24 minutes ago, JM7 said:

There’s been criticism for VAR on the red card but for me, it’s done it’s job perfect. It reviewed the tackle and asked the ref to make a SUBJECTIVE decision. The ref, no VAR decided it was a red. The ref actually missed the tackle so credit to VAR for spotting it. 
 

Yes it was soft but the player could have pulled out and not gone studs in. 

How the hell can you pull out when your kicking a football? Ffs

35 minutes ago, Ernie_blue said:

How the hell can you pull out when your kicking a football? Ffs

That red card is one of the worst calls I've seen but because it's West Ham it's f**king hilarious. Would only be funnier if it happened to Spurs.

Man that was a boring game, though Timo was at his hilarious best at least.

I don't remember a match winner having such a terrible overall game before. Few times we actually play the ball over the top for him finally and half the time he is caught on his heels.

We actually created good chances in this game before the red card even. Joke of a choice that was, dumb choice from the ref.

Mount and Pulisic should do better than hit straight at the keeper when free in the box. Still better the timo slicing well off the mark twice.

Had we been clinical we would have been 5 up at half time. Shesh.

Then timo misses an open goal and instead of shooting the next time turns back in to a defender. Just how he manages to one up himself. Wow.

Good result in the end, especially for the locals and bragging rights. Good job to TT. He got it spot on and should have been rewarded with a far more handsome win.

Real big game is on Tuesday against Tibo, Eden and co imo.

11 minutes ago, Spiller86 said:

That red card is one of the worst calls I've seen but because it's West Ham it's f**king hilarious. Would only be funnier if it happened to Spurs.

Terrible call from the VAR ref to refer it, even worse from the actual ref to give it.

Standard of english refs is appalling bad.

Job done. Should have scored a couple more at the end but a win in this situation is the most important. 

We are sooo slow, stagnant and turgid with the ball. Round and round and round in the U shape of death. Safest possible pass, everyone takes a touch before passing the ball on. No one takes a risk by passing in into the 10 area. The one time Kante took a risk and passed into feet in the middle we broke the game open and scored. We should do that more often.

That said you have to give credit to Tuchel for the defensive setup. Many of us were critical of Frank's system being so easily exposed by individual mistakes. Tuchel has fixed that. Everyone covers and we don't rely on individual defenders as much.

Always great to put that lot in their place. Onwards.

Odd how there was no sympathy for Silva when he got the red v WBA. To me that was even more ludicrous if a defender can’t spread himself for a block.

Typical Tuchel's boring 1:0 😀 Joke aside, we created far more better chances, they barely had a clean shot at us, the only chance they could have scored is if Azpi got judged for a handbox in the first half. We dealt with their quick counter and long ball well, I thought it was odd Azpi played as the wingback, think it's a decision to add extra height in the middle, and it paid off. Werner had a good job, although I do wonder whether the late miss will hamper his confidence even more and count out the performance up to that point. Mount is consistently the better player in the team, and Kante again proved he loves this kind of big game. The red car maybe a bit harsh but well within reasons, stud up challenge, could have done some real damage. You see clearance like that 10 times a game, but rarely see one stud up into opposition like that, so it's either intent or terribly unlucky.

1 hour ago, Petworth Chelsea Fan said:

Odd how there was no sympathy for Silva when he got the red v WBA. To me that was even more ludicrous if a defender can’t spread himself for a block.

Yes that was a dumb call as well.

Great result and that's what matters now. Everything else is completely irrelevant. Nor was it a lucky result. It was fair. A relatively easy game where we sit back in H2 is also good. And Mount's shooting from distance is really coming along. If he doesn't burn out will probably turn out to be a decent player.

 

Dave is not a wing back anymore. Cannot get back fast enough and not dangerous enough in attack. I'd have played CHO.

Werner is trying too hard but contrary to others I thought he was ok other than his shooting which was mostly completely garbage. I thought Tammy looked good when he came on and I don't think he would have scored the header, except maybe as DKW suggests with a ninja move.

I am still worried about the fitness of Jorginho and Kante. I think Kante quite clearly, except on one occasion, took it easy in the game and I'm glad he did.

We still have a very tough schedule, but we can now afford a loss in the league and still probably get there. That's a nice margin to have with our run in and other games.

The difference between us and spammers is depth of squad. We can survive losing Kova and say Silva and say Pulisic and put equally capable replacements on the pitch. Spammers can't afford to lose Rice and Antonio etc.

Very2 good result. Typical Chelsea game under Tuchel.

Watching the game, it felt something wrong with west ham then I realize Antonio didn't play. It will be completely different ball game for silva if Antonio play. 

4 hours ago, Strider6003 said:

On the Tammy miss looks like the pace of the cross caught him out though we all know heading is not his strength.

Werner had a late chance he should have done better and Pulisic an earlier one he should have buried.

In saying all this the result was more important after that 0-0 draw with Brighton and Moyes reaction more or less shows how important they saw it too.

Not over and dusted by any means but we are back in the fight for sure.

More on the height of the cross, he was underneath the ball

Not the most memorable game, but a fantastic result.

Needed that after dropping points against Brighton.

6 hours ago, Ernie_blue said:

How the hell can you pull out when your kicking a football? Ffs

i think he knew what he was doing leaving his foot out there.. i understand clearing the lines but his other foot too leaves the ground.. that is not a natural kicking position. Yes you can kick a ball but cant clearout the other player in doing so.. this is exactly what pickford did with VVD.

