Ref Watch

For the hard of thinking, this is what the laws of the game say about serious foul play.

“Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off”

Note the “must” in that section.

This is what KDB tweeted.




Perhaps those who agree that it was a yellow can explain how you can break someone’s nose and eye socket without endangering their safety?
 
Chris in London said:
For the hard of thinking, this is what the laws of the game say about serious foul play.

“Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off”

Note the “must” in that section.

This is what KDB tweeted.




Perhaps those who agree that it was a yellow can explain how you can break someone’s nose and eye socket without endangering their safety?
Click to expand...
That's in hindsight though. It was an unfortunate collision, deliberately perpetrated by Rudiger. I think yellow card was correct. It's not as though the referee can await the results of an x-ray before deciding if it was dangerous it not. Innocuous challenges someone result in serious injury.
 
King_Ralph_Blumer said:
Chillwell was pissing me off with his falling over antics. Twice he got free kicks when he was clearly untouched. Sterling hits the deck and the ball hits his arm whilst on the ground and it’s a free kick to Chelsea.
Click to expand...
Overall, the ref was ok. Certainly not as bad as in the past, and he can't be blamed for our defeat. But I agree on the incidents you have raised. The foul before the Sterling handball wasn't much, but it was no worse than fouls they had been getting up to that point, and more of a foul than when Chilwell won a free kick near the end.

On another point, Chilwell was a lot better than Zinchenko. I like Zinch, but he's not a natural full back, and I think Chilwell would have done more to stop the goal than Zinchenko managed to do.
 
Paladin said:
That's in hindsight though. It was an unfortunate collision, deliberately perpetrated by Rudiger. I think yellow card was correct. It's not as though the referee can await the results of an x-ray before deciding if it was dangerous it not. Innocuous challenges someone result in serious injury.
Click to expand...

No it’s not hindsight, it’s the laws of the game. The word is “endangered” not “caused.” Try reading them before you dig any deeper. By definition Rudigers challenge endangered KDB. Are you suggesting it was impossible to say from the force of the challenge that KDB’s safety was endangered?

It wasn’t an unfortunate collision either, Rudiger body checked him. It was a foul, correctly given as such. The only problem is that the laws of the game state that Rudiger had to be sent off and he wasn’t.

Yes you can’t tell what injury is caused necessarily without an X Ray, but you can tell when a player has taken a blow to the head and is not able to continue. And if you aren’t sure if it warrants a red card, use VAR.

It’s fucking ridiculous to suggest it was a yellow.
 
Chris in London said:
No it’s not hindsight, it’s the laws of the game. The word is “endangered” not “caused.” Try reading them before you dig any deeper. By definition Rudigers challenge endangered KDB. Are you suggesting it was impossible to say from the force of the challenge that KDB’s safety was endangered?

It wasn’t an unfortunate collision either, Rudiger body checked him. It was a foul, correctly given as such. The only problem is that the laws of the game state that Rudiger had to be sent off and he wasn’t.

Yes you can’t tell what injury is caused necessarily without an X Ray, but you can tell when a player has taken a blow to the head and is not able to continue. And if you aren’t sure if it warrants a red card, use VAR.

It’s fucking ridiculous to suggest it was a yellow.
Click to expand...
It was a block, which deserved a yellow card in my opinion. I fully accept that you have a different opinion.

Every slide tackle involves an element of risk. You don't send send off every person that attempts a slide tackle. Every time someone jumps to head the ball there is a risk of a clash of heads (endangering one or both players). It's not a red card offence. There are plenty of times in a game where players' safety is endangered. It is an accepted risk.

As for the rules, I know them well enough. I am a qualified referee and I have officiated at a high level including the FA Cup.
 
Paladin said:
It was a block, which deserved a yellow card in my opinion. I fully accept that you have a different opinion.

Every slide tackle involves an element of risk. You don't send send off every person that attempts a slide tackle. Every time someone jumps to head the ball there is a risk of a clash of heads (endangering one or both players). It's not a red card offence. There are plenty of times in a game where players' safety is endangered. It is an accepted risk.

As for the rules, I know them well enough. I am a qualified referee and I have officiated at a high level including the FA Cup.
Click to expand...

Not every slide tackle is a foul. A slide tackle that is a foul and endangers the safety of an opponent is a red card offence. The laws use the word 'must.' You know this, you are a referee.

Not every challenge for a header is a foul. If it is, and it involves endangering the safety of an opponent it is a red card offence. The laws use the word 'must.' You know this, you are a referee.

It was a block which was a foul, as the referee correctly determined. It was a block that caused Rudiger's elbow or shoulder to come into contact with KDB's head. You know this, you watched the game.

It is not hindsight to say that a challenge that involves sufficient force to cause a player to sustain a broken nose and fracture to the eye socket is by definition a challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent. The force of the challenge was obvious to the naked eye, as was the treatment and substitution of KDB. The laws of the game make it mandatory for a player in those circumstances to be sent off. No discretion, no excuses, "must."

Your opinion, like Lahoz', is that the challenge warranted only a yellow card. That is your opinion and you're entitled to it, but it is not one that is warranted by the laws of the game.
 
Watched the challenge again today by Rudiger as not sure I could give an unbiased opinion after 10 pints. Rudiger raises his arm just before contact. I have no doubt he meant to "do" Kevin. Think it's fair enough the ref not seeing this on the field as happened off the ball and you don't always get a clear view of these as you naturally follow the play. However, would expect VAR to pick this up given they had 5 minutes to look at it. Also, surely the ref should be thinking that there is more to this due to the severity of the injury.

Also think VAR did not give the handball penalty as the ref made such a show of the ball hitting James chest 1st before hitting his arm that they would make him look an idiot by telling him it's a pen. Replay shows never hit his chest at all. When I was watching it live I thought at 1st the ref was pointing to his arm saying no penalty.

And my final point. Why was he crying at the end. Collina would never have done that.
 
Chris in London said:
Not every slide tackle is a foul. A slide tackle that is a foul and endangers the safety of an opponent is a red card offence. The laws use the word 'must.' You know this, you are a referee.

Not every challenge for a header is a foul. If it is, and it involves endangering the safety of an opponent it is a red card offence. The laws use the word 'must.' You know this, you are a referee.

It was a block which was a foul, as the referee correctly determined. It was a block that caused Rudiger's elbow or shoulder to come into contact with KDB's head. You know this, you watched the game.

It is not hindsight to say that a challenge that involves sufficient force to cause a player to sustain a broken nose and fracture to the eye socket is by definition a challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent. The force of the challenge was obvious to the naked eye, as was the treatment and substitution of KDB. The laws of the game make it mandatory for a player in those circumstances to be sent off. No discretion, no excuses, "must."

Your opinion, like Lahoz', is that the challenge warranted only a yellow card. That is your opinion and you're entitled to it, but it is not one that is warranted by the laws of the game.
Click to expand...
It's a difference of opinion. There weren't copious replays of the incident, and I haven't watched the game back. If I did, I might view the foul by Rudiger as being of excessive force and warranting a red card, as @richardtheref has done.

I agree that if a player uses excessive force that endangers another player's safety, then a red card should be issued. No problem with that. But the subjective bit is that it has to be in the referee's opinion. Lahoz didn't think the foul was made with excessive force. He thought it was a normal, run of the mill foul, of which there are many in every game.

It's just his opinion. How often do we hear "I've seen them given."? It's another way of saying some referees would do one thing, but other referees would give a different decision for the same incident. Rightly or wrongly, Lahoz issued a yellow card. It doesn't make it an incorrect decision, just one based on an unpopular opinion.
 
Gundog’s Gundog said:
Agree except for the part about rather lose than cheat. Corinthian spirit was all well and good in a different world but not nowadays. If you can’t beat em join em - we need to seriously upgrade our dark arts skill set.
Click to expand...
The problem is that when we have a player who tries the exact same thing, he gets nothing. Just like we always seem to get played the advantage when there is no advantage.
 
richardtheref said:
Watched the challenge again today by Rudiger as not sure I could give an unbiased opinion after 10 pints. Rudiger raises his arm just before contact. I have no doubt he meant to "do" Kevin. Think it's fair enough the ref not seeing this on the field as happened off the ball and you don't always get a clear view of these as you naturally follow the play. However, would expect VAR to pick this up given they had 5 minutes to look at it. Also, surely the ref should be thinking that there is more to this due to the severity of the injury.

Also think VAR did not give the handball penalty as the ref made such a show of the ball hitting James chest 1st before hitting his arm that they would make him look an idiot by telling him it's a pen. Replay shows never hit his chest at all. When I was watching it live I thought at 1st the ref was pointing to his arm saying no penalty.

And my final point. Why was he crying at the end. Collina would never have done that.
Click to expand...
Asked this last night but are there any other angles of the handball out there ?
 
Paladin said:
Overall, the ref was ok. Certainly not as bad as in the past, and he can't be blamed for our defeat.
Click to expand...
Nah.

The ref set the tone early doors with the disparity in dishing out fouls. He blocked passing channels and his decision to blow for a foul when we had a clear advantage certainly wound up Kev.
His antics annoyed our players and emboldened Chelsea. With the added pressure of the game we didn't have enough to deal with it.
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
The repercussions confirmed it was a red.
Click to expand...
No way red card and you should be luckY he was taken off. he lost possession 12 times before that incident. If he had stayed on he would have lost possession another 10.
both teams played on going down quite easily and to be truthful Sterling was the worst. All teams do it when it’s getting towards the end
 
Darker blue moon said:
No way red card and you should be luckY he was taken off. he lost possession 12 times before that incident. If he had stayed on he would have lost possession another 10.
both teams played on going down quite easily and to be truthful Sterling was the worst. All teams do it when it’s getting towards the end
Click to expand...
Sterling efforts for free kicks were sad to put it mildly.
His total contribution was to stick his arse into his opponent and then flop to the floor.
So very poor that he hasn't got the balls to take somebody on but would rather try to gain us a free kick 40 yrds from goal.
26 and as lost all confidence as an attacking footballer
 
Paladin said:
Innocuous challenges someone result in serious injury.
Click to expand...
I'd say regularly rather than sometimes.

I'm torn over if it was red/yellow, it was a poor challenge, but I don't think he intended to injure badly.

It didn't really affect the result, as we improved for me, and I thought he was having a poor game anyway.
 
Reading the laws of the game I think I can see an argument for sending Rudiger off but I am confused as I think I have seen those tackles before result on yellows and no or little damage / danger to the opposing player what did Rudiger do different ?
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
Nah.

The ref set the tone early doors with the disparity in dishing out fouls. He blocked passing channels and his decision to blow for a foul when we had a clear advantage certainly wound up Kev.
His antics annoyed our players and emboldened Chelsea. With the added pressure of the game we didn't have enough to deal with it.
Click to expand...
I agree, I thought he was slightly in favour of them in 50/50 decisions, and some inconsistencies in treatment of similar incidents between both teams. But none of this has any impact on the result. Also, you could see instances where he could have penalised us but didn't. Overall, I think he was quite fair.

He did blow for full time after 6:57 of the minimum 7 minutes added time, and that after some delays and timewasting had occurred.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top