The Gunners’ loss against Bournemouth has become a hot topic of discussion for VAR critics. Not only did Arsenal lose three points but William Saliba was also deemed to a three-match ban following his suspension.
Arguably the most important decision of the game, Saliba was sent off at the half-hour mark. Initially, the Frenchman was booked for the challenge but an intervention from VAR made things worse.
VAR suggested denial of a potential scoring opportunity which ended in Saliba getting sent off. The defender will be available for Arsenal’s clash against Shakhtar Donetsk but will start serving his ban from the following fixture.
Mikel Arteta agreed that mistakes are a part of the game and defended his team in the media. The Spaniard just accepted the suspension and didn’t have any remarks for the referees.
It’s an accident waiting to happen not to get the points. I can’t fault the team for their effort, commitment, how intelligent they were to play in the way that we had to.
Football is a sport where errors are part of that. Tonight we made two big errors that have cost us the game unfortunately. Playing for 65 minutes with 10 men at this level is an impossible task.
-Mikel Arteta
Former Premier League referee has “major doubts” over Arsenal star Saliba’s suspension
William Saliba was initially shown a yellow
Ex-English Premier League referee Mark Halsey seemingly didn’t agree with the Saliba decision. He feels that first referee Ron Jones’ decision should have been the one to stand.
I had major doubts over William Saliba’s red card and would have stayed with referee Rob Jones’ on-field decision of a caution. The Arsenal defender fouled Bournemouth striker Evanilson but was it a clear and obvious error for VAR to intervene?
It’s a subjective decision, so I didn’t think VAR Jarred Gillett needed to get involved. For the denial of a goalscoring opportunity, we look at four key criteria. And I had doubts over three of those.
-Mark Halsey via The Sun
Halsey thinks that a VAR intervention was unnecessary and Jarred Gillett shouldn’t have been involved. The English referee also claimed that it was a subjective decision.
The distance between the offence and the goal was lengthy, the general direction of play saw the ball coming across Evanilson and not in front of him and also the location and number of defenders was questionable.
The likelihood of him keeping or gaining control of the ball would have probably been in the favour of the Cherries forward because David Raya was back-pedalling towards his own goal.
-Mark Halsey via The Sun
