Saints vs Chelsea Post Match Thread

[VectisSaint]

My take on the pen debate is this... it was simulation and the ref got it spot on. Watch Targett....he plants his foot on the ground and doesn't move it before the cheating Chelski player puts his leg to Targetts and goes over. They must coach this type of play at Chelski because it happened on more than one occasion during the match.

The one thing that is competely clear is that Targett's foot did move, he planted it and then lost his footing, his foot clearly moves. Ref did not give pen because it was not deliberate and not dangerous (can't believe some of the ****tish posts on here about other reasons for not giving it, really do think some people ought to try reading the Laws of the game). Fab then goes to ground making a meal of what happened. Whether the ref booked him for simulation (understandable) or for his reaction is not entirely clear, but to have given a pen would have been extremely harsh on Targett who did not put a foot wrong during the match. It was also poetic justice for all of the ridiculous decisions by the referee in the first half after John Terry had a little word after Pelle brushed him feather-like early on. Terry really is a grade one arsehole.

[Patrick Bateman]

well, it was no way as clear cut as aguero against us (that we got away with)

who says refs are not on our side

 

It evens up though - we should have had a penalty when Long was booted up in the air against Everton.

[Whitey Grandad]

This incident was nowhere near as clear-cut as many others this season and certainly not a nailed-on certainty that some in the media are claiming. To me it just looked like a coming together of the two players and Fàbregas just tried to make the most of it. His reaction proves to me that the referee was correct. As Shakespeare would say: The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

 

It just demonstrates to me that the Chelsea players are concentrating their efforts too much on trying to win free kicks, penalties and yellow cards rather than using their considerable skills to score goals by conventional methods. If Fàbregas had skipped round Targett they might have scored the goal they wanted.

[ART]

What do you have against Morgan? I remember when you posted a pick of him displaying 2 fingers in recognition of reaching 2nd place, but then with you trying to intimate him making and obscene gesture.

oh and his first yellow was never a yellow.

 

You are a grade one weirdo pal. Bat ****e weirdo.

 

 

And you Sir are a grade one liar and delusioned. I posted the following

 

Artz Birtchel What long fingers you have Morgan!!!!

 

and whoever runs Morgan's French fan site replied about it being good for fingering *****es. It had nothing to do with him displaying 2 fingers but to the length of his and Graziano's middle finger. (perhaps you are aware Graziano is well gifted in another part of his anatomy as discussed when he arrive at the club)

 

The post deteriorated into a string of obscene comments by the usual culprits and was closed by JimmyD.

[Avenue Saint]

And you Sir are a grade one liar and delusioned. I posted the following

 

Artz Birtchel What long fingers you have Morgan!!!!

 

and whoever runs Morgan's French fan site replied about it being good for fingering *****es. It had nothing to do with him displaying 2 fingers but to the length of his and Graziano's middle finger. (perhaps you are aware Graziano is well gifted in another part of his anatomy as discussed when he arrive at the club)

 

The post deteriorated into a string of obscene comments by the usual culprits and was closed by JimmyD.

Cant be arsed to dig it out but you tried to make out Morgan had just posted a photo presumably trying to imply he couldnt give a toss on coach back after defeat. When in fact it was from around a couple of weeks ago after a win.

 

Im sure someone can dig the thread out if nees be.

 

Bat ****e LIAR weirdo.

[Kingsland Codger]

no he wasnt

 

If you are inside the 6 yard box and in an offside position you are, at the very least, causing the goalkeeper to consider your presence and are therefore interfering with play.

[derry]

This incident was nowhere near as clear-cut as many others this season and certainly not a nailed-on certainty that some in the media are claiming. To me it just looked like a coming together of the two players and Fàbregas just tried to make the most of it. His reaction proves to me that the referee was correct. As Shakespeare would say: The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

 

It just demonstrates to me that the Chelsea players are concentrating their efforts too much on trying to win free kicks, penalties and yellow cards rather than using their considerable skills to score goals by conventional methods. If Fàbregas had skipped round Targett they might have scored the goal they wanted.

 

There was an interesting still photo on the back page of the Sun today. It proved almost conclusively that Fabregas was dragging both feet together over Targett's leg rather than one foot in advance as one would see if an attempt was being made to avoid contact. Ie. Fabregas was making no effort to follow the ball and was going to ground.

[Dark Munster]

My take on the pen debate is this... it was simulation and the ref got it spot on. Watch Targett....he plants his foot on the ground and doesn't move it before the cheating Chelski player puts his leg to Targetts and goes over. They must coach this type of play at Chelski because it happened on more than one occasion during the match.

