The Smith-Rowe strike that gave Arsenal the lead. Correct decision?

[bosnian_red]

Cheating by being injured? Just because he got up a few mins later it don’t make him cheating? Has he ever feigned an injury to get out of trouble like that before? Think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

De Gea rolls around and feigns injury quite often tbf. Every goalkeeper does it. They fall at the slightest contact and ask for a foul.

How many actual things that happen on a football pitch actual justify a player rolling around, writhing in pain on the ground? That's acceptable if you get fecking shot or a broken leg, not stamped on. All footballers do it and it's just an accepted thing, but he easily could've just braved through the pain until the danger was done. And yes, stuff like that has happened to me plenty of times. It hurts. It doesn't mean you need to fall down and roll around for 2 minutes. You can fight through the pain for a little bit until the play is actually stopped. Players rolling around asking for fouls does my head in; fecking play to the whistle and then ask for treatment if you need it.

 

[cyberman]

Genuine injury I'd agree.

But you can't ask for high morals from Arsenal when our own keeper is cheating.

It’s studs down the Achilles, he wasn’t cheating.

 

[sparx99]

Exactly the opposite.

It hurts - will sting for a few minutes and probably again after the game. No one is saying it doesn't.

It doesn't cause you to go into the fetal position and turn your back to the play. A player would know if he was injured or not and he wasn't injured. To go down like that at the first sign of pain, on the job as a goalkeeper while defending a corner...There are no words for just how pathetic that is.

See off the danger, do your job and then go down and get treatment. He didn't know it was Fred and was looking for a foul. Everyone knows this but defends him anyways. Unbelievable.

The idea that Arsenal should feel ashamed for scoring when our player stands on his teammate who proceeds to play dead is just embarrassing. They did nothing wrong, nor did Atkinson.

Except the rules specifically say Atkinson did do something wrong. That is immediately stop play when the goalkeeper is injured regardless of how he got hurt!

If De Gea had hurt himself on the woodwork instead of Fred the game should still be stopped.

 

[TheReligion]

The equivalent point is that the defending team fecked up purely on their own doing, and the attacking team scored an open goal.

If a cross happens and a defender barges into his own goalkeeper/elbows his goalkeeper accidentally and the ball falls to an attacker with an open goal, do you stop play? Of course not. A ref quite simply should never stop a dangerous attacking sequence if there was no foul committed. Stop the play when the immediate danger is over, but you can't stop a potential goal action just because someone is lying on the ground through no fault of the attacking team. Especially now with VAR where they can simply look back and see if there was a foul. Goalkeepers fall down all the time and feign injury and get cheap free kicks to relieve pressure. They shouldn't get a free kick unless an actual foul happens.

There's no equivalence in those examples. That's the point. In one someone is injured and the other team decided to score. The other was one team not understanding the rules.

 

[bosnian_red]

That's such a BS argument.

Yes, the pain will fade in a minute or two, but it's a huge pain when someone steps on your ankle with studs on.

It hurts. Literally no injury unless you break a bone actually justifies going down and rolling around for a long time though. Adrenaline can push you through the immediate pain in almost every single case. De Gea easily could've played on and gone down after the play actually stopped, and likely would have done so if he knew it was Fred who stepped on him.

 

[Dan_F]

Yep, correct. He was injured by his own player.

I think de Gea thought it was an Arsenal boot that fouled him and went down thinking he's got a free hit. As in if anything bad happens they'll rule it out. Unfortunately he's not seen that it was his own clumsy player who stepped on him.

Completely agree. It’s a sore one but anyone who’s played football knows that it’s not going to cause you to curl into a ball instinctively. If the ref had blown when the ball was headed out I don’t think anyone would have batted an eyelid, but as it was there shouldn’t be any complaints. Talk of giving back a goal is laughable.

Also DDG is a massive pansy. I think it was the Chelsea game where his shoulder brushed the post and he needed the physio to come on

 

[dove]

Yes. Had the ref seen it earlier, he would have stopped the play but since he saw it too late, blowing the whistle mid shot would have been really unfair.

 

[Harry190]

It was a goal.

 

[sparx99]

The equivalent point is that the defending team fecked up purely on their own doing, and the attacking team scored an open goal.

