Rob-BEE
Buzzing
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
You kind of prove my point about confirmation bias. And yes, I cited the Gabriel example in my first post on this thread.
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
- Thread starter Untouchable
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 79
- Views 3K
Rob-BEE
Buzzing
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
I must have missed Arsenal winning the European Cup.
But seriously, ive no idea what this table proves or is supposed to prove tbh!
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
That refs make more "errors" against the larger clubs. That's as clear as day!
OP
OP
Untouchable
Professional Marinakis hater
- Joined
- 5 May 2014
- Messages
- 33,013
- Reaction score
- 93,644
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
The KMI panel decided that Palmer should have been sent off by the referee but only by a margin of 3:2. The reasoning is below:
“The on-field no red card decision was deemed incorrect, 3:2. The majority felt that Palmer's action on Fernandes was clear contact to the head as well as unnecessary, dangerous and made with excessive force. Two panellists supported the on-field call as they viewed the action as aggressive with no excessive force. All panellists supported the VAR's decision to not intervene and support the referee's call given that a yellow card was awarded on-field.”
For reference this is the Palmer incident:
View: https://x.com/1manny_fs/status/2114057615391011026?a=ryGFM9eTK2_OG2bvjxs&s=46
So 2 of the KMI panel think this was not violent conduct. And all 5 thought the threshold for VAR intervention was not met.
In comparison all 5 of the panel concluded that the referee was wrong not to send Yarmo off and by 5:0 that VAR was right to intervene. In other words Yarmo used excessive force or brutality against Jacquet.
“The on-field no red card decision was deemed incorrect, 3:2. The majority felt that Palmer's action on Fernandes was clear contact to the head as well as unnecessary, dangerous and made with excessive force. Two panellists supported the on-field call as they viewed the action as aggressive with no excessive force. All panellists supported the VAR's decision to not intervene and support the referee's call given that a yellow card was awarded on-field.”
For reference this is the Palmer incident:
View: https://x.com/1manny_fs/status/2114057615391011026?a=ryGFM9eTK2_OG2bvjxs&s=46
So 2 of the KMI panel think this was not violent conduct. And all 5 thought the threshold for VAR intervention was not met.
In comparison all 5 of the panel concluded that the referee was wrong not to send Yarmo off and by 5:0 that VAR was right to intervene. In other words Yarmo used excessive force or brutality against Jacquet.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kingston Bee
Well-known member
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
Fully agree, consistency goes out the window when a top 6 team is involved. Have not read anywhere the logic behind not booking/sending off Madueke for the headbutt against Liverpool, almost like it never happened. But we all know why.
Last edited:
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
It was at the very least a yellow, which would have been his 2nd of the game. So off anyway
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
Got more of a Stones vibe to me
View: https://youtube.com/shorts/Rn3fjg78gws?is=EQrP3CQ4109XHIzV
When does this panel share their thoughts on Madueke as, while the Palmer aggression to the opponents head was far more forceful, this was the most comparable incident to Yarmo's with a different word soup by the officials? I'm obviously not holding my breath but I wonder if the club is waiting for that if they haven't already made contact with Pro Ref.
westendbee
Active member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2012
- Messages
- 3,061
- Reaction score
- 3,423
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
I don’t have a problem with the Madueke incident. Because it’s Arsenal and they get away with things, it has at least highlighted how the innocent-looking and “much-wronged” Iraola has encouraged his players to wind up the opposition at set pieces with the aim of provoking an incident. So maybe the cheating scousers won’t get away with this any more, much like Sunderland haven’t been awarded a “Sunderland penalty” (where their attacker instigates contact, disorientates the defender who is then punished for “not looking at the ball”) since they had one awarded against Arsenal, shortly after they got lucky against us.
Carri Bee Un
The Most Esteemed and Very Reverend
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
Weirdly though I've been singing it all day.
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
From Iraola's press conference today:
Liverpool’s Andoni Iraola was asked about referees and some of the decisions that may have gone against his players of late.
“I think we are quite an honest group. Sometimes too honest,” said the Spaniard.
“The referee said last week, our behaviour has been very good.
“You cannot fake things. When we complain it has to be genuine.”
Liverpool’s Andoni Iraola was asked about referees and some of the decisions that may have gone against his players of late.
“I think we are quite an honest group. Sometimes too honest,” said the Spaniard.
“The referee said last week, our behaviour has been very good.
“You cannot fake things. When we complain it has to be genuine.”
Greybeard
Member
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
I've lost count of the games where both sets of supporters were convinced the referee was biased against them!
Lionel Bart-At
formerly known as 'heavywoollenbee'
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
Is it just me who always reads this thread title to a Rolling Stones tune?
Edit: obviously not: I’ve just read the few posts above!!
Edit: obviously not: I’ve just read the few posts above!!
BURFORD BEE
Well-known member
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
It goes perfectly to Its only rock n roll. Too early for the youngsters on here
Lionel Bart-At
formerly known as 'heavywoollenbee'
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
Er, what youngsters?It goes perfectly to Its only rock n roll. Too early for the youngsters on here
Bangor Bee
Bangor Bee
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
I don't really like the sense of victimhood here. KLP wasn't watching the ball against Sunderland and clearly wrestled their player -- he might have got away with it but I see no reason to complain about the decision (we got a similar one at Wolves in our first season in the Prem). Likewise, Yarmo was plain foolish to get drawn into that soft head butt. The one instance when I have felt really aggrieved this season was the failure to award a penalty for the clear trip on Kevin Schade at Leeds. If VAR doesn't overturn decisions like that, we might as well not have it.