54 minutes ago, Jangz said:

i think he knew what he was doing leaving his foot out there.. i understand clearing the lines but his other foot too leaves the ground.. that is not a natural kicking position. Yes you can kick a ball but cant clearout the other player in doing so.. this is exactly what pickford did with VVD.

Has one professional footballer said it was a sending off? He wasnt even looking up, he was just clearing the ball.

Don on commentary said it wasnt.. but he is an ex-hammer. Other than that i was watching the ESPN show where Steve said he went in to do him.. and was a Red.. Guess Steve has no love life for CFC and was a much footballer than Don... 

6 minutes ago, Jangz said:

Don on commentary said it wasnt.. but he is an ex-hammer. Other than that i was watching the ESPN show where Steve said he went in to do him.. and was a Red.. Guess Steve has no love life for CFC and was a much footballer than Don... 

Whos Steve?

Just now, Ernie_blue said:

Whos Steve?

steve nicol

8 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Terrible call from the VAR ref to refer it, even worse from the actual ref to give it.

Standard of english refs is appalling bad.

I quoted rules on dangerous play on the previous page - absolutely justified for VAR to refer it if the ref missed it the first time around, and the ref, as per the rules, is perfectly justified to give the red card. 
 

VAR worked perfectly in this instance. The only thing that can be argued is that was the refs decision, which is subjective. Given that the rules clearly define dangerous play, then the refs decision was justified.

He clearly intended to leave his foot in (and could have caused bad injury)... don't see how you can argue against a red. There's a reason why we have thousands of tough tackles flying in every week but such instances are relatively rare. It's not that hard to try and minimize contact as a defender.

Watch it at proper speed, he cleared a ball, at that speed where is his kicking leg going on the follow through, it looks worse because Chilwell doesn't challenge, or why wasn't the guy sent off for a studs high hip challenge on Rudiger, which in that case was also reckless and dangerous

I did watch the game 🙂 So saw it at normal speed several times (replayed in my stream) and in slow motion several times. It was a bad challenge that was entirely avoidable. And the sort of contact that any footballer is capable of avoiding if they intend to.

So many people have brought up the challenge on Rudiger but it should have absolutely no bearing on our assessment of the Chilwell one! Maybe they got the Rudiger one wrong, maybe they got it right, no one here is saying that PL referees are by any means consistent. I have no idea how bad that was because no replays were shown. Bit odd that this is brought up each time as if it has some bearing on an objective assessment of the Chilwell one.

6 minutes ago, Ballack & Blu said:

Watch it at proper speed, he cleared a ball, at that speed where is his kicking leg going on the follow through, it looks worse because Chilwell doesn't challenge, or why wasn't the guy sent off for a studs high hip challenge on Rudiger, which in that case was also reckless and dangerous

 

People are still debating intent on the red card. Did he mean to leave his foot in or not? Was it a natural or unnatural action? Was it accidental? etc, and then using their views on this to justify or argue for/against the red card decision...

...but the whole debate is moot and does not make the slightest bit of difference. Intent is not relevant to the red card decision.

Playing in a dangerous manner is classified (by the rules) as "ANY action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone" .

The fact that the defender planted his studs halfway up Chillwell's leg is in itself sufficient action to cause injury, and is therefore by the definition of the rules "playing in a dangerous manner". It does not matter if he intended the action or not. The red card is justified within the rules, even if it was an accident.

 

6 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

People are still debating intent on the red card. Did he mean to leave his foot in or not? Was it a natural or unnatural action? Was it accidental? etc, and then using their views on this to justify or argue for/against the red card decision...

...but the whole debate is moot and does not make the slightest bit of difference. Intent is not relevant to the red card decision.

Playing in a dangerous manner is classified (by the rules) as "ANY action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone" .

The fact that the defender planted his studs halfway up Chillwell's leg is in itself sufficient action to cause injury, and is therefore by the definition of the rules "playing in a dangerous manner". It does not matter if he intended the action or not. The red card is justified within the rules, even if it was an accident.

 

To build on this, for those inclined to argue that accidents happen, this is also addressed in the rules which goes on to say the following - pertinent bits in bold.

"Although accidents occur, the Laws should make the game as safe as possible. This requires players to show respect for their opponents and referees should create a safe environment by dealing strongly with those whose play is too aggressive and dangerous. The Laws embody the unacceptability of unsafe play in their disciplinary phrases, e.g. ‘reckless challenge’ (caution = yellow card/YC) and ‘endangering the safety of an opponent’ or ‘using excessive force’ (sending-off = red card/RC).

So, the laws of the game state that:

a) Playing in a dangerous manner is classified as "ANY action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone" .

and

b) an action, even if accidental, that "endangers the safety of an opponent"  should be punished by the sending off.

The referee got it spot on as per the rules.

 

3 hours ago, ashwin said:

He clearly intended to leave his foot in (and could have caused bad injury)... don't see how you can argue against a red. There's a reason why we have thousands of tough tackles flying in every week but such instances are relatively rare. It's not that hard to try and minimize contact as a defender.

I don't agree with the "clearly intended" part at all. He never intended to hurt him at all judging from how the match was going and his own behavior.

You can clearly see that it was reckless and argue that it was simply too dangerous which is enough for the red card but I don't see any real argument here that proves that Valbuena really meant to hurt our player, he looked like he was just not paying attention and focused only to make the long ball pass right, he looked like he had some tunnel vision there, anyone that has ever played the game knows that at times you simply don't get to stop your leg flexing like that.

 

That gif shows he looked at the ball the entire time so there's no way he's done him on purpose.