Chavski match thread.

[QuartzGooner]

anyone could see that the shot was at best going to hit the post (in fact it was going a foot wide)

Quite the opposite.

Oxlade-Chamberlain had the best view of all, he thought the shot was goal-bound.

Many times keepers save shots that are going wide, with the speed of the game and the power of the ball the exact direction of the ball is not always clear until someone watches a replay.

[northbank123]

Mate [Lefty] nobody is disputing that the ball was actually going wide. But just because it was obvious to you watching on TV with your behind-the-ball slow-mo HD replay doesn't mean it was obvious in real time to all the officials, and the fact Chamberlain actually felt the need to handball it was a fairly reasonable indicator to consider.

Ultimately it is all hypothetical really because none of the officials actually saw it and the penalty was only given based on appeals and context of the game/teams. But I don't think us having a player sent off was a dreadful decision at all (even if incorrect) and the majority of refs would have sent the defender off in the same circumstances, unrealistic to demand ref to identify it was actually heading a few inches wide when a shot is drilled from 15 yards out (especially as the ball starting moving away late on which is obvious in the slow-mo replay but probably happened in the 0.05 seconds before hitting Chamberlain's hand.

[Dan_85]

AW: "We just came out of 2 convincing results at Bayern Munich and at Tottenham so you have to think that [Chelsea] was an accident."

AW: "You need to analyse as well the fact that we were down to 10 men & the offensive quality of Chelsea on the counter attack is very good"

Where are the men in white coats...?

[1989]

No it isn't an accident you fucking clown. No wonder we get trounced like that repeatedly, because the clueless fool thinks they're all accidents instead of actually taking the effort to analyze what the fuck went wrong during those games.

[LeftfootlegendGooner]

anyone could see that the shot was at best going to hit the post (in fact it was going a foot wide)

Quite the opposite.

Oxlade-Chamberlain had the best view of all, he thought the shot was goal-bound.

Many times keepers save shots that are going wide, with the speed of the game and the power of the ball the exact direction of the ball is not always clear until someone watches a replay.

With all due respect quartz.....you're wrong, ox is not a goalkeeper and wouldn't have known his angles or if the ball was going a foot inside the goal or a foot wide, the ref had a way better view directly in line with the trajectory of the ball (same as the camera angle that captured it and proved it was going wide), no way in the world would a player or keeper have a better view looking at the ball moving across his body.

[Gunner Rob]

AW: "We just came out of 2 convincing results at Bayern Munich and at Tottenham so you have to think that [Chelsea] was an accident."

is this the first time a 3-1 defeat has been used as an example of a convinicing result?

[remigardeshair]

There are so many perplexing things about the penalty incident, and the subsequent disciplinary proceedings.

I think originally the ref gave a goal kick, and I don't think the linesman put his flag across his chest to indicate a penalty, so neither of them made the decision, so it must have come from the 4th official. I know he cant influence a decision if hes basing it on seeing a TV replay, but can he do so if he's seen something that the other officials have all missed, I'm not sure that is in his remit?

So presumably his advice was 'deliberate handball and it stopped a goal, it was one of the black ones, not sure which' so the others guessed and sent off Gibbs since he'd be most likely to be in that position. As I understand it, once a red card is shown in a game, it cannot be retracted at that point, so no amount of pleading from the Ox would have made any difference.

For me the red card should have stood, if you are and outfield player standing on the goal line and dive to make a save with your hands, there is only one thing on your mind and that is to stop the ball going in the net, a deliberate attempt to deny a goal scoring opportunity, so it has to be a red card, I'm astonished its been rescinded.

A big bloody mess whatever way you look at it

[Gunner Rob]

I watched the first couple of goals last night and still can't believe where Gibbs was for both of them!
that was not an accident as Wenger has said but a big bloody shambles!

what is remarkable is that both times now at the Bridge and at Anfield after going a quick 2-0 down the clueless one just sat there because he had no idea of how to change things.

[augie]

AW: "We just came out of 2 convincing results at Bayern Munich and at Tottenham so you have to think that [Chelsea] was an accident."

AW: "You need to analyse as well the fact that we were down to 10 men & the offensive quality of Chelsea on the counter attack is very good"

Where are the men in white coats...?

