I have to admit that I’m fascinated by how much sports fans and politics fans are alike. I guess I shouldn’t be because they are both just sets of humans picking a team. But every time I encounter sports fans acting like politics fans (and vice versa) I get a little shock.
In Arsenal’s loss to Wolves the other day, an Arsenal player, David Luiz, made a dumb play. The Wolves forward (Willian Jose) was clean through and at the apex of taking a powerful shot which would have probably scored a goal. David Luiz was too close to Jose, a position he put himself in intentionally because he’s weirdly run across the back of that player, and in the backlift of the shot, David Luiz was kicked in the knee pretty hard.
That then caused a “tangle of legs” which then tripped the forward, who fell over. The referee awarded a penalty and applying the law showed David Luiz a red card.
In the old days this would have just been a red card, no argument. But they recently changed the law to provide an escape clause: if the player was legitimately trying to tackle, it would just be a yellow card instead. The reason soccer has this law is to prevent a guy from just being a jerk and tripping an opponent on the way to the goal and the exception is there because we do want to see people legitimately challenge for the ball. We don’t want to say “no you can’t play any defense” in that situation.
But tripping someone is cheating. Intent is not part of the law there. Tripping someone, especially a player clean through on goal and in a great goal-scoring position, is a foul and a penalty should be awarded and the defender should get a red card.
Apparently, that last bit needs to be repeated because over the last week a lot of fans are confused. Myself included. I was confused. My first instinct was to wonder how it’s a foul if the attacker kicks the defender! From one perspective, that’s what happened here: the Wolves forward kicked David Luiz.
But that is a weird perspective if you think about it for a second. The forward is just trying to take a shot – he’s not intentionally trying to kick David Luiz (who is behind him, BTW). He’s not falling over before any contact, and then reaching out with a leg to draw the contact. He’s just taking a shot. We want players to take a shot, right? And if someone was running behind the guy and accidentally tripped the guy taking the shot, well, sorry but that’s really unfair to the guy who was clean through on goal because he was just about to score a goal. Right? It’s unfair to Wolves if their player is tripped in the act of taking a shot. Right? This is a foul, no question. Unless you’re an Arsenal fan of a certain ilk. In which case, it’s never a foul.
From there, once you accept that it’s a foul the letter of the law is that it’s got to be a red card because David Luiz isn’t making a play for the ball. Not at all.
Now, we can and maybe we should debate whether the law should be changed but that’s not what’s happening. What’s happening online right now is that some Arsenal fans are claiming that this is evidence of a conspiracy (which has been raging against Arsenal since 2005 – the last time Arsenal won the League). Those folks are more on the fringe than in the majority but there’s even a sizeable portion of fans who will shy away from the “c” word and instead use the much more palatable “bias”. And I’ve seen them suggesting that the club “play hardball” and take a stance against the rampant anti-Arsenal bias in the Premier League. I’ve even been asked to personally start up a letter-writing campaign to demand that the League answer for their crimes. I’m not going to do that.
There have been tons of engagements on twitter and other places where Arsenal supporters are saying that the PGMOL (the governing body for referees) should be investigated. That we need to have non-League officials, preferably from other countries, running the Video Assistant Referee system.
This is all very reminiscent of the “drain the swamp” and “stop the steal” stuff that is happening in the USA right now and I’m sorry but I can’t go along with it. Of course it’s not exactly the same, most of the folks here who are upset at this match aren’t unhinged lunatics who are going to storm the US Capitol, but I’ll be damned if they don’t have some uncomfortable similarities.
David Luiz fouled Willian Jose (a foul he’s committed in the past), and it was a red card which was appealed and the appeal was denied. Joseph Biden won the Presidency, and it was adjudicated in court and confirmed by the US Senate. There was no grand conspiracy in this game, the referees didn’t steal this game. This game wasn’t evidence that there is rampant anti-Arsenal bias. No one stole the US election. Well, Trump tried to steal the election but thankfully we shut that down.
But afterward online, what I saw were images and videos claiming to show that the David Luiz red card was part of an anti-Arsenal conspiracy. The main one that made the rounds was a still from the Man U game against Southampton next to a still from the Arsenal match. In both matches, something similar happened: a defender ran behind an attacker, who fell over. Referee awarded a pen and red card in both instances. Though in the Man U match the referee, Mike Dean, went over to the video, looked at the action and then gave a red card.
This insistence that this was evidence of the anti-Arsenal conspiracy ramped up after the League upheld the red card for David Luiz and rescinded the red card for the Southampton defender, Jan Bednarek. After that, the following two photos were passed around with various people asking “what’s the difference here?” and getting 20k likes. The idea being “the League just showed their anti-Arsenal bias by giving Southampton a break and not Arsenal”.
This is loony tunes stuff here, folks. This is someone deliberately taking a photo out of context from a video, taking a still from the moment of least impact in the David Luiz still so that they can say “he went down because his studs grazed him” and then purporting to show Bednarek taking down Martial. But if you watch both videos and you’re honest, you see that Martial dived before the Bednarek contact and actually reached out as he was diving to kick Bednarek and draw the foul. And if you watch the Willian Jose/David Luiz video, you can see that David Luiz’ knee makes significant impact with Willian Jose’s foot. Way more than just “grazed the studs.” Why did the Premier League rescind Bednarek’s red card? Because Martial kicked him in the middle of a dive. Here are the stills which more accurately depict what happened in both incidents:
People are angry that the League just overturned the Bednarek red card but they should be happy – because the League got it right. But more importantly, the League just admitted that Anthony Martial cheated (dived) to win a penalty and that their flagship referee, Mike Dean, went over to the video console, watched this in slow motion, AND GAVE A RED CARD ANYWAY.
This is the scandal.You all are running around complaining about David Luiz’s red card when Mike Dean is getting away with what amounts to one of the worst calls of the season. Which he made after he looked at the slow motion replays. You want to demand something from the Football Association, from the PGMOL, or from whatever governing body? It should be that Mike Dean is put on gardening leave until after an investigation into his record as a referee.
Does that deny that there is any bias in the world? No.This actually proves bias! Are there referees who are more or less biased against Arsenal? Yes, absolutely. There is evidence that suggests that at least one referee had what we could call an incredibly unusual (statistically unlikely) record in Arsenal matches. It’s a record, by the way, which changed once Arsenal got rid of their long-standing coach, Arsene Wenger, the same coach who confronted that ref and called him a cheat. You know who that referee is? MIKE DEAN.
Us Gooners look pretty wacky when we are running around yelling “drain the PGMOL swamp!” after our player literally just tripped a man and prevented a goal and there is a ton of evidence proving it. The law wasn’t biased here. The referee wasn’t biased here. There is no conspiracy here, folks. Where there was a bias, where there is literally a massive scandal, where we should be demanding an investigation is in how on earth Mike Dean made that call in the Man U match. Did he not understand the law? Is he vision impaired? Does he think it’s ok for a player to dive and kick a player to draw a foul? Does he have an unusual record against certain teams and in favor of other teams? So many questions and we will probably get no answers because we are too busy being upset about a good call.
I feel you on this, and after being initially sore at Pawson, I was persauded by your last post that what Luiz did was intentional, and he wasnt hard done by. But you sometimes do the same things that you are decrying here.
One, invoking MAGA is a stretch because if the laws of football were as clear-cut as Biden’s win (regularly certified and court-affirmed contests run by Republican state office holders), we wouldn’t even be having the debate over Luiz. The people who disagree with you or have challenged you on this aren’t remotely close to be comparable — even with you careful qualification about Capitol storming and even tangentially — to hardened denialists, many of them QAnon.
You want folks’ nuance instead of absolutism, and I agree… but you often don’t give it. You wont even hear of that David Luiz starts games for Arsenal because he has positive attributes as a player. No, he is simply some 30-something, over-the-hill, washed-up mistake-bucket whose legs have gone, of the kind we keep buying from Chelsea. A lot of smart folks said that he was the best player on the pitch against Manchester United Why cant you see some grey? You’ve also got this weird tic about Cedric that I cant understand, where you can barely bring yourself to credit the player when he plays well.
Football debate would be well served by people willing to change their minds, when persuasive evidence is presented.
Love the blog, but Im just being honest.
