The Ref Chelsea v Norwich

[jono]

Just watching the last few minutes of this. Some very brave refereeing decisions. Maybe not technically right but absolutely in the spirit of sport.

Willan throws himself down in the box ... Oh yes there was "contact" but only because he'd already decided to go down. Then he sends off a Morata who has his shoulder touched and goes down like a sack of spuds. Jeees some real play actors at Chelski. Can we have a kick it campaign for con men 

Fed up of players falling over. Have some guts .. Like the ref ! 

[R@M]

And that idiot Jenas saying Morata was entitled to go down. A hand on the shoulder does not mean you have to swan dive forwards.

[PistoldPete2]

I thought it was a peno but he dived. Can you give both a peno and a booking for diving? 

[FindernRam]

The simple view of this that the moment the hand went on the other player it was with the intent to slow him up--a foul. Therefore a penalty. The fall over is irrelevant. 

There is too much grappling going on and refs let them get away with it. Norwich were guilty on several occasions so dead lucky in my view

[jono]

44 minutes ago, FindernRam said:

The simple view of this that the moment the hand went on the other player it was with the intent to slow him up--a foul. Therefore a penalty. The fall over is irrelevant. 

There is too much grappling going on and refs let them get away with it. Norwich were guilty on several occasions so dead lucky in my view

I agree that it was a foul and therefore a penalty (just) - according to the letter of the law .. hand on another player etc etc, but how much was he really was  impeded ? The gamesmanship just isn't sporting. Yes, grappling is dire, Sir Jake was always one of the worst, but that isn't the point and this wasn't a full on shirt tug. In a sense, If he'd stayed on his feet he might have got a pen.

I have no problem if a player is really fouled and wants the ref to see it but too often in the game we have surrendered common sense and honesty. The Willan appeal is a prime example. He dived and generated the "contact" with the premeditated dive.  That isn't skilled, clever, or playing to the rules ... its cheating.  

[Gandalf's shin pads]

I think the crux of the issue is that the footballing world needs to decide whether it is a 'contact' sport or not. 

As others have said technically, by the letter of the law, as soon as hands were laid on the shoulder and arm of the attacker, the referee was within his rights to give a penalty.

However, it might also be argued that the attacking player's response was entirely disproportionate to the contact and therefore may have been guilty of simulation.

Currently, and probably for about the last ten to fifteen years, football seems to have had quite a contextual and subjective relationship with the concept of 'contact'.

We appear to exist in a grey area which seeks both to bind officials hands ever more tightly by the letter of the law yet make the interpretation of that law quite flexible. Effectively this leaves the decision to the judgement of the man on the spot.

If football is a 'contact' sport, the benefit of the doubt, arguably, goes to the defender. If it isn't, then it goes to the attacker. Until that issue is sorted, however, we will continue to have instances and debates like this one. 

[Doodle]

Football, in my opinion reacted to the thuggery of the early days where anyone with speed or skill, would be hacked to pieces to stop them playing. These players needed and deserved protection, however it’s gone too far the other way, where any contact becomes a foul. Players do not help refs but neither do the authorities. It should be so easy to stop diving. A retrospective ban for 5 games and any points gained, be awarded to the opposition will stop it overnight. That’s never going to happen though. As for the ref last night, I’m afraid he wasn’t great overall. I felt he either had preconceived options on the Chelsea players or let the disgraceful Pedro dive cloud his view. He may well have reffed the game in the spirit most of us would like, but as the original post suggests he was “ technically incorrect”. His sole job is to implement the laws as they stand, not his interpretation of them. The foul on Willian, was a foul albeit a soft one. Penalty should have resulted. He did however get the hand on the shoulder one right in my opinion, but I didn’t think he should have been booked for it as the defender was stupid to grab him in the first instance. However he was correct to give him the 2 nd yellow for his verbal tirade 

[CapeTownRams]

On 1/17/2018 at 18:15, R@M said:

And that idiot Jenas saying Morata was entitled to go down. A hand on the shoulder does not mean you have to swan dive forwards.

"Entitled to go down” !? If you are a cheat...

Sick of this ‘it’s all part of the game’ nonsense.  Cheating plain and simple.

......except when Franny Lee played for us when it was a true master at work...??

[needles]

There's a fine line between drawing a foul and cheating. There will always be controversies around the margins. For me, the ref was brilliant.

[Spanish]

just goes to show even with the benefit of slo mo and multiple angles there can still be debatable events, undermines VAR as an effective tool in some cases

[LazloW]

I can't see VAR ever working where there is any sort of interpretation needed or subjectivity involved.  Technology works in cricket because the issues are largely based on fairly straight forward questions; did it hit the bat, was the foot over the line, did the ball go over the boundary so on and so forth  (or as close as you can get to straight forward questions with the aids of snicko, hawkeye and hotspot).  If there is any doubt at all in these things then everybody knows where they stand.  Even with these aids, there is still controversy now and again.

VAR can obviously work for simple yes/no things like the ball going out, but fouls are inherently difficult to judge.  By the letter of the law, the defender had his hand on the chaps shoulder so does that mean its a foul because he shouldn't be touching him, or does it depend on how hard he's touching him, can you touch him provided you aren't pushing him, does it matter if the player goes down too easily, should it matter if the player goes down too easily (yes imho) but if it does matter them how can you really tell on a replay.  Incredibly difficult.  Most people seemed to agree that Willian's was a penalty because 'there was contact' but aren't there also circumstances where 'there is contact' that people generally agree aren't penalties or fouls.  All too subjectve to be second guessed by somebody miles away.  So, if I had a vote, Id be saying drop it for anything other than whether balls went over lines.  Much more simple and striggt forward.

[PistoldPete2]

Well we saw again today.. A player diving , but it was a foul and should have been a penalty. If jerome had just gone down without doing a triple pike we should have got the peno. 

[Gritstone Ram]

Is there a right and wrong way to go down in the box?

[Millenniumram]

7 minutes ago, Gritters said:

Is there a right and wrong way to go down in the box?

Exactly, I don’t care is he’s done the ******* Macarena as he’s gone down, he’s had his leg taken so it’s a bloody pen!

[Sith Happens]

Willians was worse as was going down before contact made. 

[PistoldPete2]

9 hours ago, Millenniumram said:

Exactly, I don’t care is he’s done the ******* Macarena as he’s gone down, he’s had his leg taken so it’s a bloody pen!

He but his theatrics drew attention to the dive rather than the foul.

[Wolfie20]

Ref couldn't have been much closer with a clear view - his positioning was brilliant, decision making dreadful. When both managers are up in arms throughout the game then you know the referee is having a stinker.

[jono]

5 hours ago, Paul71 said:

Willians was worse as was going down before contact made. 

nail on head Paul. Cheers !

The difference is Willan was not fouled. He decided to throw himself forward to generate the "contact" .. well spotted by the ref. 

Jerome was fouled but he made it so theatrical it deceived the ref.....  in the wrong way.

[Boycie]

17 hours ago, Gritters said:

Is there a right and wrong way to go down in the box?

Consent is normally required.

[jono]

3 hours ago, jono said:

nail on head Paul. Cheers !

The difference is Willan was not fouled. He decided to throw himself forward to generate the "contact" .. well spotted by the ref. 

Jerome was fouled but he made it so theatrical it deceived the ref.....  in the wrong way.

And I'd add it was his own stupid fault for trying to be a clever dick