Agreed. The ref got it right IMHO.

 

I don't mind others here claiming it should've been a penalty, but saying "we all agree it was a penalty" is bollocks.

[Batman]

If you are inside the 6 yard box and in an offside position you are, at the very least, causing the goalkeeper to consider your presence and are therefore interfering with play.

 

he wasnt though.

when a player has to jump out the way of the ball, he is within the play

[cambsaint]

The Secret Footballer agrees with your comments about Terry and states that he really tries to undermine and influence referees.

[Whitey Grandad]

he wasnt though.

when a player has to jump out the way of the ball, he is within the play

It is classed as 'Interfering with an opponent'

 

"Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent".

[Batman]

It is classed as 'Interfering with an opponent'

 

"Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent".

 

it isnt. it is you somehow seeing it that way. at no point did schurle interfere with play what so ever.

[Whitey Grandad]

it isnt. it is you somehow seeing it that way. at no point did schurle interfere with play what so ever.

 

I was just quoting the FIFA instruction to referees.

 

Sorry, I should have made myself more clear, I was actually referring to the West Ham incident. I agree that Schürrle was completely inactive. He was just hanging around at the far post out of the way.

[eelpie]

The one thing that is competely clear is that Targett's foot did move, he planted it and then lost his footing, his foot clearly moves. Ref did not give pen because it was not deliberate and not dangerous (can't believe some of the ****tish posts on here about other reasons for not giving it, really do think some people ought to try reading the Laws of the game). Fab then goes to ground making a meal of what happened. Whether the ref booked him for simulation (understandable) or for his reaction is not entirely clear, but to have given a pen would have been extremely harsh on Targett who did not put a foot wrong during the match. It was also poetic justice for all of the ridiculous decisions by the referee in the first half after John Terry had a little word after Pelle brushed him feather-like early on. Terry really is a grade one arsehole.

 

Can you clarify for me - are you saying that the Laws of the game state that a trip in the penalty box has to be deliberate to be penalised?

[trousers]

Can you clarify for me - are you saying that the Laws of the game state that a trip in the penalty box has to be deliberate to be penalised?

 

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

Direct free kick

 

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

 

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
  
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
  
• jumps at an opponent
  
• charges an opponent
  
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
  
• pushes an opponent
  
• tackles an opponent
  

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:

 

• holds an opponent
  
• spits at an opponent
  
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
  

A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 - Position of free kick).

 

Penalty kick

A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed by a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball, provided it is in play.

 

Given Targett slipped and then Fabregas fell over his outstretched leg, it is debatable that his challenge was "careless, reckless or using excessive force" ergo the referee's interpretation wasn't unreasonable IMO.

 

I guess it could be argued that Targett "tripped an opponent" by being "careless", but given he may not have made contact if he hadn't slipped then that's also debatable. It's possible to have an accident without being "careless".

Edited 29 December, 2014 by trousers

[Lallana's Left Peg]

My interpretation is that Fabregas cut inside knowing that Targett was rushing towards him and wouldn't be able to stop his momentum. Fabregas knew he was turning into traffic and sensed an opportunity and anticipated contact. What he didn't anticipate is that when Targett planted his right foot that he would slip. Fabregas though he'd have to move further forward to manufacture the contact and as he did so (and started to break his stride to go to ground) he was caught by Targett which led to the exaggerated trip - which did him no favours in terms of how the Ref may interpret the clash.

 

It's a penalty - now doubt that Fabregas was looking for it but managing fouls is a part of being a professional footballer. The rules of the game do not stipulate that a player must stay on his feet if he feels he is fouled (though you may argue the spirit of the game suggests otherwise). Fabregas went looking for a foul and got it in a different way than he expected - to that end you may feel like justice was done however truth be told Targett over committed, couldn't stop in time, and impeded Fabregas (whether or not Fabregas was already on his way down). We got fortunate in my opinion.

[eelpie]

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

 

 

Given Targett slipped and then Fabregas fell over his outstretched leg, it is debatable that his challenge was "careless, reckless or using excessive force" ergo the referee's interpretation wasn't unreasonable IMO.

 

I guess it could be argued that Targett "tripped an opponent" by being "careless", but given he may not have made contact if he hadn't slipped then that's also debatable. It's possible to have an accident without being "careless".

 

Thanks. That does help to explain.

