GWT: PL Matchweek 10

[Artorius Horus T]

They should change it from " getting lucky in Kentucky " to " getting lucky in Liverpool " ... unreal
#"penalty"

 

[Vasilevskiy]

Also, to be clear, Aurier never had control of that ball and Mane had every right to go for it, and shield it. You literally see this all the time on the field, and you are never allowed to hack someone down doing it (and yes, Mane was very clearly going to play the ball).



Personally I think that the keeper should be a bit upset that he didn't even move on that peno...it was very saveable.

Lol this is just like the Leicester one, a stupid penalty but one nevertheless

 

[hatterson]

I don’t think PL refs should be the ones making the VAR calls.

Why not?

 

[Jussi]

Fred was what his baseline *should* be. He made some nice tackles, some decent passes, and no huge mistakes.

unfortunately he hasn’t been that.

The situation at the end when he outran the defender for the ball and went around Krul but the defender managed to interfere enough to prevent a shot. Would have been one epic redemption goal for him.

 

[Burner Account]

I actually would've liked a yellow from Fabinho yesterday. I think he's sitting on four with City coming in two weeks. I'll be very nervous if he starts against Villa.

Edit: forgot he could get booked in the league cup and be suspended against Villa, which sounds much better.

 

[hatterson]

The situation at the end when he outran the defender for the ball and went around Krul but the defender managed to interfere enough to prevent a shot. Would have been one epic redemption goal for him.

I was only vaguely paying attention after Martial's goal so I didn't see much aside from McTominay's mistake that led to the goal against.

 

[Savant]

Why not?

It’s a conflict of interest and they don’t want to make each other look bad. That’s one of the reasons VAR isn’t overturning things that it should.

 

[Savant]

I actually would've liked a yellow from Fabinho yesterday. I think he's sitting on four with City coming in two weeks. I'll be very nervous if he starts against Villa.

Edit: forgot he could get booked in the league cup and be suspended against Villa, which sounds much better.

Honestly, just give him the week off.

 

[hatterson]

It’s a conflict of interest and they don’t want to make each other look bad. That’s one of the reasons VAR isn’t overturning things that it should.

Until this week they weren't overturning anything anyway. And this week the overturns seem to have been a lot more controversial than any of the non-overturns in the past.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

Finally got to catch up on the Liverpool game yesterday. How were people complaining about the penalty given? I thought maybe it'd be somewhat controversial, but it seems like a pretty obvious foul there.

 

[Savant]

Until this week they weren't overturning anything anyway. And this week the overturns seem to have been a lot more controversial than any of the non-overturns in the past.

Yes. I feel this week was an over correction.

 

[Chimaera]

I think he sits against Villa, or at least doesn't start anyhow. Maybe with that in mind, you play him in the League Cup. But some of that depends on their recovery program. While it's clear Fabinho exerts himself, he is a bit more measured. He's not making 60 yard, gut busting runs.

As for the penalty, or no, I think it's once again hard to have much excuse when a player is kicking another player in the box. I was certainly upset in that Lamela incident, and I could understand some of Spurs fans frustration. But it's part of the game.

 

[Chimaera]

PS that Troopz meltdown was one of the all time greats.

Arsenal Fan TV is best when they're out of sorts. It's pretty dull when Arsenal are playing well.

 

[robertmac43]

PS that Troopz meltdown was one of the all time greats.

Arsenal Fan TV is best when they're out of sorts. It's pretty dull when Arsenal are playing well.

Robbie looked slightly scared/uncomfortable part way through there. I cannot remember the last time Troopz went off like that.

 

[YNWA14]

Finally got to catch up on the Liverpool game yesterday. How were people complaining about the penalty given? I thought maybe it'd be somewhat controversial, but it seems like a pretty obvious foul there.

It's just the anti-Liverpool sentiment that's been going on since last year. People get furious about anything that goes Liverpool's way at the moment; it is what it is. It's one of the more blatant penalties I've seen called for Liverpool in a while but it is Liverpool so...

 

[robertmac43]

How pissed are people going to be if Xhaka gets back into the team come the weekend?

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

It's just the anti-Liverpool sentiment that's been going on since last year. People get furious about anything that goes Liverpool's way at the moment; it is what it is. It's one of the more blatant penalties I've seen called for Liverpool in a while but it is Liverpool so...

Right. I understand it's kind of crappy luck, but that doesn't mean it's not a penalty.

 

[bluesfan94]

It's just the anti-Liverpool sentiment that's been going on since last year. People get furious about anything that goes Liverpool's way at the moment; it is what it is. It's one of the more blatant penalties I've seen called for Liverpool in a while but it is Liverpool so...

It just wasn't a penalty when Van Dijk did it to Lamela.

 

[YNWA14]

It just wasn't a penalty when Van Dijk did it to Lamela.

van Dijk did not do that to Lamela.

 

[Prntscrn]

It just wasn't a penalty when Van Dijk did it to Lamela.

How come you think one was a penalty but the other wasn't? Does it have anything to do with what you just quoted?

 

[bluesfan94]

van Dijk did not do that to Lamela.

True, he never even took a touch on the ball. He just swung away

 

[bluesfan94]

How come you think one was a penalty but the other wasn't? Does it have anything to do with what ypu jsut quoted?

Nope. I think it has a lot more to do with being a 50/50 ball versus a ball that was under possession. And as I've said about this one, I understand why it was given, I just don't think a player should be rewarded for interfering with the kick of a player in possession of the ball.

But yes, tell me more about how I, an Arsenal fan, hate Liverpool more than Tottenham. It's such a laughable assertion on its face, but some Liverpool fans here only know how to play the victim.

 

[Prntscrn]

Nope. I think it has a lot more to do with being a 50/50 ball versus a ball that was under possession. And as I've said about this one, I understand why it was given, I just don't think a player should be rewarded for interfering with the kick of a player in possession of the ball.

But yes, tell me more about how I, an Arsenal fan, hate Liverpool more than Tottenham. It's such a laughable assertion on its face, but some Liverpool fans here only know how to play the victim.

Okey. I get what you're saying, but I don't agree at all. Just because you're going for a kick, pass, shot or whatever doesn't mean you're off limits. Mane had every right to go for that ball which he managed to do

 

[bluesfan94]

Okey. I get what you're saying, but I don't agree at all. Just because you're going for a kick, pass, shot or whatever doesn't mean you're off limits. Mane had every right to go for that ball which he managed to do

In that case, if you step across someone while he's dribbling, and he runs into you, it should be a foul on the dribbler, right? A player shouldn't be able to make forcible contact with someone in possession as that player is making a move on the ball if that contact results in dispossession.

 

[Prntscrn]

In that case, if you step across someone while he's dribbling, and he runs into you, it should be a foul on the dribbler, right?

Why should we talk about a situation that wasn't? Mane got himself infront. It wasn't a 50/50 situation, Mane cleary was in possession when he got kicked down from behind.