Football Focus

[Otta]

Have to agree RE Torres.

This claim of racial language used by Clattenburg is interesting. The man is miced up but nothing is recorded, so the 2 linesmen and the 4th official are obviously going to be questioned. No doubt if they say they heard nothing then they'll be accused of covering up.

We're getting to the point where players, officials and coaches will all have to wear mics and records made, just in case.

Actually, if that were possible it might not be a bad idea.

[Otta]

"Contact is contact, Torres was fouled."

Agree, but agree with Strafer that he should have been off already anyway.

[StraferJack]

"that'd would inevitably lead to every near or in the box tackle going to the third referee/technology and would kill the flow of a game"

couldn't you have something like tennis where you have a limited number of calls allowed per game/match?

The offsides/non-offsides at the weekend could take seconds and a much fairer outcome

( I used to be anti-tech for the same reason you cite btw.)

[El Pibe]

controversial decisions seem to be followed by refs being petulantly harangued by players until the inevitable yellows for dissent come out.

Seems like 'interrupting the flow' might actually make the damn game flow a bit better!!

[red devil]

"Contact is contact, Torres was fouled."

I also agree. But if we believe that referees give honest decsions, then Clattenburg obviously didn't see that slight contact had been made. It was only confirmed to the armchair pundits with the luxury of numerous slo mo replays, camera angles and a zoom in. In real time it would've been impossible to be 100% sure either way. I actually think Clattenburg's decision was influenced by Torres' late fall. Also, the replays confirmed that Evans made contact with Torres on the ankle/boot area. But watch what Torres does when he eventually goes down, he holds his right knee even though he landed on his left knee. Maybe this was why Clattenburg deemed that Torres simulated a dive, as he was certain that Evans hadn't made contact with Torres' knee.

I can see the pros and cons of video technology, but unless it arrives you just have to accept that referees/linesmen are human and will make mistakes/contentious decisions, but which hopefully even themselves out over the season, or in Torres' case during the game, as has been pointed out, he shouldn't have been on the field at the time of this incident...

[StraferJack]

Paul Hayward in the Telegraph today, whilst condeming Clattenburg's decision re: Torres makes the very good point below - coupled with red devil's observation, i find it understandable the card was produced:

"You may have missed this in the stampede to analyse Fernando Torres? sending off on a second yellow card ? for simulation ? but when Chelsea?s ?50 million man collected the ball in the middle of the pitch with a clear run towards Manchester United?s goal he started looking wide for someone to offload the ball to.

Torres found himself alone and was forced to stride on at a pace that seldom looks convincing. The initial dart of his eyes said that he was uncomfortable with the opportunity he had been given.

As he rumbled into United?s final third, Jonny Evans thrust a boot at his shin and Torres went over as if the victim of a heavy foul. To send him off in these circumstances was plain wrong. But there was plenty in his all-round play to make Chelsea wish they could write Van Persie?s name on their team-sheet instead. The European champions traipsed away harbouring all sorts of grievances.

Torres might have stayed on his feet under light contact but could not be accused of diving in the strictest sense. He is guilty, though, of sluggishness around the pitch and squandering a general blessing.

For a striker to look up and see Eden Hazard, Juan Mata and Oscar in the same colours in advanced creative roles, is a jackpot-win. Most days, Torres is not worthy of this good fortune"

[Mick Mac]

SJ that's just an interesting analysis of Torres' current level of confidence and why he chose to go down rather than have the cofidence to go alone.

The contact was there, and I'd call it more than a "brush", he should have had a free kick in a dangerous position.

The difficulty with what you advocate, in retrospectively punishing players for apparently diving was highlighted by Eduardo a few years ago, what seemed a clear dive and a proper punsihment was later overturned by UEFA. It's very difficult even with video analysis to completley prove there was no contact, especially with 2D imaging.

The only player I saw dive at the weekend with clearly no contact was Phil Neville, and its these cases which the FA should crack down upon.

[StraferJack]

but if a player "chooses" to go down then the amount of contact should be incidental surely?

A choice = a dive

A player on his arse with no option about how he got there = a foul

[Mick Mac]

In the vast majority of cases there will be an element of choice as regards whether to stay on your feet, so that won't solve it really.

A player is within his rights to go to ground if he is fouled. Where a foul did take place, it should be a foul irrspective of whether he goes to ground or not. If the player does not go to ground then it may give the appearance to the referee that he wants to continue and take the advantage rule, if he chooses to go to ground its clear he wants the free kick, as with Torres.

[red devil]

if he chooses to go to ground its clear he wants the free kick, as with Torres.

The problem with that Mick is that Torres went to ground pretending he had been kicked elsewhere = simualation, a bookable offence.

[Mick Mac]

That's news to me.

He was kicked and went to ground, where is the issue?

[red devil]

Read my earlier post...