If a cross happens and a defender barges into his own goalkeeper/elbows his goalkeeper accidentally and the ball falls to an attacker with an open goal, do you stop play? Of course not. A ref quite simply should never stop a dangerous attacking sequence if there was no foul committed. Stop the play when the immediate danger is over, but you can't stop a potential goal action just because someone is lying on the ground through no fault of the attacking team. Especially now with VAR where they can simply look back and see if there was a foul. Goalkeepers fall down all the time and feign injury and get cheap free kicks to relieve pressure. They shouldn't get a free kick unless an actual foul happens.

The ref had multiple chances to stop play when the ball was cleared. He had a good 3-4 looks before it ever got to Smith-Rowe. If he’d blown and given a drop ball nobody would ever have spoken about it again.

 

[bosnian_red]

There's no equivalence in those examples. That's the point. In one someone is injured and the other team decided to score. The other was one team not understanding the rules.

Alright so I guess every corner/set piece/attack a goalkeeper can pretend to roll his ankle, go down and just stop play right? Otherwise it's "unsporting". Get out of here. It's a legit goal and should always be a legit goal and the opposing team gets 0 blame here, because they did nothing wrong and did what every team should do. Play to the whistle. It's taught at every level of football.

 

[cyberman]

Yes. Had the ref seen it earlier, he would have stopped the play but since he saw it too late, blowing the whistle mid shot would have been really unfair.

He tried blowing mid air but the idiot couldn’t do it! It’s why VAR gave the goal, the ref had ruled it out.

 

[KingCavani]

That's such a BS argument.

Yes, the pain will fade in a minute or two, but it's a huge pain when someone steps on your ankle with studs on.

Can we seriously stop and just appreciate how stupid this argument is?

It's a contact sport. There is going to be pain. This is like arguing that play should be stopped because two teammates clatter into each other trying to tackle a guy who goes in one on one.

He is hurt. He is not injured. The rules specifically state that play should only be stopped if the injury is serious. It even states that it shouldn't be stopped if the injury is minor.

This is how the rules are written and people are seriously here suggesting that play should stop because the back of his foot was gonna sting for a minute.

Not a single non-United fan has done anything but blame De Gea as far as I can see. It's just ludicrous to see people defending this nonsense.

 

[Dans]

Correct, but Arsenal should have let us score to even it back up.

 

[TheReligion]

Alright so I guess every corner/set piece/attack a goalkeeper can pretend to roll his ankle, go down and just stop play right? Otherwise it's "unsporting". Get out of here. It's a legit goal and should always be a legit goal and the opposing team gets 0 blame here, because they did nothing wrong and did what every team should do. Play to the whistle. It's taught at every level of football.

That's not the point. The point is you're trying to compare two very different things and pass them off as equal. They aren't.

You're wrong.

 

[antohan]

Without VAR this decision is absolutely ruled as no goal, but with VAR and all the facts accounted for, it’s a goal. One thing that is not accounted for at any point is the referees intention to stop the game a fraction before the ball hits the net.

I can see why it was given but VAR overrides the referee in this example which is not what it’s for, surely?

VAR doesn't override the ref, it assists the ref in making his decision. The ref will have considered his intention and discarded it as irrelevant. Had he blown before then he would be in a bit of a pickle, absolutely.

 

[dove]

He tried blowing mid air but the idiot couldn’t do it! It’s why VAR gave the goal, the ref had ruled it out.

I think he expected the VAR to intervene because of the foul. What he didn't expect is that our own teammate did it.

 

[bosnian_red]

The ref had multiple chances to stop play when the ball was cleared. He had a good 3-4 looks before it ever got to Smith-Rowe. If he’d blown and given a drop ball nobody would ever have spoken about it again.

Why would he stop play though? And hardly multiple chances. The cross came in, was cleared to elneny who played a first time pass to ESR for a first time shot. The ball never left the edge of the box. The threat was never gone. There was no reason for the ref to blow a whistle. If the refs start blowing up for a goalkeeper being down, then goalkeepers will just start falling down all the time at any self injury during dangerous moments. 90th minute corner? Goalkeeper just injure yourself because apparently that's fine to get away with.

 

[(...)]

legally yes, morally no.

Arsenal should have given us a goal back IMO. I'd feel a bit pathetic winning a game through that.

Why is it morally questionnable ? De Gea wasn't injured. He wasn't hurt by an Arsenal player.
If your teams scores after the last defender falls and asks for a foul but the referee doesn't stop play, would you find it morally questionnable and expect your team to score an own goal?
Or maybe it's only for goalkeepers ? Even if it's easier to score a 1v1 with plenty of time(example above) than scoring that volley.