100% and well said. I’d add that it’s hard to persuade someone to your side when you assert and then half-heartedly (refuse to) disassociate their opinion (about football!) with / from something as inflammatory, violent, and radically delusional as QAnon. Argumentum ad passiones. It’s not a good look, and probably the conclusion to be reached about this post is that Tim isn’t interested in convincing anyone, but rather in morally tarnishing those who feel differently than he does about the Wolves incident and about officiating in England generally. Either way, as a regular reader and commenter here–and as someone who can, with some distance from the event itself, see a kernel of truth in what Tim says–I’m really disappointed.
Morally tarnishing.
lol.
You don’t see it that way? Interesting. So you don’t think associating an opinion with QAnon has a moral inflection in this political climate? Don’t insult our intelligence.
I’m not actually insulting your intelligence. I’m expecting you to be able to see how things are structurally similar while also understanding that they are morally different. I guess I could have worded it differently in the post but that was what I was going for there.
It follows on many of my previous posts which I have equated politics and sport. Not an uncommon theme here. And one which you have participated in numerous times knowing full well that we both understood that just because politics and sport have similarities, politics is real life and “sport is the most important of all the unimportant things.”
Don’t insult your own intelligence (nor mine) by pretending that I wasn’t clear that the two aren’t the same and that you somehow don’t know who I am after reading this blog for 10 years.
Sorry, evidently a clear distinction was lost on me. Could have had something to do with the whole I’ll be damned if there aren’t similarities thing you mentioned!
What’s insulting to our intelligence is not that you were wanting us to see structural similarities, but that you claimed not to see the moral dimension to discrediting opinions using an obvious emotional and moral appeal (“morally tarnishing lol”). Come on.
Besides, having different opinions about reality is not structurally similar to making reality a product of opinion, and I’d argue that does mark a difference between what most sports fans do and what QAnon does. Regardless, bias can work both ways, including in favor of the ideas one’s ego holds dear. I.e., it’s hardly convincing to be told that the reason people are seeing injustice in this case (particularly one involving the unpopular David Luiz) is because they are blinded by their bias.
I’ll add that pro-Arsenal bias hardly explains the way I’ve been prone to speak downright dismissively about some of our players. I’m not proud of it. I’m just saying that it’s too simplistic to say that an opinion contra the decision against Luiz (a player whose reputation means I’m actually prone to read his red card as entirely his fault) is a matter of our “tribal” loyalties.
You read what you want into that. I have people all over my twitter timeline and in my personal mentions demanding that we take action against the Premier League for the consistent anti-Arsenal bias. The point I made, which I thought I was clear about, is that a lot of Arsenal fans took an incident where a referee made several correct calls and, much like the people who are (both left and right) denying reality to support their team, have warped it into some fake-truth to use a call for action.
I think sometimes you take your Twitter angst out on us. I mean, especially given you went over all this yesterday, this post really doth protest too much. Who of your readers here are calling for such action?
The failure to disconnect reality and interpretation is the cause of much consternation. I don’t think it’s indisputable that the Bednarek and Luiz incidents are dissimilar. You do, however. Not very grey.
I’m baffled that you think you present your ideas in a nuanced manner.
I’m baffled that you think you present your ideas in a nuanced manner.
Well, it comes from the comments on here where people sometimes say that my posts are balanced, nuanced, and fair. Maybe I shouldn’t listen to them but it does match with how I think of my core self. Of course, that’s not every post. Sometimes, I am like a hammer. It really depends on what mood I’m in.
While we are on the topic of insulting people’s individual style and critiquing their self-perception: I think that you’re doing the thing that you like to do where you insult people you disagree with. I think you believe you are being sneaky about it but we all know. Kind of like David Luiz running across the back of Willian Jose.
Red card, buddy!
You think I’m being sneaky? Err… Man, I don’t think I could be more clear in my critique of your rhetorical moves in this post! The dismissive certitude grates on occasion. I respectfully disagree with you on occasion, but I don’t fuss about being overly polite if you lead with something mean-spirited, as this post struck me.
You’re rarely respectful, especially when people disagree. In fact, you cloak your own dismissive certitude in a faux inclusion, nuance, intellectual gauze. Just look how you respond to people you disagree with and how they are afraid to reply. That’s the part that you think is sneaky, it’s not.
