A&H

Cahill on Rose - Spurs vs Chelsea

SM

SM

The avuncular one
When danny rose scores for Spurs during their fine 5-3 win, why does Cahill not get at least a caution for his shockingly late tackle?

Okay Mr Rose scored, but why no caution? It seems to be a given that a defender can smash an attacker if he is shooting at goal? Discuss
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
Is it that bad ..?

First (only) time I saw it I thought Cahill was trying to get in front of the ball and then caught Rose's leg as he brought he leg forward to shoot ...

Was there more contact than this ..?
 
It was a reckless challenge and would earn a caution anywhere else on the pitch.

 
1,001 reasons I love refchat ... #23 - someone can always find a video of a clip !

My bad - I am thinking of another Spurs goal (I think at the other end)

I agree with SM - it has to be a caution (at least)
 
Yeah technically it's reckless but does Phil Dowd's match control need the caution?

Rose has just got up to run and celebrate. I think not cautioning was the right decision in this incident.
 
Jacko said:
Yeah technically it's reckless but does Phil Dowd's match control need the caution?

Rose has just got up to run and celebrate. I think not cautioning was the right decision in this incident.
Click to expand...
Utterly irrelevant.....nothing to do with match control, all about applying the LOTG.

In fact I would make an argument for a red for excessive force.......
 
Agree with Padfoot - but in a slightly different way ...

By not cautioning for the reckless foul it is telling everyone else that this type of foul is acceptable and won't be cautioned ...

Match control is relevant but will be easier if a caution is given for every reckless foul - including this one on Rose
 
Sunderland vs Stoke gave me my favourite refereeing moment of the week.

Zabeletas late and poor challenge on a Sunderland player as he shot. Penalty given despite the shot (which went wide). How many times do you see that just given as a goal kick though regardless of the poor challenge?
 
SM said:
Sunderland vs Stoke gave me my favourite refereeing moment of the week.

Zabeletas late and poor challenge on a Sunderland player as he shot. Penalty given despite the shot (which went wide). How many times do you see that just given as a goal kick though regardless of the poor challenge?
Click to expand...

I'm guilty here ... Find myself all to often saying the ball is out of play before the foul is committed - even when I know what I am saying is untrue ... New Years resolution # 362 - give the pen irrespective of player expectations
 
SM said:
Sunderland vs Stoke gave me my favourite refereeing moment of the week.

Zabeletas late and poor challenge on a Sunderland player as he shot. Penalty given despite the shot (which went wide). How many times do you see that just given as a goal kick though regardless of the poor challenge?
Click to expand...

Sunderland V Stoke? Zabeleta play's for man city.

The challenge went in as the player went for the shot.
 
Interesting thought @Padfoot and I see where you're coming from. Such a decision from Phil Dowd would have dramatically altered the course of the game and maybe not to Tottenham's benefit. Wasn't it Cahill who conceded the penalty moments later for Chelsea to go 3-1 down? No Cahill, no penalty. Spurs only 2-1 at HT. Chelsea reorganise during the break and they'd still be in with a chance come the second half despite 10 men.
But that's all fantasy thinking and not LOTG but yes, a card would have been merited.
 
Players in general don't expect these to be given for some reason.
There seems to be acceptance that anything goes once the ball is realised as a shot.
I remember running a line for a L4 ref that gace one of these and the genuine surprise of both teams was very telling.
This Cahill one is an extreme example as it is a shocking tackle and must be a YC at least.
Cahill has been getting away with murder all season.
 
deusex said:
Players in general don't expect these to be given for some reason.
There seems to be acceptance that anything goes once the ball is realised as a shot.
I remember running a line for a L4 ref that gace one of these and the genuine surprise of both teams was very telling.
This Cahill one is an extreme example as it is a shocking tackle and must be a YC at least.
Cahill has been getting away with murder all season.
Click to expand...

I bet he learned from it.
 
Alex71 said:
Agree with Padfoot - but in a slightly different way ...

By not cautioning for the reckless foul it is telling everyone else that this type of foul is acceptable and won't be cautioned ...

Match control is relevant but will be easier if a caution is given for every reckless foul - including this one on Rose
Click to expand...

Everything depends on the game your on.

I had a game recently that was very one sided, a player on the losing team got frustrated and put in a reckless tackle. I pulled him over with the captain and gave him a bollocking. I didn't feel a yellow card would have helped my match control. I reckon I'd have gone on to have a few more and probably ended up sending this player off. The word with the captain worked and there were no more reckless challenges. Both teams were happy.
 
Jacko - if this works then I'm 100% for it - and it usually does work 9 out of 10 times - you're right - it does depend on how the game is going

There is a RISK though of something happening later on and players then have a fair gripe if the ref then only penalises the second reckless tackle (or worse, as I recently found out - need to get the red out having let a earlier reckless foul go un-punished earlier)
 
  • Like
Reactions: SM
Jacko said:
Everything depends on the game your on.

I had a game recently that was very one sided, a player on the losing team got frustrated and put in a reckless tackle. I pulled him over with the captain and gave him a bollocking. I didn't feel a yellow card would have helped my match control. I reckon I'd have gone on to have a few more and probably ended up sending this player off. The word with the captain worked and there were no more reckless challenges. Both teams were happy.
Click to expand...

For 'match control' read 'club marks'.......all this guff about bottling out of cards because of 'match control' is in the same vein as 'player management'....an excuse not to apply the LOTG correctly in order to be better perceived by players, managers or club officials.
 
Padfoot said:
For 'match control' read 'club marks'.......all this guff about bottling out of cards because of 'match control' is in the same vein as 'player management'....an excuse not to apply the LOTG correctly in order to be better perceived by players, managers or club officials.
Click to expand...

Saying that I am band A for club marks...

It's got nothing to do with club marks. It's about game management and going with your gut feeling about what is right in each type of game or scenario.
 
Jacko said:
Saying that I am band A for club marks...

It's got nothing to do with club marks. It's about game management and going with your gut feeling about what is right in each type of game or scenario.
Click to expand...

A 'reckless' challenge is a mandatory caution.....not whether you think the game needs it or not, not whether it will affect your 'match control' or any other self justification to make you feel better about failing to apply the LOTG correctly.

Or have the LOTG changed since the last time I looked?
 
Padfoot said:
A 'reckless' challenge is a mandatory caution.....not whether you think the game needs it or not, not whether it will affect your 'match control' or any other self justification to make you feel better about failing to apply the LOTG correctly.

Or have the LOTG changed since the last time I looked?
Click to expand...

So you've never issued a caution and thought 'I wish I never did that'? Where the game didn't really need it and you could tell everyone thought you were over officious for issuing it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top