A&H

Chelsea v WBA (Ramires 'pen')

p4yno

p4yno

Well-Known Member
Level 5 Referee
I couldn't see a thread on here so decided the to start one. I was not at the game, however social media went crazy straight away saying Ramires dived and Andre Marriner got it SO SO WRONG. I was expected the biggest balls up since the infamous 3 yellow cards then red by Mr Poll. I was very wrong!

I watched MOTD and at full speed it looks a penalty. It happened very quickly. The positioning of Andre I believe was good. In slow motion, I can see what Andre saw, Steven Reid makes contact with the back of Ramires and he goes down, Reid holds his hands up as to say didn't touch him. Penalty given.

In slow motion, Ramires has attempted to deceive, by collapsing his legs slightly before contact which is the reason he is slightly in front of Reid and he got away with it. We all know the job is difficult when players go out to deceive, however I was keen on others view on the matter when they looked at in first time in normal speed, NOT the ultra slowed down version at the 8th viewing.
 
The Referee Store
Mr Mariners positioning was directly behind Ramires, in the blind spot. Lots of player movement in front of him. His positioning could have been better, but did he have time to get to the better position? Maybe not.

And it was a very clever bit of simulation by Ramires. :D
 
Andre Marriner is known to be a Villa fan, being called 'The Villan' apparently by other refs?! So has now sparked controversy saying he gave the penalty because he is a Villa fan. How stupid of fans. It's like they think he's been dragged of the street to ref the game and only given his name. Obviously he has undergone background checks to make sure things like this don't come up, and if he's been given the game then he has been trusted to remain impartial, which he was, and I'm 100% sure he always will be. I do understand he was brought in due to Lee Probert injury.
 
Yes, it was the wrong decision, but he is being crucified for it not because it was a complete calamity, but because of its significance. It was in the 95th minute giving Chelsea an equaliser against West Brom. If exactly the offence happened in the 20th minute at 0-0 on the halfway line then nobody would have said anything about it. It was an honest, easy mistake and Andre Marriner is still a fantastic referee and I think nothing less of him as a result.
 
I haven't seen it yet, but there's one sentence here that stands out as significant to me:
David Payne said:
Steven Reid makes contact with the back of Ramires and he goes down, Reid holds his hands up as to say didn't touch him. Penalty given.
Click to expand...

Was the contact a foul?

If so, it's a penalty - it is impossible to 'simulate' anything if it actually happens. The fact that Ramires has drawn the foul and Reid has made contact would suggest to me that there is no simulation. Just a player who uses his skill and experience to draw a foul out of the opposition and giving the referee a decision to make.

Simulation is surely when there is NO foul, or NO contact and the player pretends there is in order to deceive.

If there is a foul, then it's a foul, regardless of what the player does.
 
Fans are stupid to say that. I don't beleave any premier league referee would favour any team.

Andre is a class referee who has been conned by Ramiers, Gotta feel for him.
Bet Marriner gets punished for that unlike Ramires.:(

Up the villa ;)
 
He was already going down and if anything he pushed himself into the defender to ensure there was contact. If you saw it (look on MOTD on iPlayer) then you would definitely understand.
 
Can't get MOTD here because of territorial rights, but I have the Prem highlights saved from last night to catch up on.

Still, the same question though, if the contact is a foul, then it's a foul isn't it?

Players are allowed to fall over, players are allowed to appeal for things. If there is a foul in there somewhere then it's a foul. If not, and the player is attempting to deceive the ref, then it's simulation.

It's like the Ashley Young pen at Sociedad - I have watched it hundreds of times, and I am 100% certain the defender grabbed his arm as he went past. Yes, Young made a right meal of it but what was he simulating exactly? Holding is a foul, the defender held his arm. Picky maybe from the ref, but if he saw the holding he was correct in giving the pen.

Just my thoughts on simulation - I don't think it's as big an issue as pundits make out. If a player flies through the air screaming, holds his leg and rolls around on the floor making out that the little tap on his ankle had shattered the leg in six different places, it's no reason not to give a foul if he was tripped.
 
MattyontheWhistle said:
Can't get MOTD here because of territorial rights, but I have the Prem highlights saved from last night to catch up on.

Still, the same question though, if the contact is a foul, then it's a foul isn't it?

Players are allowed to fall over, players are allowed to appeal for things. If there is a foul in there somewhere then it's a foul. If not, and the player is attempting to deceive the ref, then it's simulation.

It's like the Ashley Young pen at Sociedad - I have watched it hundreds of times, and I am 100% certain the defender grabbed his arm as he went past. Yes, Young made a right meal of it but what was he simulating exactly? Holding is a foul, the defender held his arm. Picky maybe from the ref, but if he saw the holding he was correct in giving the pen.