And yes, I can be certain or overly sure at times. Ha! So many of the writers on here are. So many are all over the Arsenal universe. But what am I supposed to do, pretend that I’m not? That was a foul by David Luiz, it was the right call, he should have been sent off and in my mind I’m right to be angry with a signing who has conceded 6 pens and been red carded 3 times in 18 months. I’m angry about what happened because yet again, another Arsenal player imploded and ruined what was an otherwise incredibly good display. I’m not sorry that that’s my opinion. I’m fucking aggravated at this guy and what he did. So much so that it’s hard for me to understand why you all keep bending over backwards for him. So, yeah, I’m certain.
Well, I think the difference is I don’t laughably claim to be nuanced or ‘grey’, as you do.
Also, what’s ‘faux inclusion’? Is that like claiming that you value nuance and grey but deliver none?
Intellectual gauze is good, though. Haha!
Speaking of fear, it’s like when someone posts on this site that they liked the performance of a player and then you come along and stats bully them to say their opinion is stupid. But yeah, folks are afraid of Bunburyist. My ribs!
I deliver no nuance? 13 years of daily blogging with thousands of comments and no nuance.
LOL
You are a fucking joke. All of that intellect wasted on this type of thing. I guess you just “taught me a lesson about absolutism!”
You have no respect for what I do and the work I put into it.
What a waste it’s been being your friend.
Take care.
A fucking complete stranger, claudevian and others reached out to me personally, wrote critiques of my post with substance, framed them in actual caring. And you, a guy I’ve known for years, come in here with this nonsense because you wanted to “win” the argument.
Fuck me.
Very odd comment.
I change my mind about things all the time, it’s actually one of the few things that I’m well known for: owning up when I make a mistake and changing my mind.
I actually changed my mind on this entire foul! Odd to say “you don’t change your mind” when that’s actually right there in the piec when I say that I understand why people feel the way that they do “because I felt the same way.” I also have changed my mind on the argument that there is a conspiracy (bias) against Arsenal because we are “southern softies”.
I was very circumspect to point out that MAGA and this are not the same but that they have some odd overlap, which I attribute to human nature. I knew that would rile people and chose the comparison and the caveat pretty carefully but alas, not careful enough.
I often challenge people on their position. This isn’t the same as lacking nuance or being unwilling to change my mind. Why can’t I see grey? Are you kidding me? My writing is full of seeing both sides of stuff. It’s one of the reasons why my blog is less popular: I change my mind, my position shifts, and I tend to see multiple sides of things. If anything people wish I was less grey, grey doesn’t sell, look at Arsenal fan tv and all the other spaces out there that make good money. look at the entire Republican Party. Controversy, lies, absolutism sells like a motherfucker.
Again, I’m perplexed. My entire argument over this supposed incident has been the grey. What I think you’re complaining about here is that I don’t see the black the way that you see it or the way that you expect from an Arsenal blog. I think a lot of folks wanted me to get all fire and brimstone – especially judging from the comments which were exactly that – and I didn’t. I’m not going to apologize for that nor change my mind. You show me where I should change my mind about this incident and I will consider it, I always do. That’s not the same as accepting the other side. But nothing so far has convinced me of anything other than the fact that I see a LOT of Arsenal tribalism coming out on this incident.
As for David Luiz, I saw what he did in that match against United, I disagree he was the man of the match but who cares? I know exactly what he brings to the back line (mostly a great range of passing). But what does him being man of the match in one game have to do with him costing Arsenal three points in the next? Can he be man of the match in one game and also be washed up, dead legs, and indisciplined? I think so! I think that’s what happened here: you saw a MoTM guy against Man U, turn in a performance which should see him dropped. Which one of us is lacking the nuance here? Which one of us is failing to see the other’s position? If other folks had some nuance, if they maybe saw the grey, they might actually decide that David Luiz was in the wrong here. Why should I just accept unconvincing arguments based on things that didn’t happen? How is that me not seeing the grey?
I do have players I prefer over others, surely you do too. The thing about this blog is that it’s my opinion. The David Luiz signing is a mess. I know why we did it, just like I understand the Willian signing and Cedric. But understanding why we signed these players doesn’t mean I have to like them. See.. that’s actual grey.
