West Bromwich Albion 1 - 1 Arsenal: Below-par Arsenal come away with decent point

El Gunner wrote:I honestly don't think those two tackles on Wilshere were penalties... Two good decisions by the ref. Though he still was awful.

The second challenge on Jack in the box was a penalty, he takes Jack’s leg first and then the ball. The ref was shit and most calls went against us.

Lee Mason is a bias jackass. If any of our players made a challenge like that for sure it would have been a penalty. Some of the penalties have given away are softer than that challenge.

Agreed. Wrong decision. Through the player.

Ref had a bad game although it didn't come across as biased to me.

Peccadillo wrote:Agreed. Wrong decision. Through the player.

Ref had a bad game although it didn't come across as biased to me.

Maybe not that much this game but Lee has a history with Arsenal.

Well Koscielny made two similar tackles against Aston Villa and Sunderland, both penalties. All we want is more consistency from the refs. If Mulumbu's tackle against Wilshere is clean then so were Koscielny's because Koscielny got the ball first on both occasions unlike Mulumbu.

Not to mention that koscielnys ones weren't reckless. There are two aspects to this

1 - what the actual rules are, which you have to read through to educate yourself on.
2 - feelings, ie what you "think" should be a foul

According to 1, that was a foul, not even a debate. And that's what i'm interested in, whether the ref gets it right, in accordance to the rulebook he is meant to follow. All the garbage about what people feel should/shouldn't be free kicks always prevents proper scrutiny of how well a referee has DONE HIS JOB. That's the important issue.

What I feel about the second foul is slightly mixed. But it was reckless and was particularly dangerous for the player being tackled, of that there is no doubt. Wilshere is fortunate there was no damage done

El Gunner wrote:I can understand that softer challenges have been given as penalties. I also understand the argument of coming from behind, through the player to win the ball. Personally, I don't think that that should be warrant of a foul (I know they have been given before, I know) I'm just saying if it was a player of us making that challenge on an opposing player I would've been damn proud cuz it's a beautiful tackle IMO.

A beautiful tackle involves getting the ball first. Ball first is a bog standard rule and if you take a players legs/feet out prior to touching the ball it is not a beautiful tackle, it is a bad tackle (whether due to bad timing, recklessness, carelessness or malice) and therefore a foul.

The fact you get to the ball after already taking a player out is irrelevant as you have already committed a foul.

This is my opinion.

Edit:

For any avoidance of doubt see below the applicable rule;

Law 12: Fouls and Misconduct
Fouls - Direct Free Kick
Group of four:
- Tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball

For fouls in both the group of six and the group of four:
- Exception applies if the offence was committed by a defender inside his own penalty area
- In which case a penalty kick is awarded to the attacking team

Source: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf

Here's the foul tackle:





Should be a pen imo.

EDIT: The frame rate is a bit choppy but he does get Wilshere first and from behind.

I watched a Wilshere vid against WBA and in all honesty, looking at all the fouls the ref failed to award for all those tackles on Wilshere, it shouldn't be surprising to see this wasn't given either.



It's this vid if anyone is interested: