Not a penalty, but absolutely not 100% right
by ChicagoWave03 (2024-04-10 09:49:19)

In reply to: I hope no Arsenal supporters think that  posted by wcnitz


That elbow by Kane was a clear red. He looked behind him and directly and intentionally elbowed Gabriel in the throat. Kane should absolutely have seen red for that.




He wasn't looking at him when he put the arm back
by wcnitz  (2024-04-10 10:02:59)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

He looked back before the contact.

Amazing how for Arsenal fans all over the internet, nothing went for them yesterday, all the questionable calls went against them. Except the ones that didn't.


I think he glanced back to find him...
by ndroman21  (2024-04-10 10:04:22)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

...but I don't think it was an intentional elbow to the throat. Borderline red/yellow. No problem with it. Although I do like to see Harry Kane sent off.


I get I am biased here
by ChicagoWave03  (2024-04-10 10:16:30)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

But Kane is flat out dirty. No player has ever taken jumping players legs out from under them more than he has. And he's incredibly intelligent with his positioning. He absolutely knew where Gabriel was and threw that elbow knowing where it would hit him.


Agreed, it's just a strong caution
by wcnitz  (2024-04-10 10:06:31)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Kane gets fouled a lot when he's trying to hold up play, so it's not surprising to seem him get physical in response.


Threadjack....did you see the Arsenal/Brighton penalty?
by ndroman21  (2024-04-10 10:14:01)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Curious as to your opinion. Even as a former keeper, I don't think that a nick on the ball should negate a crushing foul. Jesus would have still had the ball on his feet in the box even after the slight touch by the defender.

100% penalty to me.

But I know I'm biased.


Couldn't find video of it, wasn't in extended highlights
by wcnitz  (2024-04-10 10:22:01)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Without context, I will say this: the PL tends to put a bit too much emphasis on 'got the ball'. Is it a consideration? Yes, and a significant one. But if the action is careless, reckless or endangering the safety of the opponent, it's still a foul.


The one that Saka scored on....
by ndroman21  (2024-04-10 10:29:43)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

It's here. Half of the commentary I've seen has been that it shouldn't have been given because Lamptey touched the ball.


Ah, I skipped it because it was called
by wcnitz  (2024-04-10 10:57:58)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

My god, that's an obvious penalty. That's the textbook definition of 'got the ball, but was also incredibly stupid'.