 

[yumtum]

If it sets a precedent of keepers faking injury then that would very quickly be noticed and then punished in the future I imagine.

Yup, yellow card for the keeper if they're feigning injury to ruin the flow of the game.

But now referees shouldn't blow the whistle when keepers are down, allowing the opposing team to score, and if need be let VAR judge of the keepers I jury was significant enough for him to warrant going down - and what constitutes a significant enough injury?

 

[mu4c_20le]

He stops play there and sets a precedent.

Any goalkeeper can then go down and stop play when the opposing team is in a good position.

I'm glad the goal was given.

But play does get stopped when a keeper goes down with a suspected head injury. So whats stopping goalkeepers from faking it and going down all the time holding their heads?

 

[Forevergiggs1]

The FA rules state ‘Play is allowed to continue until the ball is out of play if a player is, in their opinion, only slightly injured’, but it also states ‘Exceptions to this ruling are made only for: Injury to a goalkeeper’.

So shouldn’t play have been stopped as soon as the goalkeeper went down injured, regardless whether it was our player or an arsenal player that caused the injury?

Atkinson should’ve noticed De Gea was down injured and stopped play immediately.

That would set a precedence that football doesn't want. Anytime an opposing team is in a dangerous area what's to stop a goalkeeper from falling over and feigning injury? Also all those crying it's an injustice and Arsenal should of gifted us a goal are crying wolf. I'd be willing to bet if the position was reversed and it was us that scored there's no way in hell we'd gift the opposition a goal in such an important game.

Correct decision all round.

 

[TheReligion]

How has everyone assumed De Gea was faking it?

Only the Caf. Whatever suits the narrative. Ha ha. Should every injury be checked to see how long it takes for the person to get up before a stop in play is allowed and a decision can be made if it's a fake?

What planet are some of you on.

 

[Roux]

He wasn’t feigning though was he. He had Fred’s studs down the back of his ankle. It hurts. Just because he doesn’t then have to go off doesn’t mean he wasn’t also injured at that moment.

Hurt enough to make him lie on flat the floor for a long time only to then sprint after the Ref when he gives the goal? Come on... he should have stopped the shot then gone down.

 

[King7Eric]

Correct decision but Smith-Rowe is a little turd, obviously knew keeper was down and acted completely unsportingly. Embarrassing celebrations for an embarrassing football club.

To be fair to Smith-Rowe, I don't think he noticed De Gea was down, the ball bounced to him and he just kicked it goalwards. Even I didn't notice De Gea was down until the ball was travelling towards goal.

 

[bosnian_red]

That's not the point. The point is you're trying to compare two very different things and pass them off as equal. They aren't.

You're wrong.

They're similar in that they're a team fecking up and gifting a cheap goal to the opposition. Whether one is related to a brain fart and the other because a goalkeeper decided to pretend like he was shot is irrelevant.
"You're wrong"... right... just because you disagree?

 

[antohan]

If De Gea had hurt himself on the woodwork instead of Fred the game should still be stopped.

Now I have visions of David deliberately knocking himself out against the woodwork every time there's a corner. He really doesn't fancy them, does he?

 

[KingCavani]

Except the rules specifically say Atkinson did do something wrong. That is immediately stop play when the goalkeeper is injured regardless of how he got hurt!

The rules don't say that at all. Nothing is written about giving preferential treatment to keepers.

The only exceptions made for keepers are to do with leaving the field after an injury, for obvious reasons. Absolutely nowhere does it state that play must be stopped for a keeper going down if he's not adjudged to be seriously injured, and again, it's obvious why as that rule could be abused so easily.

 

[cyberman]

I think he expected the VAR to intervene because of the foul. What he didn't expect is that our own teammate did it.

I just think he got a bad challenge on his ankle and everybody is trying to fill in the blanks. Doesn’t matter who did it, he got raked down the back of the Achilles and was hurt. It wasn’t a dive or feigning contact, he was hurt. A lot of these posts criticising David are bordering on saying it was a dive which can’t be said so they’re rousing that line. I dont understand it.
David didn’t know the ref would kiss it since the normally wouldn’t and he didn’t know Smith Rose would smack it in so I cannot see how VAR even enters David’s head at the time

 

[Marwood]

Cheating by being injured? Just because he got up a few mins later it don’t make him cheating? Has he ever feigned an injury to get out of trouble like that before? Think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

So is any injury that doesn’t mean you have to subbed now cheating? Players take kicks all the time and it hurts. It doesn’t mean they were cheating. De Gea got studs on his ankle. Do I think De Gea is often soft? Yes. But I can also guarantee that really hurt yesterday.

