Was it a pen ?

[Caernarfon_Claret]

Well there's a clear difference between two players jostling for position at a set piece and a blatant push in the back when the balls nowhere near either of them. Football is a contact sport, you cant expect penalties to be given everytime two players touch each other. The big difference is Ramsey wasn't touching JT, JT pushed Ramsey. The "dive" is irrelevant it just highlights a clear stupid foul.

I know you weren't talking to me but the dive would be relevant if it resulted in Tarks getting a yellow/red card as then Ramsey would be guilty of trying to get the opposition player a yellow or red card. If he just went to ground that would be fine - he'd get his penalty without trying to make the push seem worse than it was.

Two wrongs never make things right.

A careless push (penalty)
Trying to get a player booked (yellow card)

[Caernarfon_Claret]

Just checked - Tarks wasn't booked so Mason got the penalty correct - careless push by Tarks (i think at a minimum a push in the back would be regarded as careless)

If Ramsey tried to make the push seem reckless by exaggerating then he should have been booked.

No controversy.

[Caernarfon_Claret]

Just watching ref watch on sky.

Dermot Gallagher

[hampsteadclaret]

There are more non-Clarets pretending to be Clarets on here, than I once imagined. They are so obvious.
I wish they would go elsewhere the sad gets.

[Diesel]

I wouldn't have been surprised if Mason took the penalty himself.

[Hipper]

There are more non-Clarets pretending to be Clarets on here, than I once imagined. They are so obvious.
I wish they would go elsewhere the sad gets.

I'm not sure what this means but if it supposes that Clarets will see the incident as not a penalty, and non-Clarets as a pen, that of course is ridiculous.

[levraiclaret]

Well there's a clear difference between two players jostling for position at a set piece and a blatant push in the back when the balls nowhere near either of them. Football is a contact sport, you cant expect penalties to be given everytime two players touch each other. The big difference is Ramsey wasn't touching JT, JT pushed Ramsey. The "dive" is irrelevant it just highlights a clear stupid foul.

Read post 30 then watch the stream again, the first contact is between Ramsey's heel and Tarks' foot, both players start to fall, Tarks puts his hands out to try to stay on his feet, but Ramsay is already falling so both go down. There was contact between the feet of the two players initially, who instigated it? Who knows? Who benefits seeing as neither are going to get to the ball?

[mdd2]

I agree with levraI there is a clash of feet, Tarks stumbles forward and puts hands on Ramsey who makes a meal of it. Bet you a panel of refs looking at that stream would not give a penalty. MASON WRONG AGAIN

[mdd2]

Yes with hindsight it’s easy to say the ball was no where near him and he went down softly but the referee can only view it as he sees it.[/quote]

But he got it badly wrong as video review clearly shows it was not a push other than both falling due to the clash of feet.

[Colburn_Claret]

The main difference of opinion here is perception.
Those that think contact entitles a player to go down call penalty. Those that think football is a contact sport, and players should try and stay on their feet, think dive, cheating *******, no penalty.

It can't be right to encourage players and therefore kids, to dive. It didn't happen 30 years ago, there's no need for it now. The message that it gives out is shameful.

Getting beat because a ref mistakenly missed a penalty is sad, but mistakes happen.
Getting beat because of a player cheating is sickening, it sticks in the throat, and the players and managers and pundits that condone it are arseholes.
Forget Sunday, because that is personal, but for the sake of sportsmanship, for the sake of football and the sake of the young kids coming into the game it has to be stopped.

[iluva64]

Arsenal's new coach.......time to move on

[Dazzler]

Not seen this link posted anywhere.
Here's what Joey B had to say on it.

https://talksport.com/football/did-aaro ... d-says?amp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[2 Bee Holed]

I have seen 2 different videos of this, but both from the Longside.
Anyone got links to videos from CFS, Bob Lord or even Bee Hole end?
Do we even have cameras in the Bob Lord?

[BleedingClaret]

Which doesn't change the fact that Tarkowski clearly pushed him in the back inside the penalty area. An absolute clear foul regardless of what minute the game is in or which clubs are involved. I'm not sure how our fans cant just accept it and move on...... It was a foul, moaning and making excuses on here wont change that.

Look at the still, if you're pushed hard enough for you to fall, your mind is shocked, and your hands instinctively go down to protect your head as you fall, if however you check your run, knowingly as the ball is sailing past you, then as hoped you feel the hands of the player behind you touch you as he instinctively raises his hands to stop himself barging into you, and subsequently you then are shown on a still photo to have your hands out to the sides above your head, you have dived and are in control enough to make an over the top body angle to get the referees attention.
In real time the ref sees a push and a falling player, is the contact enough, well as said he can't wait to relieve the pressure on himself, when refereeing a big club, fearing not giving a penalty for a big club, will get him massive media scrutiny, and he, as said, can't wait to give a pen.

[BleedingClaret]

The main difference of opinion here is perception.
Those that think contact entitles a player to go down call penalty. Those that think football is a contact sport, and players should try and stay on their feet, think dive, cheating *******, no penalty.

It can't be right to encourage players and therefore kids, to dive. It didn't happen 30 years ago, there's no need for it now. The message that it gives out is shameful.

Getting beat because a ref mistakenly missed a penalty is sad, but mistakes happen.
Getting beat because of a player cheating is sickening, it sticks in the throat, and the players and managers and pundits that condone it are arseholes.
Forget Sunday, because that is personal, but for the sake of sportsmanship, for the sake of football and the sake of the young kids coming into the game it has to be stopped.

I agree totally mate.
Also thinking on the odds of this happening, as I was leaving the ground still shaking with anger I actually said to my mates, I feel silly all week I've been saying that would happen and I should have be on my way to collect my winnings now.
Thinking further on it, it's really not a long shot, I was fairly confident Arsenal would not break us down and I knew in the dying minutes of the game they would uncharacteristically, as they'd done previously, just pump the ball into the box and the player closest to the ball flight would ensure a tangle with one of our players and take an exaggerated tumble, and I knew the referee would be too pressured not to give it.
The player that saw it best in real time was Lowton and right there at full speed you know a dive.

[KRBFC]

Look at the still, if you're pushed hard enough for you to fall, your mind is shocked, and your hands instinctively go down to protect your head as you fall, if however you check your run, knowingly as the ball is sailing past you, then as hoped you feel the hands of the player behind you touch you as he instinctively raises his hands to stop himself barging into you, and subsequently you then are shown on a still photo to have your hands out to the sides above your head, you have dived and are in control enough to make an over the top body angle to get the referees attention.
In real time the ref sees a push and a falling player, is the contact enough, well as said he can't wait to relieve the pressure on himself, when refereeing a big club, fearing not giving a penalty for a big club, will get him massive media scrutiny, and he, as said, can't wait to give a pen.

So you're saying its not a foul because Ramsey fell over and made a meal of it? Hilarious. It doesn't matter if Ramsey stayed on his feet or did a triple backflip the moment Tark pushes him in the back its a foul regardless of Ramseys actions after the foul.

It doesn't matter if the contact is enough for Ramsey to fall over, the contact makes it a foul.

The rest of your post about Mason giving a penalty because it was Arsenal is complete rubbish, he gave a penalty because it was a foul. The pundits on Motd agreed it was a penalty.

[BleedingClaret]

So you're saying its not a foul because Ramsey fell over and made a meal of it? Hilarious. It doesn't matter if Ramsey stayed on his feet or did a triple backflip the moment Tark pushes him in the back its a foul regardless of Ramseys actions after the foul.

It doesn't matter if the contact is enough for Ramsey to fall over, the contact makes it a foul.

The rest of your post about Mason giving a penalty because it was Arsenal is complete rubbish, he gave a penalty because it was a foul. The pundits on Motd agreed it was a penalty.

Aah the pundits on Motd, pmsl

[BleedingClaret]

Aah the pundits on Motd, pmsl

I don't agree with the feeling contact, it's a myth that the likes of Motd pundits are peddling.
It is NOT netball, contact is allowed.
If you push a player, with a force sufficient to cause him to fall, that's a foul, if you touch him and he falls of his own volition, because on feeling that touch he voluntarily falls to the floor, that's not a foul and if he screams like a girl and throws his hands in the air that's cheating, plain and simple.

[Rick_Muller]

the contact makes it a foul.

It is not NETBALL, it is football. CONTACT DOES NOT EQUAL FOUL

[TVC15]

So you're saying its not a foul because Ramsey fell over and made a meal of it? Hilarious. It doesn't matter if Ramsey stayed on his feet or did a triple backflip the moment Tark pushes him in the back its a foul regardless of Ramseys actions after the foul.

It doesn't matter if the contact is enough for Ramsey to fall over, the contact makes it a foul.

The rest of your post about Mason giving a penalty because it was Arsenal is complete rubbish, he gave a penalty because it was a foul. The pundits on Motd agreed it was a penalty.

Enlighten us KRBFC - exactly which rule or guideline stipulates that "contact makes it a foul" ?
Otamendi scored a goal against Burnley where he clearly contacted Ben Mee before he scored his header. Personally I think that was a perfectly good goal and Otamendi was just stronger. Are you saying that should not of been a goal ?

If he did a "triple backflip" the moment after there is contact it does actually matter now - there is a guideline that says exaggeration will lead to a ban. So again you are way off the mark.

As for MoTD pundits saying its a penalty....well that`s easily the shi-ttest of all your points. Plenty of pundits / ex players and ex referees have said they did not think it was.

The debate as to whether some referees favour the big teams is one that has been around forever. The statistics would be interesting if anyone ever produced them. My own view is that managers like Ferguson, Wenger, Mourinho etc have definitely had an influence on referees and there are already some pretty startling statistics which back that up around penalties given at Old Trafford, injury time awarded, even the Mason statistic as to Arsenal never losing when he has been referee feels more than just a coincidence. The fact that so many players and managers in football say the same thing adds more weight to the view that smaller clubs do not get as many of these decisions as bigger clubs.

[Claret Till I Die]

If this had taken place by the touchline, with the ball going over both their heads, would the ref have given a free kick or a throw in ?

[KRBFC]

It is not NETBALL, it is football. CONTACT DOES NOT EQUAL FOUL

The push in the back makes it a foul which was the contact in that situation. Of course contact is allowed but in that instance the contact made it a foul not Ramseys reaction.

[KRBFC]

Enlighten us KRBFC - exactly which rule or guideline stipulates that "contact makes it a foul" ?
Otamendi scored a goal against Burnley where he clearly contacted Ben Mee before he scored his header. Personally I think that was a perfectly good goal and Otamendi was just stronger. Are you saying that should not of been a goal ?

If he did a "triple backflip" the moment after there is contact it does actually matter now - there is a guideline that says exaggeration will lead to a ban. So again you are way off the mark.

As for MoTD pundits saying its a penalty....well that`s easily the shi-ttest of all your points. Plenty of pundits / ex players and ex referees have said they did not think it was.

The debate as to whether some referees favour the big teams is one that has been around forever. The statistics would be interesting if anyone ever produced them. My own view is that managers like Ferguson, Wenger, Mourinho etc have definitely had an influence on referees and there are already some pretty startling statistics which back that up around penalties given at Old Trafford, injury time awarded, even the Mason statistic as to Arsenal never losing when he has been referee feels more than just a coincidence. The fact that so many players and managers in football say the same thing adds more weight to the view that smaller clubs do not get as many of these decisions as bigger clubs.

The triple backflip line was meant as being irrelevant to the penalty being given. Ramsey's reaction was irrelevant, all he did was make the foul more obvious for the referee to see and you can't blame him when referees tend to not give fouls for players who stay on their feet. Ramseys reaction to the foul doesn't make it not a foul.

[dsr]

Ramseys reaction to the foul doesn't make it not a foul.

It makes it harder to see whether he has been pushed. You and Lee Mason are confident that Ramsay was pushed harder than anyone else was in the penalty area at any time during the match; hard enough to make it a foul. But I don't see how you and he can be so sure. How do you assess just how hard Tarkowski's hand touched Ramsay's back when Ramsay is moving forward before contact is made and then flings himself away from the hand or hands as soon as they touch him?

[Colburn_Claret]

So you're saying its not a foul because Ramsey fell over and made a meal of it? Hilarious. It doesn't matter if Ramsey stayed on his feet or did a triple backflip the moment Tark pushes him in the back its a foul regardless of Ramseys actions after the foul.

It doesn't matter if the contact is enough for Ramsey to fall over, the contact makes it a foul.

The rest of your post about Mason giving a penalty because it was Arsenal is complete rubbish, he gave a penalty because it was a foul. The pundits on Motd agreed it was a penalty.

The pundits agreed it was a penalty. They are wrong.
It doesn't matter if contact is enough to fall over, contact makes it a foul. What a load of ********.

Players hold onto each other in the box, especially from dead ball situations. The defender has to watch the ball and the player at the same time. So they watch the ball and have a hand on the player they are marking, so when he moves they know it without having to take their eye off the ball. If what you stupidly suggest is right, then every corner taken in every match, for the whole of the season, should have resulted in a penalty.

Only Tarks and Ramsey will know how much force there was in this instance, but the body language and flailing arms speak volumes. As pointed out above, Arsenals last chance was to fling the ball into the box, and the nearest player to it throws himself to the ground. With Mason in charge it was always going to be given.

[TVC15]

The triple backflip line was meant as being irrelevant to the penalty being given. Ramsey's reaction was irrelevant, all he did was make the foul more obvious for the referee to see and you can't blame him when referees tend to not give fouls for players who stay on their feet. Ramseys reaction to the foul doesn't make it not a foul.

Firstly it is relevant as its now a formalised guideline which leads to a ban.

Secondly as pointed out how can you say what would have actually happened or whether a player was impeded or not when they exaggerate / cheat ? There is absolutely no way that you can say for any certainty whether this would have prevented him scoring or reaching the ball if he would not have cheated.

Why are you completely ignoring the point about contact not equaling a foul ? You clearly said "contact makes it a foul". Can you let us all know which rule says that please.....or if you can`t then stop saying it like its a fact.

Without this what you are saying is basically nonsense.

As for your point referees tend not to give fouls for players who stay on their feet...maybe that because a lot of them are not fouls. Fouls are supposed to be something that stop or impede you from what you were trying to do.

Why are you advocating that players cheat ?

[KRBFC]

Firstly it is relevant as its now a formalised guideline which leads to a ban.

Secondly as pointed out how can you say what would have actually happened or whether a player was impeded or not when they exaggerate / cheat ? There is absolutely no way that you can say for any certainty whether this would have prevented him scoring or reaching the ball if he would not have cheated.

Why are you completely ignoring the point about contact not equaling a foul ? You clearly said "contact makes it a foul". Can you let us all know which rule says that please.....or if you can`t then stop saying it like its a fact.

Without this what you are saying is basically nonsense.

As for your point referees tend not to give fouls for players who stay on their feet...maybe that because a lot of them are not fouls. Fouls are supposed to be something that stop or impede you from what you were trying to do.

Why are you advocating that players cheat ?

As usual you're completely missing the point.

The dive isn't relevant to the penalty being given, Yes a player can get a ban but does it change the referees decision to award a penalty? No, so its irrelevant to the result of the game because the player would suffer a ban AFTER the decision was already given.

The "contact makes it a foul" is in regards to ONLY this one instance. I'm not sure why you're insisting I'm saying a foul should be given everytime there's contact between two players. The push in the back is the foul not Ramsey's reaction.

I'm not advocating players cheat, its part of the game. Every single team does it including us. Footballers go down to easy, the thing you're missing is the players going down doesn't mean its a foul/not a foul. Just because Ramsey went down easily it doesn't mean he wasn't fouled because a clear push in the back is a foul anywhere on the pitch. Mason gave Barnes a couple when Mustafi pushed him in the back, Barnes went down easily but its still a foul.

[TVC15]

So when you say you do not blame Ramsay for making the "foul more obvious" that's not the same as advocating players cheating?

Just semantics - you use words like "make more obvious" - when most people use simulation or cheating. You say "would not blame".....if you use that in the context of you would not blame someone for stealing an old ladies handbag it's pretty easy to work out that's the same as saying it's ok to do it.

We go back to the same point which you continuously fail to answer though - how the f-uck can you tell what would have happened if the Ramsay or Silva or anyone else "makes it more obvious" ?