If he knew that they are so good on the counter attack then why were we so wide open for the first two goals ? Maybe the daft old c*nt only realised how good they are on the counter attack after we shipped 6

[Bradywasking]

Think the red card for Ox has been rescinded to in some way make up for the shambles of Gibbs being sent off. I know the shot wasn't on target so in theory it wasn't stopping a goal scoring chance so by letter of the law it was penalty and a yellow card. On the other hand Ox genuinely (must have) thought the ball was going in so he dived and pushed it away. In that scenario is a red card justified because the intent was there by him to deliberately stop a goal ?.
I read somewhere, possibly in the Mail online, that in theory if the referee and linesman did not see and subsequently did not make the decision on the penalty (which they obviously didn't) then it opens a totally different question. That being who made the call ? , in this case it can only have been the fourth official , but how did he reach that decision when he was further away than the two other officials ? If as suggested he used a monitor then he wouldn't have got the culprit so wrong surely . So was he influenced by the Chelsea bench ? Hard to prove that obviously, but in a bigger context I think it is important. Not in the context of Saturday's game because it was irrelevant in terms of the score and result, but in terms of football it is important to know why or how Kieran Gibbs was sent off. The "referee made a mistake on the identity of the culprit" is not good enough, it was obvious straight away that the referee didn't give the penalty by his own actions or by the help of his assistant. . Imagine if a decision like that did influence the result of a game, imagine if it happened to Chelsea in a vital title influencing game . The article even suggested grounds for the game to be declared void and a replay ordered..Please God no...because the result of that would be something similar.

[Bradywasking]

Pity that fourth official wasn't in Cardiff in 2001 to spot the deliberate handball .

[Bradywasking]

One thing that is pissing me off big time is the 12.45 kick off theory. Lunch time kick offs are part of football and have been for years. You train and adjust accordingly.

[Gunner Rob]

One thing that is pissing me off big time is the 12.45 kick off theory. Lunch time kick offs are part of football and have been for years. You train and adjust accordingly.

the 12.45pm kick off theory is a typical Arsenal smokescreen

it just so happens that this season we played away at City, Liverpool and Chelsea at 12.45pm.
those clubs are the issue, not the time they were played!

what is conveniently forgotten is that 2 weeks ago we managed to wake up and beat Everton 4-1 in another 12.45pm kick off

[Clash]

One thing that is pissing me off big time is the 12.45 kick off theory. Lunch time kick offs are part of football and have been for years. You train and adjust accordingly.

the 12.45pm kick off theory is a typical Arsenal smokescreen

it just so happens that this season we played away at City, Liverpool and Chelsea at 12.45pm.
those clubs are the issue, not the time they were played!

what is conveniently forgotten is that 2 weeks ago we managed to wake up and beat Everton 4-1 in another 12.45pm kick off

You mean they're only a problem when we lose?

To be fair to Wenger he has had a problem with early kick offs for several years. Remember when we lost 1-0 at Goodison to a late goal in 2006 and Wenger blamed the bright sunshine for Sol Campbell not dealing with the long ball that led to the goal?

[OneBardGooner]

No it isn't an accident you fucking clown. No wonder we get trounced like that repeatedly, because the clueless fool thinks they're all accidents instead of actually taking the effort to analyze what the fuck went wrong during those games.

No accident but it was (another) rape waiting to happen...all because Wenger - who was once a very good coach and manager - has fallen behind the times and changes that have seen football change hugely thes epast 10 years...all I can hope & pray for is that he will wake up from the day dream (mor elike nightmare) he is in and resign at the end of the season, because these GroundHog games/ seasons where we are continually put to the sword by the like sof that smug *word censored* Mourinho and now Rogers is just too much to endure.

Edit: The only tactical research that mourinho el cunto had to do was watch the dvd of our game against the scousers at Anfield when they obliterated us in the first 20 minutes and his job was done...he simply copied those tactics...but what happened to wenger's (comment & promise) that we would 'learn from that game' ?... even the most inept of managers would have known what the chavs tactics would be - and what does Inspector Clueless do? play Arteta (the slowest Mid-field holding player in the prem) instead of Flamini - who at least won't get bullied off the ball...F F S!

So, Please PLEASE! Arsene please, Please, PLEASE Just F*ck off.