Chelsea vs. Crystal Palace match thread

PatrickA said:
It is futile to attempt to ever convince Willo that a referee has made a mistake.

At most you will get an acknowledgement that all humans err on occasions and referees are no exception.

He is entitled to his opinion and probably knows more about the rules than many on here, but I fundamentally disagree about referees not making mistakes.
I would go further, and say that some are downright incompetent and not averse to covering each other's backs when obvious mistakes are made.
Click to expand...
Yes agreed , I wonder sometimes if he is Red and Blue . He is AKA the prophet of doom . 🤔
 
ex hibitionist said:
spot on, in defence of Willo, he's right of course that Law 13 was correctly applied, but the salient point is - it shouldn't have been. The ref was sent to check a possible foul NOT the 1 metre rule. And nobody can remember a single time it has been applied in six years, and I am confident to promise that if there really are no examples of overlooked encroachment I will be prepared to take whatever ready meal Willo's missus got from Waitrose and ram it up my *rse.
Click to expand...
Don’t want to keep dragging this out, however do you know for sure that the ref was called to the monitor to look at a foul or was he asked to look at encroachment into the wall. The distinction is quite important because if he was going to look at the potential foul then that would have given him chance to look at law 13 infringement whilst looking at the foul. If however they said go and look for encroaching then they have exceeded their remit and this would have been completely wrong for them to do so.

I’d be interested to know where you got that information from.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
There you go. If the police go to a garage looking for a stolen car and find a load of weed they'll nick you for that instead but is that VARs job? Are they on commission for the number of goals they can disallow?
The last ready meal I had tasted like it had been rammed up someone's *rse anyway. It wasn't from Waitrose though; they probably use a better class of *rse.
Click to expand...
Was it rump !
 
Eaglecoops said:
Don’t want to keep dragging this out, however do you know for sure that the ref was called to the monitor to look at a foul or was he asked to look at encroachment into the wall. The distinction is quite important because if he was going to look at the potential foul then that would have given him chance to look at law 13 infringement whilst looking at the foul. If however they said go and look for encroaching then they have exceeded their remit and this would have been completely wrong for them to do so.

I’d be interested to know where you got that information from.
Click to expand...
Apparently the VAR is allowed to look at the 1m issue for the wall and it has happened before in a Europa League qualifier or some similar match, this is just the first time in the premier league. Its just that commonly the VAR chooses to ignore it in the same way they ignore encroachment for a penalty unless the encroaching player ends up impacting the play by scoring a rebound etc. In this case I guess the VAR decided that what Guehi did was so impactful to the wall that it was worth them enforcing the rule and in previous instances it was not material to the outcome of the play. Personally I don't think it is that consistent because I don't think he has impacted the wall itself, and I do think the referees will be discussing this in their internal meetings as I doubt they will all agree with the consistency of the call themselves, but by the rules I don't think they have done anything wrong.
 
Eaglecoops said:
Don’t want to keep dragging this out, however do you know for sure that the ref was called to the monitor to look at a foul or was he asked to look at encroachment into the wall. The distinction is quite important because if he was going to look at the potential foul then that would have given him chance to look at law 13 infringement whilst looking at the foul. If however they said go and look for encroaching then they have exceeded their remit and this would have been completely wrong for them to do so.

I’d be interested to know where you got that information from.
Click to expand...
my bottom, no, other posters have quoted Clattenburg, and maybe Gallagher, who maintain that the 1m rule is not in the VAR remit so the ref should have only decided on whether Guehi's shove was a foul or not. 'Encroachment' is for penalties and for moving under 10 metres from the kicker, not for walls usually I thought. But other posters have explained that Guehi's movement did have an impact on the play and was within the outlawed distance so that was enough reason to disallow the goal.
 
Eaglecoops said:
Don’t want to keep dragging this out, however do you know for sure that the ref was called to the monitor to look at a foul or was he asked to look at encroachment into the wall. The distinction is quite important because if he was going to look at the potential foul then that would have given him chance to look at law 13 infringement whilst looking at the foul. If however they said go and look for encroaching then they have exceeded their remit and this would have been completely wrong for them to do so.

I’d be interested to know where you got that information from.
Click to expand...
On the show in Canada, the info shown with the replay is that they were checking for an offside. Presumably to see if Guehi was in an offside position and blocking the keeper's view. That seems to have been entirely ignored in England
 
Dumademption said:
Apparently the VAR is allowed to look at the 1m issue for the wall and it has happened before in a Europa League qualifier or some similar match, this is just the first time in the premier league. Its just that commonly the VAR chooses to ignore it in the same way they ignore encroachment for a penalty unless the encroaching player ends up impacting the play by scoring a rebound etc. In this case I guess the VAR decided that what Guehi did was so impactful to the wall that it was worth them enforcing the rule and in previous instances it was not material to the outcome of the play. Personally I don't think it is that consistent because I don't think he has impacted the wall itself, and I do think the referees will be discussing this in their internal meetings as I doubt they will all agree with the consistency of the call themselves, but by the rules I don't think they have done anything wrong.
Click to expand...
That’s fine if that is the case however when you get a former top referee saying that it’s not within their remit to look at this then you kind of take their advice on it.

If you’ve got some referees thinking one thing and some another and some just ignoring it, it’s little wonder teams and fans get annoyed when it doesn’t go their way.
 
PatrickA said:
It is futile to attempt to ever convince Willo that a referee has made a mistake.

At most you will get an acknowledgement that all humans err on occasions and referees are no exception.

He is entitled to his opinion and probably knows more about the rules than many on here, but I fundamentally disagree about referees not making mistakes.
I would go further, and say that some are downright incompetent and not averse to covering each other's backs when obvious mistakes are made.
Click to expand...
His persona is conservative in all senses.

Referees represent authority.

Ergo, they must always be correct or, at worst, respected.

Btw, I still think the goal should have been disallowed but not for the nerdy excuse of a reason given.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top