Arsenal: Peter Walton waffling indicative of misguided officiating

What has happened in the days following David Luiz’s red card for Arsenal away at Wolves has snowballed into all out warfare. Jan Bednarek was sent off for an almost identical foul against Manchester United just over an hour later, yet only one was overturned.

Sparking outrage across the fanbase, the word ‘corruption’ has been flung about in response. In a nutshell, officials up and down the country have it in for Arsenal.

They don’t.

The notion that there is a submerged vendetta against one football club that peers its head out of the water to deliberately make wrong calls in matches is nonsense. Every fanbase of every club could draw up a list of incidents that have gone against their side. They’re almost always unfounded.

Arsenal: Peter Walton’s explanation of David Luiz and Jan Bednarek’s red cards highlight inconsistencies in Premier League officiating

If someone truly believed that fixtures against their club were tainted with a predetermined outcome, what would the point be in watching at all? If there was a handicap attributed to your club before a ball was kicked, we might as well all watch curling. There’d be no enjoyment.

The standard of refereeing is still poor though, this much can be agreed upon.

Beyond being of a wretched standard, the comments made by former referee Peter Walton on BT Sport to justify the reasons behind Luiz’s dismissal being upheld and Bednarek walking free are utterly baffling. In attempting to draw a line under the debate, he succeeded only in highlighting precisely why there is so much inconsistency. It’s total waffle. Here is it, in all its ‘glory’:

"“Everyone in football knows that’s a red card,” Walton said. “What’s happened in Luiz has gone through the play, he hasn’t slowed up, his momentum, he’s caught him, he’s gone over – it’s a penalty kick.“He’s been clumsy, or as the law says, he’s been careless in his actions in clipping his heels as he goes through. So the referee had no option at all but to award a penalty kick and because he’s made no attempt on the ball, it’s a red card offence.“The other one, in Bednarek, what’s happened there is the referee Mike Dean has seen contact on Martial, he goes over and gives the penalty kick."

"“For VAR to intervene, the VAR is looking for elements to justify that particular decision. He sees it as the contact and so therefore doesn’t have that clear evidence to afford Mike Dean to say, ‘no, it’s not a penalty kick.’“In fact, Mike Dean goes over to the monitor there; not to see if it was a foul but to make sure he got the sanction correct because Bednarek had made no attempt on the ball. However, when you fast forward to the commission, they have a slightly different agenda to the referee and the VAR.“The commissions can add in the contact, the context of the so-called foul and any other mitigating circumstances, such as, ‘was the forward actually off-balance is going over?’“It’s only a wrong decision because the commission allow the appeal to succeed. As a referee I still think Mike Dean was correct; there is contact there and if there is contact, in his opinion, he gives the foul.“Who’s to know how much contact there is to make Martial fall over? From a pure refereeing angle, I’d support that decision. But the commission have other options to gauge themselves with.”"

Right. OK. Starting off in a relatively concise manner to explain the Luiz red card, Walton then embarked on a spew of verbal diarrhoea that in attempting to explain the inexplicable, succeeding only in exacerbating the failings within Premier League officiating.

As far as he’s explained it, in the case of Mike Dean, the referee has made his own decision based on the criteria he follows. Then, VAR comes in with its own take on the matter, putting forward their recommendation. Then, the FA reviews the whole matter judged entirely on their own, different set terms.

The Luiz and Bednarek incidents took the biscuit. How can they deduce that one was acceptable and the other was not? Walton’s incoherent babbling is outrageous, just as his explanation of events from the actual scenario differ so wildly that it’s hard to believe he’s watching the same clip.

You can’t help but feel he’s making it up on the spot. Arguably, because he is. Sure, by the letter of the law, Luiz should have been sent off. Apparently. Well if that is the case, then make it universal. One rule for them all, not one rule for certain referees or whoever is on VAR duty.

That consistency is what rightly riles everyone. The ridiculous laws themselves that change with the wind do too. Yet that doesn’t infer collusion, nor does it have any underlying agendas one way or another. Insisting certain referees never officiate certain clubs won’t change anything, only make matters worse. Who really wants to referee in this day and age?

Something has to change. Calling corruption won’t help.