Just my thoughts on simulation - I don't think it's as big an issue as pundits make out. If a player flies through the air screaming, holds his leg and rolls around on the floor making out that the little tap on his ankle had shattered the leg in six different places, it's no reason not to give a foul if he was tripped.
Click to expand...
Point taken, but I think that if you watched it then you would share the general opinion. As I said, for me Ramires backs into the defender so that there is some contact and not vice versa. I am not saying that Ramires committed a foul, I'm just saying that he certainly wasn't.

I take your point on the Young one - I wouldn't have given it but can see why that ref did.
 
MOTW - it was shoulder to shoulder, not in the back. Minimal contact at that.

The only thing that might have looked suspect was that Reid had his arm up like he was going to use it to stop Ramires but he seemed to pull that away before the contact.
 
Did anyone else think he was in two minds about whether to give a penalty to Chelsea or an indirect free kick for diving/simulation? Although Andre Marriner clearly blew for an infringement, he seemed to wait a few seconds before actually pointing to the spot and I just wonder if he was just composing himself and giving himself time to come to a final decision. The decision itself appears to be wrong but we, as fellow officials know, positioning and angles are crucial and it can really make a difference when making a decision.
 
Y'know, I've JUST watched it (in the bath on iPlayer, Tuesday lunchtime ritual, it's a hard life) and hand-on-heart that was my first thought too.
 
Have seen some clips of it now thanks to ESPN FC, and at first look/fullspeed I thought it was a penalty, so can't really have a pop at the officials for making that call. I think Mr, Marriner checked in with his team before pointing to the spot so the 'majority' vote would probably be penalty. He blew his whistle having decided it was going to be a penalty or a card for simulation, he just said "Help?" into his mike and his team let him know what they thought.

Personally, I think this is a 'play on' situation. I didn't see a foul, not did I see anything I would deem as simulation.

I saw a canny player, who's team are losing, going nowhere with the ball and surrounded by defenders. He simply stepped across to shield the ball from Reid who was coming in at pace. Reid collides so he goes down and asks the referee to make a decision.

The only time it can be simulation for me is if the player is blatantly attempting to deceive the referee - in this case, my feeling is that the player tried to make the best of a bad situation, took a chance and got lucky.

In this particular incident then, no foul and no simulation. Cut the grass Mr Marriner and play on.

It is rapidly becoming one of my bug-bears when commentators and pundits talk about 'diving' when they mean simulation. For me, there is no offence if a player goes down under a challenge or when there is contact, nor is there an offence of appealing for a free kick or penalty. It is an offence to simulate a foul in order to deceive the referee.

If I get a game that involves a 'diver', then he learns pretty quickly that I don't buy the histrionics, and he can appeal all he likes but if I don't see a foul, he ain't getting the FK. If I get a game with someone who simulates, then he gets a yellow on the first offence.

A classic example was from an end of season game last season, there was an innocuous trip which I blew for, player did go down with more 'style' than was really required as it was a bleedin obvious trip. Offender had been pinged for a few earlier challenges and also I'd spoken to him about keeping his mouth shut, so I pulled out the card for persistant. One of his team mates came over and said "Come on ref, there was a lot of simulation in that foul" If you saw the foul, it wasn't simulated son.
 
I know for a fact that Mr Mariner did not consult his colleagues, it was as much a surprise to them as it was everyone else. He asked his AR after the game what he thought, and was told he would watch it and text him that night. WBA staff came in and they were told why it was given and if they were wrong they'd be receiving a call from Mr M the following day. And the decision the team came to after watching was it was a very soft pen indeed, not sure what the convo with WBA was like the following day though!! WBA raised the fact that it was only given because it was Chelsea playing a smaller club, this was quickly rubbished by the team.
 
I'm half-tempted to start a tally chart of post-match quotes that tell the world that Club X has been cost X points. Over the course of a season, I expect them all to think the world's against them :')
 
svenny76 said:
I know for a fact that Mr Mariner did not consult his colleagues, it was as much a surprise to them as it was everyone else. He asked his AR after the game what he thought, and was told he would watch it and text him that night. WBA staff came in and they were told why it was given and if they were wrong they'd be receiving a call from Mr M the following day. And the decision the team came to after watching was it was a very soft pen indeed, not sure what the convo with WBA was like the following day though!! WBA raised the fact that it was only given because it was Chelsea playing a smaller club, this was quickly rubbished by the team.
Click to expand...

How do you know this of fact out of curiosity? Sounds like you were sharing a dressing room with Mr Mariner or are possibly on the coaching staff of WBA... who are you Svenny?!?
 
From the angle of behind goal it looks a pen and I've seen a still pic in the newspaper and it looks a pen and looking at the YouTube vid it look like he is consulting his assistants before he gives the decision
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top