Newcastle goalkeeper Nick Pope can count himself fortunate to have avoided a sending off against Arsenal, although Mikel Arteta believes there was no justification for the decision not to dismiss him following his challenge on Viktor Gyökeres.
The England international came off his line to clear a ball during the match at the weekend and found himself one-on-one with Gyökeres. However, he missed the ball and brought down the Arsenal forward in the process, an incident that immediately sparked debate among players and supporters.
In many similar situations, such a challenge would typically result in a straight red card. Arsenal supporters anticipated that outcome, yet the referee issued only a yellow card for the incident, allowing Pope to remain on the pitch.
Replays indicated that he was not the last man, as one of the Newcastle United defenders was positioned behind him at the time of the challenge. Despite this, Arsenal fans, players and the manager largely felt the decision should have been more severe.
Arteta Questions Refereeing Decision
Speaking about the incident, Arteta said via Sports Illustrated, “I have to say as well in my opinion, it is a clear red card. I have watched it 10 times. If you have ever played football, it is a red card.”
The incident has since been widely discussed, with differing interpretations focusing on both the goalkeeper’s positioning and the presence of covering defenders.
Arsenal Focuses on Result Despite Controversy
Ultimately, Arsenal were able to secure victory in the match, which has helped to lessen the impact of the contentious decision in terms of the outcome. The result ensured that the discussion remained centred on officiating rather than a dropped result.
However, Arteta acknowledged that the moment could have been decisive had the match ended differently. In such a scenario, the incident would likely have been viewed as a turning point that significantly influenced the direction of the game.
For Arsenal, attention now shifts to maintaining momentum, while the debate over consistency in refereeing decisions is expected to continue following another closely scrutinised incident in a high-profile fixture.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
ADMIN COMMENT
So here are some simple rules which I must insist commenters follow….
You agree not to give any personal abuse to other Arsenal fans. Everyone is allowed to hold their own opinions even if you disagree with them. It COSTS NOTHING TO BE POLITE TO OTHER ARSENAL FANS.
CALLING ALL ARSENAL FANS! Anyone who would like to contribute an Article or Video opinion piece on JustArsenal, don’t hesitate to get in touch with us through this link…
“An obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO) in football is a situation where a player is highly likely to score, and a foul or handball denies that chance. Referees determine this by assessing the distance to goal, direction of play, likelihood of controlling the ball, and location of defenders, usually resulting in a red card.”
I’d say that this didn’t qualify for a red card on at least two of those factors. I wonder what the ref would have done if it were the other way round, and it was the defender who made the foul, leaving the keeper just to beat.
Jax,
You make a fair point regarding if it was a defender and not the keeper.
Because that would have been classed as a goalscoring opportunity. And looking at it from that stand point, it should have applied to the last defender as Gyokeres could have taken said defender on just like he would have, had it been the keeper.
If it were Raya they would be calling for trial by Jury.
It was a denial of a goal scoring opportunity so yes he should have been sent off..
It might have been a clear goal scoring opportunity for anyone else but this was Gyökeres and we know what the likely outcome would have been 😂
Based on what has been written the law says it wasn’t and I’ve read various posts over the last couple of days that say as much
I thought the keeper was lucky and Jax makes a strong last point.
Arteta said if it was for Newcastle, the ref would give red to Raya implying ref bias. Refs waiting for moments to punish Arsenal and derail them from the title. Beware Gunners!
“Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?”
Ambachew,
A case of selective memory when it comes to talking about bias.
Like it or not, Gabriel was fortunate to escape a red card V city, he may not have headbutted Haaland, but players have been sent of for motioning towards an opponent in this manner.
No conspiracy theories regarding that decision from you was there. As I say, selective memory.
You two fire missiles in tandem like Israel and US in the war. Recently formed inseparable un/holy alliance. Go on and we only need one to silence both that is winning the EPL title in dramatic fashion. UCL icing on the cake.
Ambachew,
What’s winning the League or Champions League got to do with you’re post regarding referee bias. 🤷♂️
yet didn’t send Gabriel off at Ethiad ?
He didn’t send Haaland either!!
but that’s not his argument
his argument is Refs are waiting for moments to punish Gunners .
So by that logic why not show Gabriel red
Yes Maghales was provoked by Haaland even doing that in his 2nd goal. Maghales just reacted. Taylor knew series of actions because it all happened since the kick off.
Your Pep’s Stadium name is Etihad not as you put it. A continuation of Concacaf?
If it was a red VAR would have overturned the refs decision,it wasn’t so they didn’t ,not sure what Arteta is talking about .
When it happened I thought it had to be a Red Card, but on seeing the replay you can see a covering defender. So in my opinion the ref was right in just giving Pope a Yellow Card.
Red card all day long…am not surprised the usual refree defendants like Jax,Suep,Derek,Dan kit,Dan smith&Reggie are all out in full force to defend a decision against the club they claim to support when last week they all sided with Man city fans in saying Gabriel should have been sent off.I know if it were to be the other way round and Raya was sent off they will all turn&say it’s the right decision..SMH’
Never mind Matthew, Don’t be so downhearted. I’m sure that somebody somewhere in the universe supports your views🤗
😂😂
Wtf is a referee defendant .
DK?
100% you. Thanks Gooner.
Matthew,
Where have I said that Pope shouldn’t have been sent off.
And just to add, that just because I support Arsenal, doesn’t mean I have to be blinkered into only seeing things that go against our club, and don’t call out things that go in our clubs favour.
Every time a decision goes against us, out come the conspiracy theorists.
It depends on your interpretation of last man and clear goal scoring opportunity.
My view is Pope came off his line and was clearly beaten to the ball by Gyokeres, so technically the GK is beaten. In my opinion once the goal keeper is beaten, no matter the position of the said player, is a clear goal scoring opportunity. I remember the match against Everton and Dowman facing the goal, even from our half of the pitch everyone was off their seat, why? Because the GK is beaten.
If you think the Newcastle defender is close, he only gained ground because of the GK movement.
Lastly, by the law, last man rule involved the GK at his goal post but in this situation the GK is beaten. This isn’t about conspiracy, just saying, in my opinion, the ref got it wrong just as they got it wrong the during first leg.
Chronicles, I agree that the defender being in a better position to affect the call is at least partially the result of the GK foul on Gyokeres. A good point that I believe should have perhaps been given more weight in the decision.
There is no “last man rule”.
There is. A foul by the last defender is deemed to deny a clear scoring opportunity.
True, a foul by the last defender is deemed to deny a clear goal scoring opportunity, and so it should, but that actual offense (last man) is not mentioned in the rules, because it’s covered by what is actually separately already mentioned (in the rules) Look it up.
“Location and number of defenders” is the wording they use, which covers that aspect of the offence. There could technically be more than just one.
All sounds open to interpretation 😀
SueP,
Yes, you always hear the commenters saying “last man”, which makes sense but there’s no “last man” mentioned in the actual rules governing this offence.