West Brom vs Arsenal, 16:00, SS1

AdamD

as I suspected he takes Wilshere before the ball, pen.

efb

AdamD wrote: »

as I suspected he takes Wilshere before the ball, pen.

All day long

.jacksparrow.

AdamD wrote: »

as I suspected he takes Wilshere before the ball, pen.

So that's 2 penalties we should have had.

Marty McFly

If Arsenal had conceded a peno to that I would have felt very hard done by, excellent tackle imo.

.jacksparrow.

Marty McFly wrote: »

If Arsenal had conceded a peno to that I would have felt very hard done by, excellent tackle imo.

Their asking questions on sky now whether it should have been a penalty.

You can't take the man first, simple as.

cson

Marty McFly wrote: »

If Arsenal had conceded a peno to that I would have felt very hard done by, excellent tackle imo.

Going through the player to get the ball? That's a foul anywhere else on the field.

efb

Marty McFly wrote: »

If Arsenal had conceded a peno to that I would have felt very hard done by, excellent tackle imo.

Conceded? Been awarded?

Marty McFly

cson wrote: »

Going through the player to get the ball? That's a foul anywhere else on the field.

I wouldn't call that going through the player not everyone will agree with me but I would never give a peno for that.

efb wrote: »

Conceded? Been awarded?

I was talking hypothetical if it had been on the other end and we had conceded a peno for a tackle like that I would feel hard done by. I side fully with Carragher on this one never a peno.

wandatowell

Thought WBA were very strong today. It was a good point for Arsenal.

Top of the league again.

efb

Marty McFly wrote: »

I wouldn't call that going through the player not everyone will agree with me but I would never give a peno for that.



I was talking hypothetical if it had been on the other end and we had conceded a peno for a tackle like that I would feel hard done by. I side fully with Carragher on this one never a peno.

Carragher would say that. You can't get man first.

Marty McFly

efb wrote: »

Carragher would say that. You can't get man first.

Maybe I'm just showing my bias aswell as back in the day when I did play football I played CB :cool:.

the untitled user

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

You can't take the man first, simple as.

You cant go through the man at all, it's considered reckless play and a straight yellow. Whether you win the ball is irrelevant in this instance.

Appalling double standards from the ref today. Wilshere got a Yellow despite touching the ball before he made contact with Yacob earlier. But then that's the usual way of it these days... if the plucky underdogs do it it's considered a 'decent honest' tackle or some such bull****. If the favorites do it it's cynical foul play.

It made no sense today that Arsenal should have conceded nearly double the fouls that WBA did. WBA were late and deliberately obstructing the man on the ball so much more often this afternoon.

Small passage of play on 80mins sums it up for me. Wilshere stuck in the right hand corner, dodges the first man, who as Wilshere goes by attempts to push him off the ball. Clear as day, two hands planted on Wilshere's chest, nothing given. 2 seconds later, Mulumbu does the exact same thing and nothing is given. It's a ****ing joke that such cynical play goes unpenalised. But then numpties like Redknapp and Carragher call it hard working... :rolleyes:

Mr.Micro

We will take the point after being behind.

bad2dabone

Nice to be top of the league heading into the international break.

efb

Nice three piece suit Mr Wenger

Lennonist

Just watchin this on MOTD. Looked like a stonewall pen not given for West Brom with that foul on Long.

tayto lover

Lennonist wrote: »

Just watchin this on MOTD. Looked like a stonewall pen not given for West Brom with that foul on Long.

Yes. The MOTD people never show the Arsenal penalty claims.

.jacksparrow.

Lennonist wrote: »

Just watchin this on MOTD. Looked like a stonewall pen not given for West Brom with that foul on Long.

I take it they didn't show the 2 fouls on wilshire that should have been penalties?

Surprise surprise.

tayto lover

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

I take it they didn't show the 2 fouls on wilshire that should have been penalties?

Surprise surprise.

Its the Liverpool influence on that programme I think.
#They can't get '89 out of their system and still hold the grudge.

Lennonist

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

I take it they didn't show the 2 fouls on wilshire that should have been penalties?

Surprise surprise.

have MOTD got some agenda against Arsenal? That's a new one on me.

bad2dabone

Lennonist wrote: »

Just watchin this on MOTD. Looked like a stonewall pen not given for West Brom with that foul on Long.

