[Albion] Guendouzi cleared

[Acker79]

Saying he has been "Cleared" would suggest the FA investigated thoroughly, weighed up the evidence and came to a decision on his guilt or innocence. They didn't. They decided not to look into it and review the incident because VAR reviewed it so it falls under that old 'if the ref sees it we won't do anything that could undermine him' policy that allowed so many players to get away with so much.

 

[Gazwag]

Whenever there is an on-pitch brawl after the final whistle those involved will be able to point to the lack of intervention by VAT and today's decision as a precedent.

He only had a 20% chance of a ban

 

[Greg Bobkin]

The only reason this 'bothers' me – as I mentioned in another thread – is the fact that fans of the Arse will be celebrating this decision, while still thinking that Maupay should've been punished for the 'attack' on Leno.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Gazwag]

Saying he has been "Cleared" would suggest the FA investigated thoroughly, weighed up the evidence and came to a decision on his guilt or innocence. They didn't. They decided not to look into it and review the incident because VAR reviewed it so it falls under that old 'if the ref sees it we won't do anything that could undermine him' policy that allowed so many players to get away with so much.

Oh yes the good old JRod precedent

 

[wadhurstseagull]

Maybe we should show some humility and move on.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Greg Bobkin]

He only had a 20% chance of a ban

That's gross (I like to think that pun hit the back of the net...)

 

[Springal]

Maybe we should show some humility and move on.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed. Who cares ? Bit of handbags, no ones injured we move on.

 

[El Presidente]

Jake Humphries claimed it was just a nudge.

 

[World of Sport]

I don't care i've just got someone else to booooooooooooo!! at the Amex next season.

 

[kevo]

The football authorities banning handshakes but throttling by the throat is OK? Absolutely laughable. It will be interesting to see what happens the next time this occurs (it will be a red card and three-match ban, of course - unless it involves a 'big club')

 

[Stato]

Personally I don't care whether Guendouzi gets a ban, but the process to decision making is very hard to understand.

As I understand it, the ref didn't see it, but it was reviewed by the VAR ref and he decided that no action was necessary, so a retrospective ban cannot be given. Given that 'violent conduct' is a sending off offence even after a match has finished, but while still on the field of play, and that violent conduct is defined as using excessive force or brutality when not challenging for the ball, the VAR ref must either have decided that Guendozi didn't grab Maupay by the throat, unlikely given that he would have been able to review the video evidence that we've all seen, or that he reviewed the incident and decided that grabbing an opponent by the throat just because he walks past you having scored the winning goal is not using excessive force. If so, how do you grab someone around the throat with no physical provocation without it being excessive to the requirement of the situation? Surely the only amount of force appropriate to the circumstances would be zero force i.e don't do it. Any other level is surely by definition excessive.

 

[nicko31]

Who care, 6 pts thanks a lot.

Bring on the Foxes...

 

[kevo]

Personally I don't care whether Guendouzi gets a ban, but the process to decision making is very hard to understand.

As I understand it, the ref didn't see it, but it was reviewed by the VAR ref and he decided that no action was necessary, so a retrospective ban cannot be given. Given that 'violent conduct' is a sending off offence even after a match has finished, but while still on the field of play, and that violent conduct is defined as using excessive force or brutality when not challenging for the ball, the VAR ref must either have decided that Guendozi didn't grab Maupay by the throat, unlikely given that he would have been able to review the video evidence that we've all seen, or that he reviewed the incident and decided that grabbing an opponent by the throat just because he walks past you having scored the winning goal is not using excessive force. If so, how do you grab someone around the throat with no physical provocation without it being excessive to the requirement of the situation? Surely the only amount of force appropriate to the circumstances would be zero force i.e don't do it. Any other level is surely by definition excessive.

Who was the video ref? I seriously wonder if they were just watching BT's coverage, which didn''t show the incident at all!

 

[Eeyore]

Originally I was sure that he hadn't grabbed him round the neck.

This was because of the camera angle I saw on BT.

I assume they looked at all angles rather than the one.

 

[pb21]

Who was the video ref? I seriously wonder if they were just watching BT's coverage, which didn''t show the incident at all!

Fully agree with this, really cannot understand the basis for why grabbing someone by the throat isn't considered violent conduct.

 

[blue-shifted]

To all those who are asking who cares?

I do. It's hard enough battling to stay up in the Premier League without having to consistently battle against blatantly biased officials and governing bodies. Several example of which have been given on this thread. They need to grow a pair and risk the wrath of the big clubs. The law must be applied equally and it clearly isn't at the moment. How can they apply equivalence between Arsenal's actions and ours? Not a chance Maupay would have got away with that had the situations been reversed.

 

[Billy the Fish]

So the ref missed it, VAR looked at it and probably couldn't be bothered to make a decision as it was after the game. Now the FA can't review it, once again their process is a complete shambles.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Gwen Doozy's got away with one there.
Sadly it won't stop the gooners from crying into microphones and targeting Maupay, Shawcross style, for the next 10 years.

Certainly Guendouzi has got away with it, a ridiculous decision in my view.

But you can't compare it to Shawcross. He committed an absolutely revolting tackle on Aaron Ramsey, giving him a double fracture of the leg, and deserved the stick he got.

Meanwhile, Stoke fans gave Ramsey a disgusting amount of stick every time they played thereafter, for having the temerity to suffer a near career ending tackle.

 

[Stato]

So the ref missed it, VAR looked at it and probably couldn't be bothered to make a decision as it was after the game. Now the FA can't review it, once again their process is a complete shambles.

Or perhaps more likely, the ref missed it and VAR also missed it, but it's easier to say they saw it and didn't think it worthy of a red card, than to explain, if they now think it worth a three match ban, why they didn't tell the ref to send him off on Saturday.

It would be my guess that Guendouzi has been the lucky recipient of some lazy officiating and post event backside covering. I've nothing against him, and we won't suffer the consequences of this latest example of officials' arrogance and incompetence and its nice that Arsenal get a small win given the Palacesque role they will have played if we do go on to survive the season.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Equally our fault apparently. What a load of tosh

An FA statement confirmed: "Brighton and Hove Albion FC and Arsenal FC have been warned and reminded of their responsibilities following a mass confrontation between their players at the end of the Premier League fixture on Saturday.

"In addition, Matteo Guendouzi’s conduct during this incident was not seen by the match officials at the time, but it was subsequently reviewed by the VAR, so he will face no further action."

Exactly.

Typical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk