The Premier League's Independent Key Match Incidents Panel has ruled the referee and the VAR were correct to award Newcastle United's winning goal against Arsenal.
Someone didn’t read the article. The same panel said Bruno and Havertz should have been sent off but the goal was fine to be allowed - it’s literally in the first paragraph of the article.
This is the main problem with discourse surrounding referees - those who shout loudest usually haven’t taken in all of the facts before expressing their opinion.
They didn’t just disagree with the majority they disagreed with the rule book.
Violent Conduct
/…/ In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with their hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.
That combined with the “he’s already made an action towards the ball” which is nowhere to be found in the rule book, not based on any precedent, and complete nonsense. Shows that this panel is judging on vibes only and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Wow, quite the assumption. Especially considering I couldn’t have known the reasons why they came to their determinations without reading the article; but if it suits your argument. Lol, hey, critical thinking might not be your strong suit which I totally get.
A panel like this is selected by a person or a couple ppl and often they will discuss, argue, their positions. Whoever put this group together obviously had an agenda if they came to the determination unanimously that the push by Joelinton wasn’t a foul based on that weak ass excuse. Also, a panel with 2 members whom thought that Bruno’s attack on Jorginho wasn’t a Red has some internal issues. I guarantee I could form a panel of ex-coaches and players who would come to the opposite conclusion about the goal and even whether Havertz deserved a Red.
Someone didn’t read the article. The same panel said Bruno and Havertz should have been sent off but the goal was fine to be allowed - it’s literally in the first paragraph of the article.
This is the main problem with discourse surrounding referees - those who shout loudest usually haven’t taken in all of the facts before expressing their opinion.
They didn’t just disagree with the majority they disagreed with the rule book.
That combined with the “he’s already made an action towards the ball” which is nowhere to be found in the rule book, not based on any precedent, and complete nonsense. Shows that this panel is judging on vibes only and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Wow, quite the assumption. Especially considering I couldn’t have known the reasons why they came to their determinations without reading the article; but if it suits your argument. Lol, hey, critical thinking might not be your strong suit which I totally get.
A panel like this is selected by a person or a couple ppl and often they will discuss, argue, their positions. Whoever put this group together obviously had an agenda if they came to the determination unanimously that the push by Joelinton wasn’t a foul based on that weak ass excuse. Also, a panel with 2 members whom thought that Bruno’s attack on Jorginho wasn’t a Red has some internal issues. I guarantee I could form a panel of ex-coaches and players who would come to the opposite conclusion about the goal and even whether Havertz deserved a Red.