The only 100% fact that cannot be disputed is that you do not know what would have happened if the player would not have done this.....and contact in this case or any other is not automatically a foul. You are kind of saying this yourself now - which is implying that you agree in some cases contact may not be a foul. Which logically means you will not know whether contact is enough when a player exaggerates it.

[UpTheBeehole]

Mason gave Barnes a couple when Mustafi pushed him in the back, Barnes went down easily but its still a foul.

Burnley fans (Screaming): THAT TINY PUSH ON BARNES WHICH SENT HIM FLYING 5 YARDS THROUGH THE AIR WITH HIS HANDS UP IS A DEFINITE FOUL

Also Burnley fans: That clear push on Ramsey isn't a foul

[KRBFC]

So when you say you do not blame Ramsay for making the "foul more obvious" that's not the same as advocating players cheating?

Just semantics - you use words like "make more obvious" - when most people use simulation or cheating. You say "would not blame".....if you use that in the context of you would not blame someone for stealing an old ladies handbag it's pretty easy to work out that's the same as saying it's ok to do it.

We go back to the same point which you continuously fail to answer though - how the f-uck can you tell what would have happened if the Ramsay or Silva or anyone else "makes it more obvious" ?

The only 100% fact that cannot be disputed is that you do not know what would have happened if the player would not have done this.....and contact in this case or any other is not automatically a foul. You are kind of saying this yourself now - which is implying that you agree in some cases contact may not be a foul. Which logically means you will not know whether contact is enough when a player exaggerates it.

You're missing the biggest fact of all, Tark pushed Ramsey in the back inside the penalty area.

You don't know the force so you're contradicting yourself because you can't possibly say Ramsey cheated, dived or made the most of it.

[KRBFC]

Burnley fans (Screaming): THAT TINY PUSH ON BARNES WHICH SENT HIM FLYING 5 YARDS THROUGH THE AIR WITH HIS HANDS UP IS A DEFINITE FOUL

Also Burnley fans: That clear push on Ramsey isn't a foul

Yeah the same moronic bunch who booed Xhaka and Mason after a wonderful sliding tackle on JBG near halfway. We have our fair share of brainless imbeciles.

[dsr]

You're missing the biggest fact of all, Tark pushed Ramsey in the back inside the penalty area.

You don't know the force so you're contradicting yourself because you can't possibly say Ramsey cheated, dived or made the most of it.

You've understood at last - we don't know the force with which he pushed. So how can you know it was enough of a push to be a foul?

[Tall Paul]

How much of a push does it need to be in order to be a foul?

[Rick_Muller]

The push in the back makes it a foul which was the contact in that situation. Of course contact is allowed but in that instance the contact made it a foul not Ramseys reaction.

Lets consider this hypothetical situation.

Tarks puts his hand on Ramsey back with enough force for Ramsey to feel it (could be interpreted as a push), but Ramsey stays on his feet they both carry on running and the ball flies 4 foot over their heads.

In your honest opinion, would Lee Mason have awarded a penalty?

[TVC15]

You're missing the biggest fact of all, Tark pushed Ramsey in the back inside the penalty area.

You don't know the force so you're contradicting yourself because you can't possibly say Ramsey cheated, dived or made the most of it.

Not only can I say that but you said it you idiot - you said he "made it more obvious" - that's cheating however you choose to word it.

[Tall Paul]

Lets consider this hypothetical situation.

Tarks puts his hand on Ramsey back with enough force for Ramsey to feel it (could be interpreted as a push), but Ramsey stays on his feet they both carry on running and the ball flies 4 foot over their heads.

In your honest opinion, would Lee Mason have awarded a penalty?

As you say, it's a hypothetical so we'll never know. However I doubt Mason would have awarded a penalty in that situation. He probably should do if it's a push though.

[KRBFC]

Lets consider this hypothetical situation.

Tarks puts his hand on Ramsey back with enough force for Ramsey to feel it (could be interpreted as a push), but Ramsey stays on his feet they both carry on running and the ball flies 4 foot over their heads.

In your honest opinion, would Lee Mason have awarded a penalty?

Probably not but even then he would've missed the foul, Ramsey falling over highlighted the foul.

