Chelsea vs. Crystal Palace match thread

Willo said:
The VAR reviews decisions in respect of goals etc.
We do not know the details of the communication between the VAR and Darren England.
It is feasible that he was advised to consult the monitor to review whether Guehi's action was a foul and having seen the footage he passed judgement on the proximity aspect of Law 13 in respect of a 'Wall'.
In the final analysis, Law 13 was applied correctly.
Click to expand...
it was Darren England, enough said!! VAR is purely to assist the 'big 'clubs!!!
 
Eagleman13 said:
How can you 'retake' a kick if it hasn't been kicked in the 1st place?
Click to expand...
Well that was kind of my point, the offence occurred just prior to the ball being kicked.

Not that it matters a jot. They decided against us, as usual. Can’t wait for the next new rule that will only affect Palace.
 
I don't know who Eze will be playing for next season, but their fans must prepare for the annual opening Sunday disappointment of him scoring a Beckhamesque free kick only for it disallowed by a stupid c*nt of a referee
 
Willo said:
The VAR reviews decisions in respect of goals etc.
We do not know the details of the communication between the VAR and Darren England.
It is feasible that he was advised to consult the monitor to review whether Guehi's action was a foul and having seen the footage he passed judgement on the proximity aspect of Law 13 in respect of a 'Wall'.
In the final analysis, Law 13 was applied correctly.
Click to expand...
well that is just complete b*llocks and you know it.

If he was advised to check for a foul, he would have done so. He would not suddenly pass judgement on another law that he was not requested to check.

You are getting desperate now.

No one is arguing that law 13 wasn't applied correctly, we are just bemused why this has suddenly become a thing - after all it has never been applied in over 2,000 previous premier league games.

How often do you hear commentators say things like "that would have been a foul anywhere else on the pitch" when a penalty is waved away or "if you give that you'd give 10 penalties a game" when a player is clearly fouled in the box from a corner.
 
NMPalace said:
well VAR looked in order at the offside (clearly none), then the Guehi movement - this was deemed not a foul as he was just being stronger, after all it is a contact sport.
Then finally at the 3rd attempt the 1 yard law was mentioned, to the surprise of almost everyone. That is why VAR took so long.

I do remember the 1 yard law being introduced, however, this seemed to be more about the attacking team standing in front of the wall (so a wall in front of the wall).

As has been said i don't think this 1 yard 'law' has ever been applied before. That for me is the disappointment, players and supporters just want consistency.

Then later with the MG header (very similar to the Newcastle penalty last season) VAR seemed to dismiss it within seconds.

As Mica Richard said at half time VAR seems to be anti goals.
Click to expand...
Agree all save the point in bold. That was a foul all day long.

The rabbit punch against him was a pen and sending off.
 
Willo said:
In the final analysis, Law 13 was applied correctly in today's match.
What focussed attention was the fact that the ball was thwacked in the space Guehi vacated,he was less than 1 metre from an opponent before the ball was in play, and the ball entered the goal.
Click to expand...

Give us just one example of another free kick that was scratched off on the same law since saying, 2019.

There must be one example surely
 
Willo said:
The rule had been in situ since the 2019-20 season and certainly Oliver Glasner and 'Yours Truly' had been aware of its existence.
Thee is no 'Crack down' this season.
I have already articulated why I believe it was enforced this afternoon. In the final analysis the law was applied correctly in relation to today's incident.
Correct decision, I have nothing more to add.
Click to expand...

Oh, and explain why it was VAR that sent England to the monitor because the law also clarified that it's all down to the on field decision.

2 questions, please make sure you provide a direct answer to them. Non answers will be considered that you can't explain it.
 
Spindle said:
Oh, and explain why it was VAR that sent England to the monitor because the law also clarified that it's all down to the on field decision.

2 questions, please make sure you provide a direct answer to them. Non answers will be considered that you can't explain it.
Click to expand...
This feels like an interrogation out of the 'Ipcress File'.
VAR examine all goals and on this occasion advised Darren England to consult the monitor.We are not privy to the conversation between the VAR and the on field referee.
This is not the first time a referee has disallowed a goal after being sent to the screen !
I can only re-iterate that in the final analysis Law 13 was applied correctly.
Nothing further to add, any additional contributions would be filed under 'Gramophone record stuck in the groove'.
 
So in other words, they only applied this law against us, which is the problem that people are having with this, not that the law exists which you explained, despite us all knowing what the law is. over and over like a broken record.
 
Willo said:
Law 13 was applied correctly, this is the end of the matter.
I do not know if any other team have had a goal disallowed having fallen foul of the proximity aspect of Law 13.
Click to expand...

Plenty of defending teams have. There hasn't been a single incident and VAR has not intervened ONCE in over 2200 games since it was introduced.

Meanwhile, last season, Curecella hits the Bournemouth wall for the late equaliser by Reece James, in the same goalmouth.
1755528733522.webp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top