Odd to say “you don’t change your mind” when that’s actually right there in the piece
Actually I never said the bit that you out in quotes, Tim. In fact I tried to be fair, careful and not absolutist, as here…
“you sometimes do the same things.”
“even with your careful qualification about Capitol storming….”
“but you often don’t give it…”
I think we all — writers like you, pundits like Arseblog and other fans — get absolutist sometimes. Two months ago, I didnt think that Smith Rowe had along term future with us, and dismissed LaGunner’s praise. Emile’s play suggests that I got that wrong.
So it wouldn’t be fair to accuse you of being absolutist every time in all cases, and I don’t in fact do that. And to repeat… you changed my mind on the Luiz foul by making what I thought was a strong and persuasive argument that it was slyly intentional, and that the penalty and sanction were both unavoidable. It was a very good piece of football analysis.
Ok, I do sometimes do the same things and we all do get absolutist sometimes. Thanks for reminding me.
I don’t know if I “often” do anything other than be so wishy-washy that I’m often all over the map with my opinions and that’s often frustrating.
I guess I’ll go back and look at some of my comments and see where I was veering into absolutism.
You know your own mind better than you think you do. Whoever told you that you’re all over the map or wishy washy was trying to undermine you, and if it’s your own self telling you that, then tell your own self to eff off.
I think you really care about this blog, and care about how you are perceived. It gets you defensive sometimes. No need to worry, I have crossed swords with your absolutist self a few times on Soares, passive defending, Willian etc. and reasonable, both-sides Tim is always round the corner.
I’ve been meaning to say thanks for the blog again recently, so thanks for the blog, really.
Well said, Greg. Thanks for the blog, Tim.
I had a blog once. I gave it up after about 2 years of regular posting. I never lose sight of how hard this gig is. And I try not to take for granted, some of the best football analysis you will read. 7amkickoff has a heart. We are regularly reminded — and we need to be — that life is about more than football. This is one of kind, and it has created a one-of-a-kind community. Im a cricket loving Caribbean bloke. Me, Shard and Devlin are as diverse as anything.
Notwithstanding the divergent opinions here, I deeply appreciate what Tim brings. I have rhetorical punch-outs with my mates all the time. A round of Stella usually restores things 🙂
So if i walk down the street at someone stops in from of me its my fault. The rule and the creater of the rule is a ass. What next bookings for goal line clearances thats preventing a goal scoring opportunity or how about a goalie having the cheak to save a goalthis game and its rules are becoming a farce. How dare a defender get too close hoping for a chance to get the ball in the coming seconds. What next var doing a player for running too fast. Im a gunner but i dont want the same happening to any player . Im not an angry arsenal olayer i just thing this is al load of bollox.
In addition to my last comment its the same a saying to a wife her face was too close to his fist so it was her fault when he hit her. I just hope it doesnt stop defenders defending.
Jesus fucking christ.
We really comparing David Luiz tripping a player to domestic violence.
Have a great vacation.
Gotta look for those structural similarities, Tim!
[JK, JK.]
I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but the PGMOL’s lack of self policing is particularly galling. An association of paid professionals that isn’t capable of self appraisal and continues to protect mediocrity and ineptitude(not just against Arsenal) by refusing to criticize their performances or lack thereof is just a clique of buddies forming a group to safeguard their interests without repercussions and accountability.
The PGMOL should have a system in place to reward good consistent performances and demotions in case of consistently bad performances as is the case in almost all professionally paid jobs.
Instead we have a system where in a group of egoistical (relatively well paid) men refuse to accept criticism and continue to be pathetic in their job with impunity knowing fully well that they are part of an association that is hell bent on protecting them and nobody (the FA, EPL, PFA, media) questions this state of affairs.
That’s the SCANDAL.
Clattenburg had a column in the Daily Mail ( not that I trust either of them) with a different interpretation: because the leg entanglement was unintentional and occurred while he was trying to playing the ball, ie catch up to him, it wasn’t a red card.I don’t think it’s a strong argument, but it has some merit and just shows that even interpreting something seemingly straight forward as “playing the ball ” vs not, is open to interpretation by different refs. Of course Daily Mail + Clattenburg= hunting for clicks…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-9216211/The-officials-wrong-send-David-Luiz-foul-penalty-area-Willian-Jose.html
Lol…now Clattenburg was a lousy ref!
