Chelsea -v- Tunis (CWC) 24062025

[Kevin0954]

Shot at goal by Chelsea hits the arm of a Tunis player and deflects for what seems to be a corner kick. The ball was clearly out of play and beyond the goal line when the whistle is blown, therefore game not stopped by referee whilst ball in penalty area.. The PK decision was subsequently and correctly in my opinion, reversed following a VAR review.
The game restarted with the ball seemingly 'dropped' for the goalkeeper, giving Tunis possession, rather than a corner to Chelsea. The game was not stopped by the referee whilst the ball was in the penalty area.
Is / was the restart correct. I'll throw this out for discussion.

Also, seems to be a lack of consistency regarding length of suspension following red cards at the CWC. Lewis from Man City has had his suspension increased to three games, yet Jackson of Chelsea receives a two game ban for what in my opinion was a far worse challenge. (Lewis slides into opponent after playing the ball, Jackson contacts opponents leg without going anywhere near the ball, whilst opponents leg is planted on the ground).
With Colina apparently overseeing things I would expect far greater consistency !

Again, I'll throw this out for discussion.

 

[RustyRef]

We've had this discussion on here before, is play stopped when the referee blows the whistle or when he decides to blow it? The handball was penalised, that occurred before the ball went out of play, and the VAR check lead to the penalty being overturned. Given that I'd say the expected decision is a dropped ball to the keeper.

They obviously felt that Rico Lewis deliberately kicked the opponent in the head, one game bans are automatic but they have added another two here and that is rare. I couldn't make my mind up at the time, both players jumped in and when that happens there's a real danger of feet and heads colliding. I still can't decide whether he deliberately left his foot up or not, this was the referee's view of it, he certainly couldn't have been any closer.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1935396403603271765

 

[es1]

The ban for Lewis is (quite frankly) flabbergasting. Red I'm not overly happy with either but hey ho.

 

[Kevin0954]

RUSTY. You make great points as always.

When any referee decides to stop the game, play is ongoing. Whistle clearly sounds in this incident when ball is 'out of play'. No play possible, so is the game not stopped by that fact. I've also watched several angles of the incident and I cannot accept that the referee had a clear view of the 'handball'. VAR very much got this right in my opinion.

Regarding my second point, what Lewis intended or didn't intend, is not really what I meant. I was comparing the two incidents and stand by my opinion that the foul by Jackson was far more dangerous to the opponent. As I said, I think there is a complete lack of consistency regarding the relevant punishments.

 

[RustyRef]

RUSTY. You make great points as always.

When any referee decides to stop the game, play is ongoing. Whistle clearly sounds in this incident when ball is 'out of play'. No play possible, so is the game not stopped by that fact. I've also watched several angles of the incident and I cannot accept that the referee had a clear view of the 'handball'. VAR very much got this right in my opinion.

Regarding my second point, what Lewis intended or didn't intend, is not really what I meant. I was comparing the two incidents and stand by my opinion that the foul by Jackson was far more dangerous to the opponent. As I said, I think there is a complete lack of consistency regarding the relevant punishments.

That's my point, the penalty offence happened before the ball went out of play. It takes time to put the whistle to the mouth and blow, hence the argument that play is stopped when the referee decides to stop play rather than when the whistle is blown.

As for the suspension, this is a refereeing forum and referees just issue the card, they don't have any influence on what the suspension is. As I said, I can only assume they felt that Lewis had intentionally studded the opponent in the head, and deemed that worse than Jackson making contact with the leg. But that is just guesswork on my part, presumably at some point FIFA will have to publish their reasons for the extended ban for Lewis. Also worth noting that Jackson also got an extended ban which means they also deemed that as an aggravated offence, just not as serious as Lewis's.

 

[Reggie Tappolski]

I watched the Lewis incident live at the time and he took an absolute age to leave the pitch after his extended protests of innocence. I thought at the time he'll be in trouble for that.

 

[RustyRef]

I watched the Lewis incident live at the time and he took an absolute age to leave the pitch after his extended protests of innocence. I thought at the time he'll be in trouble for that.

That's a fair point, perhaps the extended ban is due to that

 

[RefIADad]

That's a fair point, perhaps the extended ban is due to that

For items like this, it would be nice if FIFA had some transparency about the reasons for the extra games.

For example, if FIFA said something to the effect of one game for the standard sendoff penalty, one game for the aggravated nature of the onfield contact, and one game for failing to leave the field in a timely manner, I think that would at least give some explanation. Otherwise, we are all guessing and that’s when the general public starts thinking of dumb theories.

 

[socal lurker]

For items like this, it would be nice if FIFA had some transparency about the reasons for the extra games.

For example, if FIFA said something to the effect of one game for the standard sendoff penalty, one game for the aggravated nature of the onfield contact, and one game for failing to leave the field in a timely manner, I think that would at least give some explanation. Otherwise, we are all guessing and that’s when the general public starts thinking of dumb theories.

Not to mention if it was well known that players would get an extra game for not leaving prompt,y they would be more likely to leave promptly