Howard Webb thinks it was finally false for Myles Lewis -Skelly to be sent against wolves – but defended the decision of officials despite everything.
Lewis-Skelly received a straight red card in the first half of the 1-0 arsenal victory against the Wolves in January by referee Michael Oliver, a decision that was confirmed by Var Darren England.
Mikel Arteta said he “ absolutely furious ” with the decision and that the experts reacted with Shock, with Micah Richards marking her “the worst decision I have ever seen in the history of Premier League football” . He was canceled after a call.
Arsenal has since been sentenced to a fine of £ 65,000 so that their players behave in an inappropriate way “when Lewis-Skelly has been returned.
In the episode of Tuesday of the Miss Mic’d Up on Sky Sports match, the audio of the incident involving Oliver as well as the officials of the VAR is released.
And although webb thinks it was bad that Lewis-Skelly was sent, he insisted that it was not a “horrible” decision.
Howard Webb gave its point of view on the controversial red card of Myles Lewis-Skelly in January
The former webb referee said it was not the bad decision, but that he has always defended civil servants
He said it was an “understandable” decision for referee Michael Oliver to take at the time
“From the start, we would prefer a yellow card in this situation,” said Webb, which arrested the World Cup final and the Champions League in 2010.
Obviously, the referee of the day felt the actions of Myles Lewis -Skelly, he saw the player move to an opponent without any capacity or intention to play the ball – with the intention of stopping the opponent . And the referee sees a raised foot establishing high contact and the opponent fell.
“ The referee estimated that it was a serious serious game, the Var checked the images to see if the call was clearly and obviously false and he considered that it was not the case – seeing that the contact was high enough on the leg.
“But we know that for a serious serious game, we need excessive strength or brutality and what we see here is that the high contact (just) jet a glance and go out leg fairly quickly.
“So, for this reason, everyone in the game formed the same conclusion that it does not respond to a serious game – because of this contact with a glance. Because the studs don’t really go directly to the leg, they look before going down on the foot.
“There are considerations that could take care of a red card, but there are a whole series of others that say that it is not quite there, so in balance, we prefer that it was a Yellow card, “said webb.
“The Var did not want to redo the situation, they were aware of the referee’s call unless he was clearly and obviously false. They estimated that it was not at this level during the day and decided to leave it like a red card on the field.
“I heard it describes as a truly horrible officiant decision. It’s not! I understand why the referee saw this that day as a serious action.
The Gunners surrounded referee Oliver after the 18 -year -old (right) young man was sent
Arsenal admitted the accusation to behave in an inappropriate manner and was sentenced to a fine of £ 65,000 for the incident
“We have to be careful to slow down things and freeze things. We have spoken not to do it, it can distort reality. We have to look at him at full speed, he looks (studs) and stands out fairly quickly.
“But this is an understandable decision on the ground. Yes, we believe that the Var should have been involved, but at the same time, I can understand why it did not happen in the moment.
“We listen to the game, we rival the officials to try to make sure that we are in line with the expectations of the game and the way we judge these things.”
Although the red card is overturned, Arsenal was nevertheless sentenced to a fine of £ 65,000 by the FA for their reaction.
In his extraordinary incident report, Oliver wrote: “After the dismissal of the 43rd minute, a certain number of Arsenal players surrounded me to protest the decision.
Meanwhile, Arsenal argued: “The unjustified nature of the dismissal MLS (Lewis-Skelly) explains why the AFC players rightly wanted to speak to the referee and for him to reconsider his decision
“The players were naturally emotional after the incident, which explains their actions. AFC players were civilian and non -aggressive. They were not gesticulants or accusations. They did not behave in an offensive, violent, threatening, abusive, indecent, insulting or provocative manner.
“AFC players simply wanted the referee to reconsider the decision and find out what would be the result after any Var exam.”
The decision was then canceled and the police investigated threats and abuses aimed at Oliver
Among the other points, Gabriel was the “main representative” and that most of the time behind his back, and that the decision could have had an impact on their season.
Arsenal, however, admitted the accusation.
The police, on the other hand, investigated the threats and abuses aimed at the Oliver referee, announced the PGMOL.
The press release said: “We are dismayed by the threats and abuses intended for Michael Oliver after the Wolverhampton Wanderers VS Arsenal match.
“No civil servant should be subject to any form of abuse, not to mention the odious attacks aimed at Michael and his family in the last 24 hours.
“The police are aware and a number of surveys have started. We support Michael, and all those affected, and are determined to fight against this unacceptable behavior.