Maybe I can buy there’s a little difference between the Luiz card and the Bednarek one. Is one a little more divey? Maybe. But I don’t think it’s that clear. Certainly not enough to reference the Biden victory.
Beyond that, it is probably true that if you deem it to be a DOGO foul, then you do have to give the red, as he obviously didn’t try to play the ball. But I’m also not sure you could call it intentional. Seems pretty doubtful he planned on timing it just right to barely get clipped by the backswing. So it does fall into what would seem to be a grey area relative to the rule. The intent of the rule change was to remove double jeopardy, except when their was either obvious dangerous play, or an intentional hold or trip with no attempt at playing the ball. I don’t think the Luiz incident falls into those categories.
It comes back to terrible inconsistency relative to both initial calls, VAR reviews, and appeals. As another example, take the Son red card against Gomes. This was a clearly intentional foul, and resulted in a serious injury. And yet that got rescinded.
Thanks time. 💯 Agreed on this.
What makes it not a foul for me is, he’s not actually very close to him. He’s only just close enough so at the absolute furthest back his foot will be in the backswing, he’s tapped him with his stud. This takes him off balance (i think he then chooses to go to ground) but i think it’s hard to assign blame to either player. If he was more obviously close enough to get properly in the way of the backswing i’d say it was a foul. I don’t think you can start declaring it illegal to enter the zone around players with the ball to the extent that any swing they can make with their leg must not be impeded howeve slightly. I fear this could start a spate of attacking players flicking their leg back to touch a player nearby in the style of the ‘leaving the leg in and kicking the ball away’ pens we see all the time. That’s before we even get to the card. Even if you give it, a foul and a penalty is more than enough punishment, if the rules say otherwise they simply need changing; to me the ref has failed to understand the spirit of the rule. I’ve rarely seen pens given for strikers swinging their legs out wildly to hit a volley and kicking into a defender and i don’t see this as massively different to that. I make no claims about arsenal bias. There are plenty of bad calls for us to make gifs of simply because the reffing is poor, it’s no conspiracy.
Reminds me of basketball players — long range snipers like Steph Curry — who have mastered the art making contact with players defending them my kicking out their legs. They can get as many as 4 points in 1 act of shooting (a 3+1) when they do that
Excellent analogy, Claude. I think that’s exactly equivalent to Luiz’s brush behind. Call me cynical, but I think he knows what he’s doing.
Really great post Tim. The idea of a league wide and PGMOL conspiracy/bias against Arsenal seems ridiculous to me. What possible motive could there be for such a conspiracy where the entire league and ref fraternity are against 1 team. Arsenal is one of the bigger worldwide PL brands and it brings in TV viewers and world wide press coverage to the league and it brings in money for the league so the reality so a more like scenario is they want Arsenal to succeed.
The idea that Willian Jose took a dive during that play seems completely unrealistic to me. Obviously I am not a mind reader but I suspect when a striker is clean thru on goal 14 yards away and only the keeper to beat his mind is going to be 100% focused on scoring a goal and not on diving so someone else could take a penalty kick, he would have wanted to score himself. He could not know where Luiz was and he could not have known to lift his leg and initiate contact and he would have had no idea that contact was going to come so he would not have been waiting for contact to initiate a dive. If the contact was only a minimal brush he would not have had time to think about diving and he would have continued his motion to try and score the goal himself. IMO.
The bottom line for me is the contact occurred while in the back lift for the shot which is a normal football movement and I think its pretty clear he was tripped by Luiz denying a clear goal scoring opportunity. I am not sure how anyone could possibly suggest that it wasn’t a penalty.
I feel the issue with the David Luis send off plus a penalty plus a ban is that the law is wrong and in this instance the punishment does not fit the crime. It is unfair and does damage to the game. [spoiler title=”Injustice”] [/spoiler]
Oh my, that Luiz red card has polarised opinion.
I’m in the camp that Luiz could have avoided the situation.
I’m also firmly in the camp that Mike Dean isn’t honest. Dude had a look at the reply and couldn’t stop who initiated the contact? Then, he can’t be refereeing matches anymore, even as VAR referee isn’t it!
