I know its funny to call it a bottle job. But the fact is that even when Arsenal were 8 pts ahead, booking companies still gave Arsenal just abit over 50/50 chance of winning it. When that lead dropped to 6 pts City were favorites to win the league. Bottling something indicates that someone loses something they should have won. Not winning something you aren’t expected to win isn’t bottling it. And the reason no one expected Arsenal to win it is because City always goes on these insane win streaks when it matters. It was always going to take a miracle to keep that lead over City

I agree that this pen is a terrible decision, but saying its one of the worst you’ve seen? Did you start watching football 2 days ago? Atleast the ball undeniably hits his arm, so there is at the very least some sort of rationale you can give for why its a pen. We have seen soo many other decisions, just this season alone, where there is just no rationale for the decision whatsoever. While this decision is bad, it is not even close to the worst we have seen this season

Nah, this doesn’t benefit Arsenal at all. Karma would be if Arsenal win the return fixture by a couple dubious calls. This decision just benefits PSG who isn’t any better than the rest of the state owned clubs

That is only relevant if the encroaching player has an impact on the play, which usually means that a defender clears the ball away or that an attacker scores a rebound. Simply having a toe inside the area doesn’t cause the penalty to be retaken if it is scored.

Newcastle makes it so easy to dislike them. Not only are they now owned by perhaps the worst regime on the planet, but their team is also filled with dirty cunts.

You mean the tackle that was actually carded and punished? We see borderline red tackles every game. Sometimes its a red, sometimes they aren’t, and sometimes they make a mistake. Havertz’ one wasn’t the only tackle that gameweek that could have been given a red but wasn’t. The point is that while I could understand a red being given, a yellow for it is not anywhere near as massive a blunder as not sending off a player for deliberately striking an opponent in the back of the head.

“Not used his arm as a weapon”… Jesus fucking christ. Does Chuck Norris have to parachute onto the pitch, sub in for Bruno, only to karate chop Jorginho in the throat for VAR to think its worthy of a red?

Where the fuck was this energy when Casemiro was sent off for slightly forcefully grabbing someones shirt collar? I don’t rememeber weaponized arms being part of the equation then.

I loved the introduction of VAR, but it just clearly shows us that these refs are just making up the rules as they go along, and no amount of tech is going to fix that

Yes. Adjusted for inflation, the amount Chelsea spent under Abromovich is insane even compared to City.

Intent isn’t, and has not been for a very long time, a requirement for a red. It can increase the seriousness of the challenge, but intent is in no way required for a red. The reason why is obvious: how do you prove intent? The most important factor for the refs is to consider wether the player is acting reckless and/or endangering his opponent. Rashford isn’t being reckless here, but planting your studs in your opponents ankle is dangerous regardless of wether he intended to do it or not.

I think its harsh, but claiming it is BS because he didn’t intend to do it just shows a complete misunderstanding of the rules.

Reckless, no. Dangerous, absolutely. I think the red is harsh, but planting your studs in your opponents ankle is dangerous regardless of wether you intended to do it or not

Offsides is the one thing that VAR consistently gets right, even this call. The problem isn’t VAR, but the offside rule as it stands. Now that we this tech, the offside rule should probably be changed. I’m honestly not sure how it should be, but these mm offsides do feel against the spirit of the original rule

Saka didn’t get a pen vs Sevilla after being ran over from behind either

Keepers can go down in the box at the slightest touch and get a foul called, but at the same time they can literally assault someone without getting the ball and get away with it?

I understand that GKs need a bit of extra protection and leeway. But the keeper should at the very least get the ball to grt away with these, because they are dangerous. The Onana one and this one could easily have resulted in concussions, and its insane that they are allowed