It’s studs down the Achilles, he wasn’t cheating.

Guys none of you can genuinely believe he was so hurt he had to hit the deck and curl up in a ball. Not possible.

If the ref allows himself to be conned there he sets a terrible precedent for football. You can't have goalkeepers stopping the game whenever they feel like it.

 

[Roux]

Exactly the opposite.

It hurts - will sting for a few minutes and probably again after the game. No one is saying it doesn't.

It doesn't cause you to go into the fetal position and turn your back to the play. A player would know if he was injured or not and he wasn't injured. To go down like that at the first sign of pain, on the job as a goalkeeper while defending a corner...There are no words for just how pathetic that is.

See off the danger, do your job and then go down and get treatment. He didn't know it was Fred and was looking for a foul. Everyone knows this but defends him anyways. Unbelievable.

The idea that Arsenal should feel ashamed for scoring when our player stands on his teammate who proceeds to play dead is just embarrassing. They did nothing wrong, nor did Atkinson.

This 100%.

Its not enough to make you lie flat on the floor like you've been shot. Seen it a million times over the years - goalkeepers in pain, but doing their jobs first then going down - unless it was a serious injury like head blow etc.

 

[TheReligion]

They're similar in that they're a team fecking up and gifting a cheap goal to the opposition. Whether one is related to a brain fart and the other because a goalkeeper decided to pretend like he was shot is irrelevant.
"You're wrong"... right... just because you disagree?

Your comparisons are like apples and oranges. That's the point and that's why you're wrong. Two totally different scenarios.

 

[cyberman]

The rules don't say that at all. Nothing is written about giving preferential treatment to keepers.

The only exceptions made for keepers are to do with leaving the field after an injury, for obvious reasons. Absolutely nowhere does it state that play must be stopped for a keeper going down if he's not adjudged to be seriously injured, and again, it's obvious why as that rule could be abused so easily.

The ref did think the keeper was seriously injured and it’s why he tried to rule it out at the last second?

 

[Red Dreams]

The first goal was 100% De Gea's fault.
He was expecting the whistle.
You play to the whistle.
I'm sure Rangnick will give him a whack across his ears.
At least I hope so.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

Referees always blow when the GK is injured, no matter how. Even if they just twist their ankle with nobody near them.

This is the only time you’ll see it where the referee doesn’t.

Thought Arsenal lacked class as always. Imagine if they’d conceded that goal, you’d never hear the end of it

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Refs always blow the whistle when keepers go down. They are given extra protection. Atkinson didn't see that De Gea was down and not moving When he did he went to blow his whistle but the ball had already gone in. It's very simple and we don't need to bash our players for anything on this one.

 

[Oranges038]

It's a goal.

Imagine the moaning if keepers just flopped to the ground like that all the time just to stop play. They get enough soft decisions as it is.

 

[MadDogg]

As far as I'm concerned it's a perfectly fair goal unless Fred was pushed by an opposition player which is what then caused him to stand on De Gea. I'd like to see a better angle to watch for that specifically, but from what I've seen I think there was contact but not enough to consider it a foul.

 

[bosnian_red]

It’s studs down the Achilles, he wasn’t cheating.

I guarantee you he wouldn't have stopped playing had he known Fred stepped on him and not an Arsenal played.

This is only being discussed because it happened against us. There's virtually a consensus from every non-United supporter that it's a perfectly fair goal and that De Gea/Fred just fecked up. That's it.

 

[Withnail]

That one was just as embarrassing. Nani was embarrassing.

It was bloody hilarious

 

[KingCavani]

Basically:

• The rules state play should only stop for serious injury. Nowhere is it written that exceptions are to be made for goalkeepers.
• It's at the referees discretion to judge whether the injury is serious.
• The injury, by any objective measure, was not serious.
• Therefore play should not have been stopped

Fred was stupid. De Gea was soft. Justice won the day.

So much nonsense in this thread.