Leicester (A) Post Match Thread

[OB1]

I thought at the time it was probably a red, and would've been a bit aggrieved if the boot was on the other foot. Can understand why a relatively inexperienced ref didn't give it though, especially so early in the game.

We do seem to do these refereeing decisions to death.

From his position, I think the ref made a good call and, inexperienced or not, he was probably the best ref we have had this year.

Stones when up to speed is quite quick and he was already on the move and goal side, just, of Vardy so how the ref is supposed to be certain that JS could not have got a long leg to the ball I'm not sure.

Can't say I didn't have my heart in my mouth until the yellow card appeared but just glad it did.

 

[Blue Til Death]

Its old news, the ref did not give it and like some of the crap decisions we have been on the end of, nothing will change it, we won 2-0, we were by far the better team and best of all we got revenge on them twats for making us so miserable last season...! Cant remember the game last season, someone on here will but it wasn't that long ago Sergio or Jesus was brought down in almost identical circumstances, result was a yellow with no defender in the same universe at the time, lets face it, we are owed more than a few decisions, when you tot up the injustices we have been on the end of over the last few seasons...

 

[Neville Kneville]

I thought at the time it was probably a red, and would've been a bit aggrieved if the boot was on the other foot. Can understand why a relatively inexperienced ref didn't give it though, especially so early in the game.

'Probably' is the problem, as it were.

It needs to be definitely. I think Vardy would 'probably' have been away to get a shot off & would understand if a ref had decided that. But I'm still not certain & therefore that makes it a correct decision imo as the ref wasn't certain either.

 

[caseball]

Last year Leicester got away with 2 blatant fouls in the box. We were well beaten but one of those two clear penalties would have changed the game a bit. We got neither. The year before it was nil-nil, Kun was taken down in the box and nothing. It ended scoreless. Couldn't care less if we got away with one this year.

 

[caseball]

There have been four recent disputed decisions in our favour: penalty against Burnley, penalty and offside against Arsenal and the incident on Saturday. On each occasion the opposing players have instantly made strong reactions, they've been almost too quick, even though the two penalties were correct and the other two decisions were borderline. Two of the managers have made a big deal out of the decisions after the game. It's looked almost premeditated.

 

[Chi-town blues]

The law is clear goal scoring opportunity, with the possibility of Stones covering and how far out Vardy was I wouldn't say it was clear. I would say though he could have been sent off and I don't think there would have been much arguments against it, I just don't think it was as clear cut as made out.

That's Arsenal and Leicester now where we have had big decisions in our favour, strange feeling.

Agreed . Ref got spot on .

 

[wahablue]

Regards Vard,s “goal”,how far would Ederson have moved to close him down.I haven,t seen a faster keeper ,plus he,s a solid lad,maybe Vardy would have bottled it,he seems to have bottled a lot this season.

 

[Chippy_boy]

To you & some on here & ex refs, the media etc. To me & others & the ref in the game, not. And how many can be certain of Stones' (or Ederson's) chances of intercepting, in real time, without the super slo mo or close up ?

Hence the word 'obvious' or 'clear' cannot be applied without someone deciding it on a replay.

I think perhaps you're relying on the last man scenario, but as far as I am aware that no longer applies. I think it was a clear goalscoring opportunity whether Stones could get across or not. Just my view... it matters not.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I thought at the time it was probably a red, and would've been a bit aggrieved if the boot was on the other foot. Can understand why a relatively inexperienced ref didn't give it though, especially so early in the game.

I think that helped a lot. Had we been an hour in, it would have made his decision a lot easier (wrongly - it shouldn't make any difference, but we know it does).

 

[Neville Kneville]

I think perhaps you're relying on the last man scenario, but as far as I am aware that no longer applies. I think it was a clear goalscoring opportunity whether Stones could get across or not. Just my view... it matters not.

It isn't a clear goalscoring opportunity if the defender can get accross though surely ? Rather a possible goalscoring opportunity.

It's the 'clear' bit which makes it dubious imo. If Stones had been a bit further out then it's an easy decision as Vardy would have time to control the ball & take it on, but from that position the ref has to assume Vardy's pace will get him away, which imo is dodgy ground; to have refs guessing who is the fastest, with & without the ball.

There is a decent case for a ref giving it but there is also one for him not giving it. He has to judge in real time.

I would not give it from the ref's position, unless it was a Utd player in which case the **** is off.