OP
OP
Untouchable
Professional Marinakis hater
- Joined
- 5 May 2014
- Messages
- 33,013
- Reaction score
- 93,644
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
Yes he was foolish. But that doesn’t make it violent conduct. Neither the VAR or the referee when announcing the decision applied Law 12 properly.
Madueke got away with a near identical offence against Liverpool and Cole Palmer practically committed assault against Fernandes and was only cautioned.
The issue remains that smaller clubs are refereed differently against the Big 6 and Big 6 players appear to have a completely different standard applied (see above examples and Gabriel’s headbutt on Haaland).
- Joined
- 23 May 2000
- Messages
- 24,240
- Reaction score
- 16,174
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
I see their manager is already planting seeds of doubt into the ref's mind about our alleged physicality and strength. Be strong Mr Oliver
JCMcBee
Well-known member
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
Re victim mentality....I agree.... it's becoming increasingly invasive on the GPG in recent times.... bordering on paranoid delusional twaddle...of course conscious and unconscious bias are things...but are incredibly difficult to qualify....and evidence objectively..too many variables....imo Brentford FC are no different from other clubs outside the elite when it comes to the subject matter.
badgerbee
Mafeking Avenue........gets you there!!!!
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
Not sure many (if any) on here have argued anything differently to that.
JCMcBee
Well-known member
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
... fair enough.... it's only a football forum after all.... but the day our players start seeing themselves as victims of a 'corrupt' system....well.....then we really do have problems.
Jezybee
Reassuringly Expensive
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
The players’s frustration has been plain to see this season and has led to several bookings for remonstrating and back chat to the referee. Doesn’t mean they handled it correctly nor that it’s a conspiracy. When (if) they watch matches involving the Big 6 they can’t help but think “I would have been booked for that”.
OP
OP
Untouchable
Professional Marinakis hater
- Joined
- 5 May 2014
- Messages
- 33,013
- Reaction score
- 93,644
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
An update on post 1.
There have now been results of KMI panels released for both of these incidents.
A little comparison follows.
1) The KMI panel on Yarmo/ Jacquet:
“The VAR overturn to issue a red card for violent conduct against Yarmolyuk was unanimously supported with a clear movement of the head making contact with Jacquet”
2) The KMI panel on Madueke/MacAllister:
“As above, the panel unanimously felt that the referee was correct not to issue a straight red card for the same incident as contact was negligible and the reaction of the opponent was clearly exaggerated”
When you’re an Arsenal player, it will be expressly considered whether the force you use is negligible and whether the reaction of your opponent is exaggerated.
If you’re a Brentford player none of this applies and you can f*** off and sit 3 matches out.
Edit:
It goes further. The KMI Panel also decided that the actions of Madueke did not merit a second caution:
“The panel unanimously felt that the referee's call of no second caution for the actions of Madueke was correct”
2 extremely similar incidents. According to the KMI panel one of these was violent conduct and the other didn’t even merit a caution.
It is beyond defending at this stage.
Last edited:
hanworthbee
Well-known member
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
Not sure I agree as both of our red cards for violent conduct were deserved as were the other two PL that have players who have received three game bans, mateta and Dowman
OP
OP
Untouchable
Professional Marinakis hater
- Joined
- 5 May 2014
- Messages
- 33,013
- Reaction score
- 93,644
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
Mateta was serious foul play so not comparable and Dowman literally kicked his opponent. Dowman’s was also in the EFL Cup so there will be no KMI panel.
The Yarmo/ Jacquet and Madueke/ MacAllister incidents are comparable as they are both headbutts, in the PL, subject to VAR reviews and KMI panel consideration.
One of these incidents (Arsenal player) had a full rehearsal of Law 12 in the VAR review and a KMI panel that considered whether the force was negligible and whether the opponent exaggerated. The other incident (Brentford player) didn’t.
There should be very legitimate questions being asked about why the process is so thorough for a Big 6 player and not for a Brentford player.
JCMcBee
Well-known member
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
... it's simply wrong... it's subjective...the whole process should be reviewed... they want to do it properly... they have to somehow introduce science.
BURFORD BEE
Well-known member
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
It f****** stinks to be frank. Unfortunately it's not going to change and we will have to learn to live with it. That means absolutely no retaliation whatever the circumstances and it needs to be drilled into the players.
JCMcBee
Well-known member
It’s Only Violent Conduct When It’s Brentford
.... provocation and intimidation are not direct acts of physical violence,but often lead to acts of violence....the football authorities must imo review their position re provocation and intimidation...it might go someway in preventing acts of retaliation and violent acts..which seemingly is the only thing being punished at the current time....human beings have two options when intimidated or provoked in a confrontational situation... fight or flight.... some fight some walk away.... personally I've always usually chosen the former...not always the wisest decision in some situations...I put it down to my upbringing.... rightly or wrongly....maybe this is also the case with some footballers I guess.... walking away might be difficult for some.....cut out the provocation and intimidation aspect you cut out the violence.