Rubbish, and why was long holding his face? Pathetic from him.

tayto lover

Lennonist wrote: »

have MOTD got some agenda against Arsenal? That's a new one on me.

I believe so. Why not discuss the other penalty claims if not?

.jacksparrow.

Alan hansen just can't help himself.

Lennonist

tayto lover wrote: »

I believe so. Why not discuss the other penalty claims if not?

Maybe you're right, never noticed it before. Didn't see the full game, just saw the highlights now.

Lennonist

bad2dabone wrote: »

Rubbish, and why was long holding his face? Pathetic from him.

Maybe Arsenal had pen claims as well, I don't know didn't see the full game, just watchin highlights.

That foul on Long was a stonewall penalty, don't be ridiculous.

KingdomYid

Lennonist wrote: »

Maybe Arsenal had pen claims as well, I don't know didn't see the full game, just watchin highlights.

That foul on Long was a stonewall penalty, don't be ridiculous.

Likewise have not seen other incidents but that was pen definately.

bad2dabone

Lennonist wrote: »

Maybe Arsenal had pen claims as well, I don't know didn't see the full game, just watchin highlights.

That foul on Long was a stonewall penalty, don't be ridiculous.

He made a meal of a challenge, then held his face like he'd been hit there. Cowardly.

Lennonist

bad2dabone wrote: »

He made a meal of a challenge, then held his face like he'd been hit there. Cowardly.

It was a penalty, but inexplicably it wasn't given. Maybe the ref was evenen things up if he didn't give Arsenal a penalty earlier by not giving that stonewaller. Don't know didn't see the other claims. The foul on Long was a penalty, no question about it.

.jacksparrow.

Lennonist wrote: »

It was a penalty, but inexplicably it wasn't given. Maybe the ref was evenen things up if he didn't give Arsenal a penalty earlier by not giving that stonewaller. Don't know didn't see the other claims. The foul on Long was a penalty, no question about it.

How can it be a penalty? Long is not winning that header. He's not getting on the end of that ball. Koscielny jumps to challenge for the header, but seeing it's going miles over, just leaves it.

Long runs into Koscielny, who's the only one of the two looking to play the ball if necessary.

Long wasn't ever, EVER getting on the end of that ball. To claim it's a penalty is like a player running into another player off the ball and claiming a free kick.

Unless Long was actually in a position to get on the end of that ball then it surely cannot be considered a foul.

Quoted.

Lennonist

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

How can it be a penalty? Long is not winning that header. He's not getting on the end of that ball. Koscielny jumps to challenge for the header, but seeing it's going miles over, just leaves it.

Long runs into Koscielny, who's the only one of the two looking to play the ball if necessary.

Long wasn't ever, EVER getting on the end of that ball. To claim it's a penalty is like a player running into another player off the ball and claiming a free kick.

Unless Long was actually in a position to get on the end of that ball then it surely cannot be considered a foul.

Quoted.

Oh dear, deary deary me, my word.

Lennonist

I'm off to watch River Plate v Boca Juniors, had me fill of the EPL for now.

Turtwig

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

How can it be a penalty? Long is not winning that header. He's not getting on the end of that ball. Koscielny jumps to challenge for the header, but seeing it's going miles over, just leaves it.

Long runs into Koscielny, who's the only one of the two looking to play the ball if necessary.

Long wasn't ever, EVER getting on the end of that ball. To claim it's a penalty is like a player running into another player off the ball and claiming a free kick.

Unless Long was actually in a position to get on the end of that ball then it surely cannot be considered a foul.

Quoted.

To the letter of the law it probably should have been a penalty. But common sense needs to be applied too. Long, as you say, had no hope of receiving that ball and Kols didn't perform any serious contact on him. In fact, at best it would have been a nudge lighter than those seen during set pieces.

A foul off the ball is still a foul though but if that's the case defenders who shield a ball when its' rolling over the end line should be penalised for obstruction. The balls not in their possession and they're blocking other players from getting to it. Generally speaking common sense gets apply to all laws even the ones of our own country. 1km/hr over the speed limit is hardly ever going to be penalised by a Guard.

batistuta9

It was fücking stupid from koscielny.