Those on my FB can see that I100% agree with Teas-maids OP. I've took a bit of negative back but hey ho......who cares, spot on Mr Oliver... maybe a card too for Young for his protest and jesticulations
Last edited:
Chelsea - Manchester United
- Thread starter Tealeaf
- Start date
With respect I think the red tinted glassed need to come off. When he called in Jones after his foul he hardly spoke to Jones and instead lectured Smalling. He then pointed at loads of places on the pitch, far more than where Jones had committed fouls, so he was clearly saying cut it out and the next player to foul Hazard is getting a card. So for Hazard to make that tackle, which was borderline a yellow card on its own merit, just a couple of seconds later was total madness on his part. Even Man Utd fans are slating Herrera on social media rather than the referee.
deusex
RefChat Addict
I'm perfectly capable of taking the glasses off, Oliver should have sent off 2 more Man Utd players.
Even if I concede Herrera should have been more careful considering the type of ref he was dealing with, the first caution wasn't even a foul. Oliver then fails to follow up this super refereeing by ignoring 6 or so cautionable offences in the match
Hazard is very, very good at falling over
Anyone hear 'The Oracle Neville' (the sh1t one).. say something like, 'you have to look at that foul in isolation and it wasn't a yellow card!'......No Sir, it probably wasn't, but with Persistent Infringement, trips, obstruction, niggly fouls it doesn't matter, its the Persistent bit!!!
I can't comment much on the second half, it was on in the background but it was a poor game the last 45! I have a big meeting in the morning with JLR so i was preparing!!
I can't comment much on the second half, it was on in the background but it was a poor game the last 45! I have a big meeting in the morning with JLR so i was preparing!!
The first caution was nailed on. Herrera just blocked him off as he tried to run past him, Oliver played the advantage then came back to deal with it. Like I say, even some United fans are blaming the player. Quote below is from my Man Utd, referee hating, mate (I've toned down the language ..!)
It sounds like Herrera was acting like a Sunday League player. The referee issues a clear warning, player thinks the referee won't follow through on his warning and is then surprised to find the referee wasn't kidding, so then he claims he was hard done by.
deusex
RefChat Addict
If anyone can show me a clip showing any sideway movement of Herrera I'd be interested.
Because all I saw was a player bracing themselves before being ran straight into. I've no idea what Hererra is supposed to do.
I've still yet to see where in the laws a player can be penalised for things his team mates have done. Herrera has commited 2 fouls and been cautioned twice.
What if a sub came on and wasn't privvy to the conversation Oliver had had with his teammates? He is then cautioned completely unfairly.
I'd be interested to see what caution code Oliver uses because PI just doesn't cut it
Last edited:
Thought Herrera stopped deliberately for the body check myself. Was a stupid foul at a stupid time. Ultimately if Oliver has just said to the captain next foul.on hazard is in the book - then he has to follow through with it just as we all do when we make similar promises. Failure to do so impacts match control
You might like to read this thread... http://www.refchat.co.uk/threads/persistent-infringement.9395/
deusex
RefChat Addict
A caution for recklessly stopping?
Impeding the progress of a developing attack? If Herrera doesn't check him, Hazard runs on to the one-two and has a good chance to get a shot away. Regardless of whether or not you think it's a foul, if it's given it surely then has to be a yellow.
Recklessly stopping to commit a body check yes. Dont take 1 word from a sentence and use it out of context to attempt to prove a point. Its called impeding the progress of an opponent.
"A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:
• impedes an opponent with contact"
Taken from impeding progress without contact section but given as a general definition
"Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path
to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not
within playing distance of either player."
It does go onto say that being in the way is not the same but I thought he deliberately stopped in hazards path to committ a body check. You saw it differently, thats okay - but dont attempt to ridicule me with a point I havent made.
"A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:
• impedes an opponent with contact"
Taken from impeding progress without contact section but given as a general definition
"Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path
to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not
within playing distance of either player."
It does go onto say that being in the way is not the same but I thought he deliberately stopped in hazards path to committ a body check. You saw it differently, thats okay - but dont attempt to ridicule me with a point I havent made.
deusex
RefChat Addict
Lol, so recklessly stopping is an offence. Page number please
Thanks for emboldening that bit, saved me having to...
MOVING into the opponents path, MOVING. Herrera by your own admission did not move into Hazard's path once the ball was knocked past him.
A player is perfectly entitled to stop completely still at any time he wants. It was Hazard's responsibility to go around the static player, he chose to run into him to try and get him booked. It suceeded
No.
Sorry maybe Its me not being clear what I mean. Forget the stopping bit. Body checking someone is illegal. In my opinion this was a deliberate act by Herrerra. Whether he stopped, moved or did a merry little dance is neither here nor there. The offence is impeding the progress of an opponent. Of course this is all in my opinion as a referee. We see it differently.
deusex
RefChat Addict
Page 83:
"All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way
of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent"
This pretty much means an opponent has to move into the way of an opponent IMO.
A static player cannot impede an opponent according to law
"All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way
of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent"
This pretty much means an opponent has to move into the way of an opponent IMO.
A static player cannot impede an opponent according to law
United charged with failing to control their players but "No action will be taken against Rojo following allegations that the United defender stamped on Eden Hazard. The United defender’s right boot made contact with Hazard’s chest when he jumped over the Chelsea player but Oliver has confirmed he saw the incident and did not deem it worthy of action."
That's Mr Oliver pencilled in for the FA Cup final then.
Last edited:
I can see your point of view but we will have to agree to disagree. Intentionally stopping in an opponents pathway to block or obstruct an opponent for me is impeding their progress unfairly. Im not going to convince you and you nor I so we will leave this one there.
Mooseybaby
Retired big bad baldy in all black!
Ok slightly biased given i'm a Chelsea fan who "emigrated" to the Dorset coast 10 years ago, but how on earth can Michael Oliver honestly say he didn't think Rojo's "collision" with Hazard warranted further action? As I said last night, how Pogba, Rojo and Valencia finished the game without cards is beyond me. I bet Mings is feeling pretty miffed that Rojo has escaped punishment.
Last edited: