While we debate weather we actually got a VAR outcome favorable for us for once.. Varchester United have a perfectly cleated penalty against them not given... clear red for me this one.. not in control of his body - could have broken a leg.

What a boring read in the last few pages. Nothing about the result and top 4 hopes. All about a red card.

Quote

Together, they made a judgment call so erroneous, so lacking in understanding and feeling for the game that it should preclude the match official taking charge of one for a month at least. Martin Samuel

 

who's this fat f**k? where was he when Rudiger and Dave got kicked with no red cards given to call for a month of suspenssion? f**kin c**t

 

Edited April 26, 20215 yr by mojo

6 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

It shows how little the pundits know about the rules of the game then!

Anyone is entitled to have an opinion on the rules all they like. We all know the Opinions/arseholes saying etc. Having a view on the rules is one thing...

... however the ref in this instance followed the rules as they currently exist, and to say the ref was harsh shows a lack of understanding of the guidelines, which stipulate that a red card is the correct punishment.

Those that disagree with the sending off, think it was "soft", pros and pundits who don't think it even merited a yellow, or any other person that has an opinion on how the rule,  should stop complaining and use those efforts to lobby the ruling bodies to change the rules. But they should be clear that the ref got it spot on as per the rules of the game that he is there to implement.

 

So if in the next game Rudiger is trying to clear the ball and a player gets hit by his leg while trying to block the ball then you are ok with Rudiger getting a red card presumably.

3 hours ago, forbzy said:

So if in the next game Rudiger is trying to clear the ball and a player gets hit by his leg while trying to block the ball then you are ok with Rudiger getting a red card presumably.

If rudiger plants his studs, accidentally or otherwise, high into the leg of an opponent, then yes, a red card would be fully justified under the current rules if the referee thinks that the resulting action (I.e the studs into the leg) constituted dangerous play.

Would I like it - no, of course not. Any red card as the result of an accident would be annoying. But rules are rules, so as long as it was being implemented fairly and consistently, then I would take it on the chin. 

I certainly wouldn't be arguing with the referee, who doesn't make the rules, but whose job is simply to implement them. 

Edited April 26, 20215 yr by nonotnowjim

On 25/04/2021 at 13:11, dkw said:

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

He could have been stargazing for all it matters - where he was looking is irrelevant to the decision to issue a red card.

3 hours ago, forbzy said:

So if in the next game Rudiger is trying to clear the ball and a player gets hit by his leg while trying to block the ball then you are ok with Rudiger getting a red card presumably.

You talk as if this happens in every match 😂 Can you even point out a recent incident where one of our players has caught someone studs first so high up the leg during their follow through?

12 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

He could have been stargazing for all it matters - where he was looking is irrelevant to the decision to issue a red card.

You really see football as that black and white? So refs shouldn't take anything about the situation into consideration, that's an abysmal opinion.

If Chillwell was facing the player that easily could be a leg breaker. It's full on studs right below the knee with the entire force of their body behind him.  Would anyone dispute that's red worth had that broken Chillwell's leg?  

 

What matters more; the intent of the player, or the potential harm they cause?  To me both have a role.  Intent to harm without much harm being done can be a red....and so to can a lack of intent but an action that could cause serious harm as was the case here. I mean I dont get the impression Chilwell rolls around at slight contact, and you could see him strongly react to the force of that WHU player raking/stamping his studs on his leg.

 

Think this is harsher than when Eden got red for toe poking a ball from under a ballboy?  Cause very few aside from us Chelsea fans opposed that, and that was nothing compared to this clearance come full studded stamp (intentional or not).

Edited April 26, 20215 yr by Barry Bridges

3 hours ago, dkw said:

You really see football as that black and white? So refs shouldn't take anything about the situation into consideration, that's an abysmal opinion.

It is not my opinion, and I never said it was...

...However, it is in the rule book, which clearly sets out that such an offence is punished with a red card. I have posted multiple times already, so happy to post one more. for clarification the rules (not my opinion) state that dangerous play is  "ANY action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone" . The rules (again, still not my opinion) also state that an action, even if accidental, that "endangers the safety of an opponent"  should be punished by the sending off.

