A&H

Mariner in Swans Chelsea...

santa sangria

santa sangria

RefChat Addict
Sad to say it but he seemed to lose it in the second half.
After allowing the second Swansea goal you could see Cahill telling Andre to calm down. That's all wrong.
I think Mariner was a long way away from the action when Cahill was fouled but the assistant should have had a very very good view.
But there were also a lot of other poor decisions from where I was looking. Fabregas, as much as I love him, should have conceded a penalty. Amat and Costa should both probably have walked.

The one that I want to ask the interwebs about is the Costa goal... he does a marvellous bit of skill with the bicycle kick, but he kicks Naughton in the head, or, if he doesn't actually kick him full in the face, he is millimetres from doing so... this has to be an offence... it's playing in a dangerous manner - it was definitely dangerous to the opponent... what do you think?
 
The Referee Store
31 yards away from the foul on Cahill which was centre of the park - his area to watch, not the AR.. That's his mistake.

The high foot, interesting point, but the MOTD pundit asked "are you serious!?" for even questioning it.. I'm interested to know other people's views but on the day, that close to someone's head and the ball being at head height...?
 
santa sangria said:
Sad to say it but he seemed to lose it in the second half.
After allowing the second Swansea goal you could see Cahill telling Andre to calm down. That's all wrong.
I think Mariner was a long way away from the action when Cahill was fouled but the assistant should have had a very very good view.
But there were also a lot of other poor decisions from where I was looking. Fabregas, as much as I love him, should have conceded a penalty. Amat and Costa should both probably have walked.

The one that I want to ask the interwebs about is the Costa goal... he does a marvellous bit of skill with the bicycle kick, but he kicks Naughton in the head, or, if he doesn't actually kick him full in the face, he is millimetres from doing so... this has to be an offence... it's playing in a dangerous manner - it was definitely dangerous to the opponent... what do you think?
Click to expand...
Quite agree about disallowing the second Costa, he actually makes contact with the defender's head. Dangerous play.
 
On The Game said:
31 yards away from the foul on Cahill which was centre of the park - his area to watch, not the AR.. That's his mistake.

The high foot, interesting point, but the MOTD pundit asked "are you serious!?" for even questioning it.. I'm interested to know other people's views but on the day, that close to someone's head and the ball being at head height...?
Click to expand...
There was an incident at Swansea either last season or the season before where an overhead kicked goal was disallowed because it was dangerous - I haven't seen Costa's goal, but this sounds very much like it should have followed that precedent?
 
GraemeS said:
There was an incident at Swansea either last season or the season before where an overhead kicked goal was disallowed because it was dangerous - I haven't seen Costa's goal, but this sounds very much like it should have followed that precedent?
Click to expand...
It's accurately described, I'm sure when you see it you'll agree it should have been disallowed.
 
Koscileny scored a similar overhead kick syesterday. After the uproar over the Jerome disallowed goal Iast season? it'll be a long time before an overhead kick is ruled out in the EPL.
 
Before anyone saw the replays did they think it was a foul? Looked like he nicked ball by how it rolled, Cahills reaction and the other Chelsea Players reactions
 
Thought Mariner had a poor 2nd half all round, far too lenient especially with persistent infringement.

With regard to Costa's overhead, could easily have been disallowed and yet not a single Swansea player appealed and during the post match interviews the Swansea manager laughed off suggestions it should have been disallowed.

Foul on Cahill? Definitely. Foul by Fabregas in the box? Ridiculous challenge to make with no chance of getting the ball, Swansea player made a meal of it, but definitely goes down in the category "seen them given".

More disappointed by the fact yet again poor defending for both goals and an inability to finish Swansea off costs us 2 points! :mad:
 
MOTD spent a lot of time on the Fabianski/Costa collision on the edge of the penalty area. I didn't see much in it - looked like 2 players just coming together and I wouldn't say either was more culpable of a foul than the other.
 
a guy at work this morning 'Chelsea fan mind!' questioned the penalty! said he shouldn't have been given ...oh my oh my ...
 
My tuppence worth:

The fabianski/Costa coming to together looked just that. Costa went to ground very easily and seemed to pull down fabianski.

Costas overhead kick, it's debatable. Letter of the law it's a dfk to swansea, as there is contact with the swansea players head. I am sure I remember hearing guidance on this last season to be tolerant of things like overhead kicks due to the need for spectacular goals (or words to that effect). For me, good goal, the ball was there to be kicked. It helped nobody appealed or made a fuss.

Cahill being fouled... No excuse. Very poor decision to allow play to continue.

Who would be a referee eh?
 
I listened to the match on 5 Live and John Hartson was going on about how Costa should have been sent off for diving and came out with one of my all time hated phrases (Alan Shearer is another regular culprit) - "If the ref doesn't give the foul then he has to penalise Costa for the dive." Really? No one has ever fallen over on a football pitch without it being either a foul or a dive?:mad:
 
I had a variation on that this weekend from a captain: "she didn't fall over so it couldn't have been a foul"...
The resultant free kick lead to an unfortunate own goal.
 
Elbows can be difficult to see due to the speed they happen. I have sympathy for that one!
 
SM said:
Costas overhead kick, it's debatable. Letter of the law it's a dfk to swansea, as there is contact with the swansea players head. I am sure I remember hearing guidance on this last season to be tolerant of things like overhead kicks due to the need for spectacular goals (or words to that effect). For me, good goal, the ball was there to be kicked. It helped nobody appealed or made a fuss.
Click to expand...
It would be a foul anywhere else on the park - which part of the LOTG states that 'attacking players are permitted to use any means to score a goal. Law 12 will be suspended as long as, in the opinion of the referee, the action is visually spectacular'?

Utter BS (those passing this from the top-down). It's this corruption and perversion of the game which basically makes every decision little more than a coin toss and why referees are increasingly hated. The fact that I could never buy into that sort of garbage is probably why FFA had a dartboard with my face in the middle in their office :p
 
I'm not sure how bad the injury will have to be that sees bicycle kicks really banned (when other players are in "playing distance"). But if a two-footed tackle is a red card because the player has no control and might damage an opponent's legs, I fail to see why an out of control overhead kick that could blind an opponent is allowed.
 
Darius said:
Before anyone saw the replays did they think it was a foul? Looked like he nicked ball by how it rolled, Cahills reaction and the other Chelsea Players reactions
Click to expand...

That was my view as well. It took a few replays before the foul was apparent. Similarly, Boro's goal at Everton yesterday - from all of the first few views it looked like Negredo had fairly won a 50/50, especially as he pointedly kept his arms down. The replay that made it obvious he had headed Stecklenburg's arm came some minutes later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top