[KRBFC]

Not only can I say that but you said it you idiot - you said he "made it more obvious" - that's cheating however you choose to word it.

Its not cheating though is it? I said Ramsey falling over made it more obvious, I didn't say Ramsey fell over intentionally.

[THEWELLERNUT70]

The penalty incident was equally as soft as the one Mike Dean gave in our favour last season away at Southampton, that shouldn't have been given either

[TVC15]

Its not cheating though is it? I said Ramsey falling over made it more obvious, I didn't say Ramsey fell over intentionally.

That's not what you said though is it ?

You said Ramsey made it more obvious - can you not even read your own f-ucking posts ?

You back track more than an Italian tank commander

[KRBFC]

That's not what you said though is it ?

You said Ramsey made it more obvious - can you not even read your own f-ucking posts ?

You back track more than an Italian tank commander

Yes Ramsey falling over made it more obvious, I didn't say he intentionally fell over though did I? Surely even you can see the difference between intentionally falling over and being pushed over. Its like trying to have a grown up conversation with a potato.

[martin_p]

Probably not but even then he would've missed the foul, Ramsey falling over highlighted the foul.

Why is putting your hands on someone’s back a foul?

[TVC15]

Yes Ramsey falling over made it more obvious, I didn't say he intentionally fell over though did I? Surely even you can see the difference between intentionally falling over and being pushed over. Its like trying to have a grown up conversation with a potato.

Listen you d-ick - you said he made it more obvious and that you would not blame him for doing so.....you mentioned nothing about falling over made it more obvious....as if you would have done why would you have said that you would not blame him for doing so ?

Think as pig sh-it. Get someone else to read out to you out loud what you actually posted.

[KRBFC]

Listen you d-ick - you said he made it more obvious and that you would not blame him for doing so.....you mentioned nothing about falling over made it more obvious....as if you would have done why would you have said that you would not blame him for doing so ?

Think as pig sh-it. Get someone else to read out to you out loud what you actually posted.

In the post of mine you quoted, the first sentence reads...

"Yes, Ramsey falling over made it more obvious"

Like I said, its like having a conversation with a potato.

[turfytopper]

Ok. Great performance though and Mason gave them everything. Our free kick in second half was measured out in fret not yards grrr.

reckon it was no more than 22 feet. And he measured it twice. From our view in the Longside block 2 I could perfectly see from the pitch markings (pen spot and arc) what 10 yards looked like and how far that was from being 10 yards.

[turfytopper]

The penalty incident was equally as soft as the one Mike Dean gave in our favour last season away at Southampton, that shouldn't have been given either

But didn't cost Southampton the game - I think to give one in the 91st min at 0-0 it has to be a stone wall pen that would not be controversial. Would he have given it in the 2nd minute? - probably not as it would have put him under pressure at every contact in the box for 88mins.

[TVC15]

"Ramsey's reaction was irrelevant, all he did was make the foul more obvious for the referee to see and you can't blame him when referees tend to not give fouls for players who stay on their feet"

This is what you said kno-bhead - what can't you blame him for then ?

It's only in subsequent posts that you start to change your what you said originally to try and justify your point

[Rick_Muller]

As you say, it's a hypothetical so we'll never know. However I doubt Mason would have awarded a penalty in that situation. He probably should do if it's a push though.

Probably not but even then he would've missed the foul, Ramsey falling over highlighted the foul.

So, as you both concur that it is unlikely that Mason would have awarded a penalty had Ramsey stayed on his feet it is reasonable to argue that Ramsey’s exaggerated action contributed to the awarding of the penalty. As such, he should be up before the simulation panel.

Of course I acknowledge that had the “push” been of sufficient force to floor him in the first instance then it would have been a foul, however from the footage and photos I have seen from various angles, as someone who has played the game, I cannot agree at all the the placement of Tarks hand on Ramsey’s back was a push I anyway whatsoever. If a fully fit grown man who is a professional footballer is unable to stay upright with the slightest of touches he really has a problem, either Vertigo or he is a cheat.

[Vegas Claret]

So I was convinced it was a penalty until I saw this. Ramsay is a cheat

[Dyched]

You can pinpoint the moment Tarkowski realizes he ****** up and dived to try to get away with it