BTW, I thought Laca was partly to be blamed for straying a perfectly good goal for Saka. We would have been 0-2 up and Luiz, really should have (since he has had apparently similar incidents before) not put himself in that situation. We might have well won that by a good margin, despite not a clean-sheet.
It’s in the past… time to focus on tomorrow.
WHU did a good job nullifying Grealish and took the 3 points. Will be interesting to see whether we focus on stopping them or imposing our own game? The betting money is on a home win. Villa have won the last two meets.
A draw really isn’t much good to us. We’re still without Tierney but Auba should be back. I’m going to be optimistic that we’re fired up but sensible – 2:1 Arsenal win.
I agree with your assessment on Luiz’s red card. The look on Luiz’s face immediately after the incident suggested that he knew he was in trouble. It was a case of letting the team down. He had a good previous game but it was too soon to ask him to play in another game. I don’t mind letting Leno off the hook for his mistake as the team was under significant pressure to score a goal at that stage of the game.
Peacefrog is the best handle on this forum!
Thanks – a handle I started using at a time I was blown away by the song from The Doors – more than 10 years ago.
You’re one dumb cunt aren’t ya? Imagine word vomiting this article and actually thinking you’ve articulated something here🤣
Craig. Craig. He’s sticking up for you. You realize that, don’t you?
The Mike Dean call IS the scandal. If he was shown the angle where Martial started to go down before the contact. I think though that they only showed him the other angle, to check some other possible infringement, in which case whoever was running VAR is the scandal.
Wow, that got heated! Hope too many feathers weren’t ruffled in here today. I’m finding covid fatigue very rough today myself for some reason. Just so over it.
Anywat, I agree with those that believe the rule is wrong. The right outcome, imo is Wolves are awarded a penalty and Luiz gets a yellow. That seems like a fair outcome in the context of the game.
As a fan, I hate seeing players – even opponents – sent off unless they are being reckless or dangerous or completely unsportsmanlike.
Red cards usually ruin a game. The punishment has to fit the crime. It didn’t for Arsenal. Tomorrow we will take out our frustration on Villa.
I’m one of those who compared everything and called for an investigation into PGMOL. I don’t give a shit what happens in America, and I don’t see what Arsenal FC has to do with another country’s election.
I do, however, keep a record of the officials involved in Arsenal games, and the frequency with which officials come around. I do this partly because of what happened in Italy in the early 2000’s. The “caliopoli” was the result of investigations because clubs were getting the same referees over and over.
Arsenal have played 22 EPL matches so far (up to and including the Wolves game), and 11 of those have had just 3 different officials as the main referee. Why is that? Why are we not allowed to question that? Why do even Arsenal bloggers not want to question it? Why instead do they question our sanity? Why do they compare us to some mob who get involved in domestic terrorism in another country?
WTF?
The timing and angle of the photos you have used here are interesting. In the slowed down video, Jose begins to fall AFTER he has lost control of the ball, and he then clips Luiz and initiates the foul.
There is one piece of this whole situation that you don’t mention and that is the FACT that Ralph Hessentuttl spoke with Mike Dean about the Luiz sending off PRIOR to the Man U/Saints game kicked off. He apparently asked Dean to clarify the rule.
What was the transcript of that conversation because however much some people hate Mike Dean, he has officiated in just ONE Arsenal league game all season (in any capacity). I do agree that the judgement handed down (rescinding Bednarek’s Red), should result in a ban of some sort for the referee. A team lost 9-0, and a red card was rescinded. Surely that deserves some sort of independent investigation?
One final point. When Mikel Arteta said the club were going to appeal, it was based on a strong belief by Arsenal’s legal team, that the red would be rescinded.
So for all your arguments about “contact”, let’s have a similar report from you relating to the “non penalty” for Saka!
I’m not an Arsenal fan, infact I hate Arsenal particularly Arteta and whoever is involved in freezing out Mesut Ozil from the club’s squad last season But the thing is u just said “intent is not part of the law there” so why remove intent in David Luiz situation and add it in William Jose’s I mean u were clearly implying dat intent doesn’t matter here but why do u emphasize on it in William Jose’s case. And u even had to u the word “Jerk” obviously to the defender involved when describing the incident and I can’t help but think that’s inappropriate. There are many other words to choose from, so the way I see ur article it’s just a well constructed piece against Arsenal.
