It doesn’t mentioned language in the quoted part because that wasn’t relevant. I was quoting it in response to your claim that it was only language they suspended him for.

And that’s fine, wasn’t trying to patronize, just hadn’t seen the statement you produced, didn’t mean to patronize there if that was how you interpreted.

As stated above my understanding was the language being the primary issue which is why I thought Pickford calling the ref a pr^ck would have been more similar. But if the major issue was the extra time on the field after being red carded then so be it; although I think it brings into question about what you can/can’t say before receiving a card. I don’t think a card should be relevant if the point is preventing abusive/insulting words; but if you can call a ref a prick to their face….well….we will see.

 

[bluesfan94]

If the issue is not leaving the pitch, wouldn’t that mean that someone would need to be red carded for this to matter? We are choosing to focus on that part of it, right? If he didn’t have to leave the pitch, then this wouldn’t have happened?

Probably not, although perhaps if he had berated the referee for a long time without a red card he would have gotten a suspension....likely because he would have gotten a red card for it.

 

[robertmac43]

Solid win for Arsenal. There is something I really don’t like about going to Goodison Park.

The one thing that annoys me is we seem to get worse everything we score a goal to take the lead.

 

[S E P H]

Chelsea/Bournemouth was actually quite fun to watch, each team played fairly open and its ending nil-nil is one of the more hilarious scorelines I've seen since each team had a ton of chances yet got no talent out there. Chelsea is so funny though, they spend a billion and their best player today was a player who came from the youth academy and one that Chelsea wants to get rid of every year lol.

Arsenal/Everton was a snoozefest, but considering we haven't won at Grandma's House since 2017, I would've taken any sort of three-point win. Arsenal clearly shut them down where the only chance Everton got was a wayward pass by Rice, which Everton wasn't close to hitting the net on. I do think the lack of breaking down these bad teams and not putting up 3+ goals is a bit concerning, but I've seen slow yet some improvements in the defensive side so far compared to last season.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

Never really commented on the Chelsea game yesterday. The players just look completely lost. Little to no cohesion out there. Showed no urgency in the final minute by just passing it around the back. Five points when you supposedly have the easiest schedule these first five games is just embarrassing.

I think the players have given up on Pochettino already. I can only theorize as to why. Something changed with him during the middle of his Spurs tenure and he hasn't been the same since. He's gotten a more controlling and moody demeanor, while he wants his teams to play much more risk-free football. I'd never expect him to make comments like this during the earlier years of his Spurs tenure:



They have an awful run of games soon. Don't see Poch surviving that.

 

[Corto]

They have an awful run of games soon. Don't see Poch surviving that.

I don't think Poch is some S tier manager, but that roster is utter garbo.
Somehow they took their CL-winning roster and instead of doing some tweaks, they gutted that team and brought in a billion worth of overrated youngsters. None of them (bar Nkunku) is worth the price they paid for, and most of them (IMO) are not current nor future elite level players.

They paid 45m for Disasi FFS.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

I don't think Poch is some S tier manager, but that roster is utter garbo.
Somehow they took their CL-winning roster and instead of doing some tweaks, they gutted that team and brought in a billion worth of overrated youngsters. None of them (bar Nkunku) is worth the price they paid for, and most of them (IMO) are not current nor future elite level players.

They paid 45m for Disasi FFS.

Recruitment has been bad too for sure but they shouldn't be this bad.