Ref Watch

[Chris in London]

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?

 

[Paladin]

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?

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.

 

[Paladin]

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.

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.

 

[Millwallawayveteran1988]

Disagree, he was the least of our problems last night, could have sent off Gundo in the 2nd half. A bit penickity at times but overall we can’t complain.

Yes I thought Gundogan was a bit fortunate there.

 

[Chris in London]

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.

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.

 

[Paladin]

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.

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.

 

[Chris in London]

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.

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.

 

[Don Karleone]

I was worried about the wrong bald bloke. A couple things he got wrong but wasn't his fault we lost.

 

[richardtheref]

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.

 

[Paladin]

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.

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.