So to answer your question. No.  Refs shouldn't take anything about the situation into consideration. Unless they change the rules to say that refs can take other factors into account, or the rules change to allow accidental actions that threaten to injure or endanger the safety of an opponent, then the above rules remains true and valid. Again - to make  very clear, this is NOT my opinion, but the rules.

3 hours ago, Barry Bridges said:

If Chillwell was facing the player that easily could be a leg breaker. It's full on studs right below the knee with the entire force of their body behind him.  Would anyone dispute that's red worth had that broken Chillwell's leg?  

 

What matters more; the intent of the player, or the potential harm they cause?  To me both have a role.  Intent to harm without much harm being done can be a red....and so to can a lack of intent but an action that could cause serious harm as was the case here. I mean I dont get the impression Chilwell rolls around at slight contact, and you could see him strongly react to the force of that WHU player raking/stamping his studs on his leg.

 

Think this is harsher than when Eden got red for toe poking a ball from under a ballboy?  Cause very few aside from us Chelsea fans opposed that, and that was nothing compared to this clearance come full studded stamp (intentional or not).

Great post. Fully agree.

10 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

It is not my opinion, and I never said it was...

...However, it is in the rule book, which clearly sets out that such an offence is punished with a red card. I have posted multiple times already, so happy to post one more. for clarification the rules (not my opinion) state that dangerous play is  "ANY action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone" . The rules (again, still not my opinion) also state that an action, even if accidental, that "endangers the safety of an opponent"  should be punished by the sending off.

So to answer your question. No.  Refs shouldn't take anything about the situation into consideration. Unless they change the rules to say that refs can take other factors into account, or the rules change to allow accidental actions that threaten to injure or endanger the safety of an opponent, then the above rules remains true and valid. Again - to make  very clear, this is NOT my opinion, but the rules.

This indeed is a good post.

Prior to the introduction of VAR this type of incident was unlikely to have been even noticed on the day. It was. A fair distance away from the ref and also the asst on the opposite side of the field was probably too far away. 

VAR is the issue here because quite simply it enabled a ref away from the match itself to view from several angles in slow mo to form an opinion and consequently thought it justified a red card. I didn’t think viewing the game in real time it was anything but when you saw replays and the impact on Chillwell I wondered. 

The laws evolve. So many call out the refs for applying the current laws based wheraes those calling out the refs have an opinion often based on a much older version of the laws or based on what they would as players have got away with in those pre VAR games

Those same refs in the past if they had any doubt wouldn’t have made the call in game time. Now that luxury or get out doesn’t exist 

So many wanted VAR, I didn’t, but this is what VAR brings to the table. Gone are the days when in instances like this is  the first opinion the only opinion and that’s the issue that so many now don’t like.

As they say be careful what you wish for.

Edited April 27, 20215 yr by terraloon

wrong thread lol lol lol 

 

 

Edited April 27, 20215 yr by General

Guess the FA disagree with the rules then:

 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11685/12288749/fabian-balbuena-west-ham-defenders-red-card-against-chelsea-overturned-on-appeal

8 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Guess the FA disagree with the rules then:

 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11685/12288749/fabian-balbuena-west-ham-defenders-red-card-against-chelsea-overturned-on-appeal

Strange that, as it was in the rule book apparently...

I am not surprised it was overturned. Would have set a new precedent if this was regarded as a red card offense. I doubt the result would have been different as West Ham did not look like staging a rally with 11 players. Regardless there is no excuse for a ref to make such a poor decision when they have the opportunity to view the replays. They should be suspended from officiating for the rest of the season.

46 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Guess the FA disagree with the rules then:

 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11685/12288749/fabian-balbuena-west-ham-defenders-red-card-against-chelsea-overturned-on-appeal

5 minutes ago, Munkworth said:

Someone's conspicuous in his absence from this thread all of a sudden.....

1 hour ago, axman2526 said:

Guess the FA disagree with the rules then:

 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11685/12288749/fabian-balbuena-west-ham-defenders-red-card-against-chelsea-overturned-on-appeal

Right decision - despite what the rule book might say!!

20 hours ago, dkw said:

Someone's conspicuous in his absence from this thread all of a sudden.....

On 27/04/2021 at 12:35, dkw said:

Someone's conspicuous in his absence from this thread all of a sudden.....

Seems a little busy having a pop at those that support Tammy in the Timo thread.