More a well constructed piece against David Luiz.
Fengunner
Its games like this most recent one that the conspiracy theorists use to promote their agenda and it gives insight to how these theories continue to circulate. There is a significant segment of the fan base who truly believe the conspiracy/bias theories and their main objective is to confirm their preexisting bias. Tim made a very rational and persuasive case that the pen/red card was exactly the right call under the current rules of the game and yet somehow fans convince themselves that call indicate bias. That makes absolutely no sense. Tim also pointed out in the comment section of the previous post how some fans will latch on to any call that seems to go against Arsenal but completely ignore the other calls that went in our favor. I have been following Arsenal blogs for 15 years and before VAR there were occasional wrong off sides calls that went against us and whenever it happened conspiracy theorists would bring up a catalogue of wrong offsides calls that went against us but ignore the fact that someone had done actual research and over time there were a similar number of wrong off sides calls that went in our favor. If you try hard enough and ignore the evidence against your theory you can find the pattern you are looking for in any random distribution.
Snap reaction:
Late 2nd half (I didn’t see the 1st), chasing the game… Pepe playing wide right NEVER NEVER NEVER runs at the full back, outside. Slows the game down, comes inside all the time, very predictable. Given a chance in injury time to run at Mings, he’s so inside-minded, that he passes the ball straight to the defender. Mings MOTM, but from what I saw of the game, Pepe never really troubled him. Bellerin? On attack, seemed to spend most of his time in midfield.
I don’t like second guessing coaches, but it seemed to me that Arteta got his switches and adjustments wrong. He should never play Pepe wide right, whatever the limitations of Willian there. The Ivorian is a bright and threatening presence on the left; a useless, out-of-ideas, dunce presence on the right. It’s like he’s footballistically biploar.
We were toothless and very easy to defend. The commentators were praising Villa defending, but in truth, from the portion of the game I saw, our attacking was a muddle. Auba just doesn’t look right, does he?
I missed the goal, and have to watch the match again. But I gather Cedric messed up? You big up a guy and claim that he doesn’t get enough credit, then he goes and makes you look silly. If I could have words with him, I would.
Oh, Odegaard. It was he who released Pepe with a really good pass. Also made good space for a shot, but skied it badly. Encouraging early impressions.
Also, why Willian and not Ceballos for Thomas, Mikel?
I thought we would come out like a team with a point to prove. Sadly not. Felt like a game we could have played for 24 hours and still not scored. Saw a stat at half time that Arsenal hadn’t won their past 12 when trailing at half time (D3, L9). Make that 13 now.
Ryan had a good game and was a candidate for man of the match. That’s an indictment of our attacking prowess. Laca was subbed having had zero shots. Sure it’s not all on him but boy he can be a passenger some games.
Arteta brought Willian on but not Martinelli or Ceballos. Leaves more questions than answers.
So where does this leave us? We’re firmly mid table. I said several weeks ago I saw 10th as our ceiling. In the last 12 months we’ve regressed. We had a good run recently against some poor sides but Villa lost their last match and had one less day to recover/prepare.
We’re still in the EL but so are three English clubs I wouldn’t fancy our chances against. Feels like we’re close to writing off the season in the league. That’s a very sorry state of affairs.
Yeah, Lacazette struggles when teams force Arsenal to play wide in the final third. Nothing for him to do, really.
Auba came on and was making his runs again but once again his teammates passed up chances to hit him (or even try) with a long diagonal pass.
Pepe on the right to accommodate Willian on the left. Just poor from Arteta.
Well, on one hand, even Liverpool have struggled this year against team defending in a deep block. So it’s not like the issue is unique to Arsenal.
But Arteta doesn’t help himself. Willian needs to be done. He actively makes the team worse, slowing things down when we need them sped up. And its pretty hard to give Arteta the benefit of the doubt on anything when he keeps making this mistake.
And Auba is a concern. He was just starting to get form back when he went out again with the family issue. Hopefully he can turn it around again.
Finally the situation with Tierney and Partey. Both look very solid players. But that doesn’t matter if they aren’t on the field due to injuries. Shades of Ramsey.
Very