• jfk9514@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If the goal was disallowed because of the foul. This doesn’t get spoke about 30 seconds after the incident.

    It’s far from controversial to say that that’s a foul… because it is one. Sometimes you have to look at how it may of been handled had it gone the other way. I don’t think Newcastle would of said a word had it been a foul.

    • wallnumber8675309@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think a lot of the outrage on this one was because it just feels more unfair when 3 50/50 calls all go against you.

      Also watching the match the initial anger was more around the ball going out. In a lot of people’s minds it wasn’t a goal long before they even saw the possible foul (it was quick and hard to see live).

      People are better at moving on to another argument as to why they are still right than admitting they might be wrong. I think that’s why you see so many people 100% confident this is a foul. It allows them to not have to change their mind.

      • jfk9514@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree with your reasoning as to why it’s unfolded how it has but I don’t agree that people think this a foul cause they’re holding on to something that may seem more substantial.

        It easy to think that considering there’s 3 more controversies that people will move until something sticks but the foul was the last part of that sequence which is why it may of took a bit of time to get to in peoples heads.

        Force of the push is subjective. We could speculate all day. But two hands on the back is objective. Which I was always taught that’s a foul.

        When a defender is in a tricky spot with the ball at his feet. They will fall to the ground with a tap. 99 times out of a 100 it’s a foul. And no cares cause that’s just how it is. Joelinton gave more than enough reason for that to be a foul and had the other 3 calls (out of bounds, handball, offside) hadnt of existed, this would still be as controversial.

      • PetalumaPegleg@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is absolutely right. It feels like three 50/50 decisions all needing to be heads is unlikely. But it’s not that because the goal was given three 50/50 decisions that aren’t clear is a goal. If it wasn’t given a goal you’d need three clear over rules (which wouldn’t happen). It’s an unconscious bias that if three close calls go one way it’s unfair or wrong. But unclear means goal due to the original call.

      • afarensiis@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The foul isn’t a 50/50 imo. It’s so obviously a foul that I honestly can’t understand anyone saying otherwise. The ball out of play and the offside are much more 50/50 calls

        • PetalumaPegleg@alien.topB
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You see you start with IN YOUR OPINION. You’re biased to start and then the fact that many professionals say different things should perhaps make you realize your opinion is not universally shared.

          When multiple neutral professionals say it’s a close call then just maybe your starting position of it’s a clear and obvious foul and there’s no debating it is perhaps maybe flawed?

          • afarensiis@alien.topB
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I know my opinion isn’t universally shared. That’s what I’m trying to figure out. Every time I watch the goal I try to see how it isn’t a foul and I can’t. He used Gabriel’s neck as a springboard

            • PetalumaPegleg@alien.topB
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You could, for example, listen to some of the people. Stop looking at stills and look at the video. I know some people are saying Gabriel ducks before the arms make much contact. So the argument is that he was already too low and then exaggerated the minor contact to go down knowing he couldn’t get it

              There are other explanations but that’s the one I’ve heard most. The stills arsenal fans insist on showing, don’t show that of course.

    • bullybullybanjo@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      As a Newcastle fan I would have had a grumble about it at the time and that would be it. Had that been the same goal in reverse against us and it was given I’d have done the same thing. Had a bit of a moan then moved on. Because it’s a 50/50 decision some you win and some you don’t.

    • NUFC9RW@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean had Arsenal scored that goal and had it disallowed Arteta would’ve had the exact same reaction.

    • acky1@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Or in other words, Newcastle fans are typically more realistic and less hysterical? That does track based on the lack of understanding and the conspiracies we’ve seen getting banded about in these threads.

      Forearms become elbows, spheres become cubes, refs, linesmen, VAR, ex-pros are bought and paid for… Lmao.