[StraferJack]

Isn't there a difference between kicking someone (Torres' initial yellow) and a tackle missing the ball and brushing teh opponent?

i'd say so

[red devil]

SJ, I think some people are forgetting that football is supposed to be a contact sport.

There are degrees of contact, and I don't think video technology will resolve it, as it's very subjective as to what amount of contact is required to constitute a foul...although I'm fairly sure we all agree a kung fu kick at chest height is above acceptable contact :)

[StraferJack]

Video tech should help with majority of offside positions

Diving judgments (even retrospective) would be more ambiguous much of the time, in which case no punishment

Back to Torres second yellow yesterday, would anything change anything? probably not.. most ref's probably wouldn't have carded him but (whilst again saying I have no love for Clattenburg) I can see why he gave it. Fast game, apparent dive from a player who one isn't surprised to see go to ground. maybe he even thought he should have sent him off earlier and this was the opportunity to make amends (which isn't fair either I know)

[Mick Mac]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Video tech should help with majority of offside

> positions AGREE (IF THEY CAN DO IT QUICKLY)

>

> Diving judgments (even retrospective) would be

> more ambiguous much of the time, in which case no

> punishment AGREE - AS ITS WHAT I SAID EARLIER - REVIEWING THESE HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE A WASTE OF TIME

>

> Back to Torres second yellow yesterday, would

> anything change anything? probably not.. most

> ref's probably wouldn't have carded him but

> (whilst again saying I have no love for

> Clattenburg) I can see why he gave it. Fast game,

> apparent dive from a player who one isn't

> surprised to see go to ground. maybe he even

> thought he should have sent him off earlier and

> this was the opportunity to make amends (which

> isn't fair either I know) WATCHING IT LIVE ON TV I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE A DIVE, THEREFORE HONEST MISTAKE. IT WAS PROBABLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LEVEL OF COANTACT, HE THOUGHT THERE WAS NO CONTACT AND HENCE A DIVE. HE WAS WRONG AND SHOULD HOLD HIS HANDS UP - BUT HE HAS BIGGER THINGS TO WORRY ABOUT.

[StraferJack]

Ok ok, Celtic lost, you're upset. I get it. No need to shout tho. ;-)

[Otta]

RD, I don't think it's so much about level of contact but rather timing.

If a player has the ball, some contact us allowed, so long as you're playing the ball. If you miss the ball altogether then any contact with a player is illegal and a foul.

[red devil]

I was alluding to contact in general, not the specifics of the Torres incident. I agree, with the benefit of slo mo replays, there was marginal contact with Torres and none with the ball, therefore technically a foul...but also I understand why the ref didn't give it.

[Parkdrive]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A player is within his rights to go to ground if

> he is fouled.

Within his rights? What, even if the contact isn't sufficient to send a player sprawling? I don't agree that a player has a "right" to go to ground, but I would hope that we have referees who are professional enough to ensure that players do not over egg the pudding when fouled.

Anyway, I see Chavski have lodged an official complaint against the hapless Battenburg. Interesting to see how this pans out.

[????]

Scores on the doors this week - please check someone!

Mr Lush 3 correct scores, 4 correct results - 13 points (new best weekly score methinks?) open the champers!

Otta 3 correct scores, 3 correct results - 12 points

RD 2 correct scores 5 correct results - 11 points (mr Consistency)

Parkdrive 2 correct scres 3 correct results - 9 points

Lady G 2 correct scores, 2 correct results - 8 points

Mick 1 correct score, 5 correct results - 8 points

Alan M 1 correct score, 5 correct results - 8 points

SCSB 1 correct scores, 4 correct results - 7 points

Rhinestone 1 correct score, 4 correct results - 7 points

???? 1 correct score, 4 correct results - 7 points

Maxxi 0 correct scores, 5 correct results - 5 points

It's not like the Hammers to be propping up the table :)

I'll update the overall table Probably after next weekend as I'm short on time plus plase check your own and let me know if I am wron.... I've done these quickly

[Mick Mac]

I trust you quids. No checking reqd. Cheers.

[maxxi]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Maxxi 0 correct scores, 5 correct results - 5

> points

>

> It's not like the Hammers to be propping up the

> table :)

>

After a crisis meeting at the pub with the cheapest lager Maxxi training ground, where there was a frank exchange of views and a round of 'clear the air' talks, a vote of confidence was quickly passed.

Speaking afterwards Maxxi said "It's early in the season to be making these kind of rushes to judgement. There are elements that are still gelling and although correct scores have been thin on the ground we're confident of improvement now the clocks have gone back. We certainly won't be sacrificing the way we go about things just to satisfy a few moaners."

Rumours that sponsors 'Belgian Supermarket Lager 12 Pack' are to pull out and that the season's budget has been invested in a bet on the Irons winning the FA Cup at 100/1 with BET365 are probably true.

[Otta]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I trust you quids. No checking reqd. Cheers.

What Mick said!

[StraferJack]

Chelsea sound more and more like a club out of control

http://mirr.im/QQScM9