 

My feeling, regarding the Chelsea manager's tirade, is that Moreno is well aware that his team now have a deserved reputation for cynically managing professional fouls to their advantage. Targett got luckky. He might well have benefitted from a perception that his trip was judged to be more accidental than careless (unless the ref simply did not see contact).

[Whitey Grandad]

It's a penalty - now doubt that Fabregas was looking for it but managing fouls is a part of being a professional footballer. The rules of the game do not stipulate that a player must stay on his feet if he feels he is fouled (though you may argue the spirit of the game suggests otherwise). Fabregas went looking for a foul and got it in a different way than he expected - to that end you may feel like justice was done however truth be told Targett over committed' date=' couldn't stop in time, and impeded Fabregas (whether or not Fabregas was already on his way down). We got fortunate in my opinion.[/quote']

 

I know of many referees at my level who expect the attacker to make some attempt to get over or skip around the challenge. It is not enough to see a leg stuck out and then trip over it. We were fortunate in that this referee gave a decision in our favour but I don't think you can say that it was a wrong decision. Some others might have given it.

[ART]

Daily Mail says the referee apologised to Mourinho for making a mistake after the game when they discussed his wrong decision.

[Jonnyboy]

How do we know Targetts slip wasn't a simulated one in order to impede the attacking player?

[Redslo]

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

 

 

Given Targett slipped and then Fabregas fell over his outstretched leg, it is debatable that his challenge was "careless, reckless or using excessive force" ergo the referee's interpretation wasn't unreasonable IMO.

 

I guess it could be argued that Targett "tripped an opponent" by being "careless", but given he may not have made contact if he hadn't slipped then that's also debatable. It's possible to have an accident without being "careless".[/QUOTE]

 

Particularly since people were sliding all over that part of the field during the game.

[FloridaMarlin]

Daily Mail says the referee apologised to Mourinho for making a mistake after the game when they discussed his wrong decision.

 

The referee apologised to Mourinho for booking Fabregas for simulation, not for his failure to award a penalty.

[Andy Durman]

The referee didn't give a penalty so it wasn't one. End of move on.

[Saint Charlie]

The referee didn't give a penalty so it wasn't one. End of move on.

 

We have done very well from poor decisions lately. Aguero and then Fabregas booked when both should have had pens.

 

Evens out some shockers in the Everton game.

[Window Cleaner]

We have done very well from poor decisions lately. Aguero and then Fabregas booked when both should have had pens.

 

Evens out some shockers in the Everton game.

 

The Canal + resident ref commentator made the point that a foul is still a foul even if it's not intentional, now whether that's the standard in the PL or not I'm not sure but Targett did cause Fabregas to fall over and thus it was a penalty elsewhere but perhaps not in the PL. We've had bad decisions as well, there was an incident where Terry ( I think) wrestled our chap to the ground (at a corner, might have been Fonte) and we got nothing so the bad decisions in this game evened up at least.

[trousers]

Given the referee didn't have the benefit of 17 (slight exaggeration) different camera angle replays, his decision for the Targett / Fabregas incident was perfectly valid.The decision to not award a penalty can't be called 'wrong' or 'bad' as his interpretation was based on what he saw in real time. Another referee might have interpreted it differently, which would have been equally valid. Referees are human and as such, borderline naked eye decisions are always going to be subjective. One thing's for sure, we wouldn't be having this debate if replays didn't exist.

Edited 30 December, 2014 by trousers

[Whitey Grandad]

Given the referee didn't have the benefit of 17 (slight exaggeration) different camera angle replays, his decision for the Targett / Fabregas incident was perfectly valid.The decision to not award a penalty can't be called 'wrong' or 'bad' as his interpretation was based on what he saw in real time. Another referee might have interpreted it differently, which would have been equally valid. Referees are human and as such, borderline decisions are always going to be subjective. One thing's for sure, we wouldn't be having this debate if replays didn't exist.

 

This is the crux of the matter. The Laws of the Game were first formulated in 1863 and relied on the human element of the referee and what he sees at the time the game is played. These same laws have to operate across all levels of football in all corners of the world. If we're going to introduce trial by television then we should operate under a different set of laws. If we're going to insist on a penalty, which is a probable goal, for every slight contact that may occur then we're going to end up with a situation in which teams spend all their time trying to win penalties or free kicks instead of trying to score a goal. Chelsea, for example.

[Give it to Ron]

He would have missed penalty anyway....well everyone is saying he would have scored and Chelsea won the game.....

[kpturner]

The referee didn't give a penalty so it wasn't one. End of move on.

 

Ever considered a job as a pundit?