Chelsea vs Man Utd (08-Nov-09)

[Mango Chow!]

Utd were the better team today, and deserved at least a draw.

1. Rooney called offside when he was played on by Cole

2. Terry lucky to get away with not conceding a penalty after a foul on Valencia

3. Debatable free kick given to Chelsea which led to the goal

4. Possible foul on Brown by Drogba

5. Almost certain interference with play by Drogba on the goal


Poor refereeing, but so it goes sometimes. Chelsea had mostly minor decisions go against them, Utd had the major ones. Drogba might get calls like the Evans foul if he didn't embellish so much of the contact with him. Honestly I can't really blame the ref for reacting the way he did after Drogba looked like he was having a seizure on the ground. It was a foul and definitely at least a yellow, but Drogba likely stole that decision from himself honestly.

Satisfied with the performance by Utd (team and individually), if not the result - looking forward to seeing more of Obertan, as well as the return of Rio, Vidic and Berbatov. Utd can still use a little reinforcement in the middle of the park and perhaps up front (though maybe the likes of Ljajic, Diouf and Hargreaves can step up and give cover to these areas somewhat).

Typical conceited ManU fan response

  You being nice to call it conceited.  These boys are laughable to say the least.   The man say the foul by fletcher was "debatable" yes!  The only thing debatable about that foul was whether or not he intended to foul the man.  If the ref is right to make a call against Drogba for all  his embellishment, well manu fans have a good few seasons of poetic justice due to them.  How many years of "embellishment" they had under swan dive-boy?  (or does it not count because he playing in Spain now?). 

   At least this manu fan is the first one to come close to calling the so-called foul by Drogba on brown somewhat correk.  In spite of the hasty declarations in all the previous postings here, (if yuh want to see a real, clear foul, check the shot again in the first half that vds save off Anelka.....yuh go see o'shea trying his best to rip Drogba shirt off he right arm.....no complaints though, that is typical penalty-area football) nobody in the television viewing audience can truly say the see Drogba foul the man because the way the camera footage pan across the field following the ball, (the only good camera angle in inconclusive) by the time the two of them come into focus brown was already falling to the ground and it could very well have been because he run into his own damned teammate.  He did try to take it back by claiming that Drogba  almost certainly interfere with play oui  ........that interference only matters if Drogba was offside when the ball was played, jed.     

Typical blinded Utd hater retort

Watch or read any analysis of the game and u will see that most agree on these points.

I'm takin the loss, Utd should have defended the set piece better and hey sometimes u don't get the calls or the luck but that doesn't take away from the fact that Utd were the better team and that the game may have turned out differently if the ref had made what I feel are the correct calls.  Yeah, evans would have been off and who knows how manu would have suffered being a man down to Chelsea at the Bridge.


Just observations, not sore losing.

I never expected that Ronaldo should have gotten many of the calls he got, so don't put me in league with that fool


I am not putting anybody in any league, hoss, please, read my lips:  What I am telling the manu fans that are being so bitchy about "the ref"  is that, whether y'all liked cronaldo or not, y'all definitely accepted the wins when his histrionics gave y'all positive results, so accept a loss or two when y'all feel a call or two don't go y'all's way.  How hard is that to comprehend?!      




- for you to stand by Drogba and want him to be rewarded for his histrionics is laughable really.
Where have you ever or do you now see me "stand by Drogba...."  and his drama, jed?!  Rewarded?!  Where do you see that I am even suggesting that he be rewarded for his antics?
Go back and check your sources. 
But even for all his histrionics, I really wouldn'ta mind if it was a normal foul that evans committed and get away with.  That is football.  However, there is absolutely no room in football (or sport, for that matter) for what he actually did do.  He clearly intended to stamp the man in his chest with his studs and that is just classless.....but classlessness is typical of your club so I'm not surprised that you would be so typical as to talk about Drogba's histrionics rather than admit that evans was lucky to get away with what he did....



And if you don't think he was in offside position when Terry headed the ball towards goal and that he wasn't interfering with play kicking out at the ball in the 6 yard box right in front of the keeper - then I really eh know what to say na brudda haha.   
I was only focused on Drogba's positioning when the free-kick was taken and the linesman probably didn't even see that Terry had made contact with the ball (same way the linesman didn't see the sole of evans' boot make contact with Drogba's chest) but that is just one of those plays that you win sometimes and you lose sometimes.  I'm sure before the season is over manu will get some benefit of bad refereeing and yesterday will be forgotten.

Guess there's jus no bein diplomatic on this board though haha  manu fans wouldn't know diplomacy if they worked in the U.N. - Anti-Utd or bust.

   

[dinho]

why is nothing being done about this?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/pXpPZ1RsP3Y" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/pXpPZ1RsP3Y</a>

just imagine if ivanovic had put one ah dat on rooney. yuh woulda never hear the end of it, guaranteed..

[elan]

And Droigba get a yellow on top ah that too? Where the FA?

[Peong]

I now comin to ask about Jonny Evans.
How come no post-match action was taken?
What is the EPL policy incidents that were missed by the ref?

If it was Rooney who get stamp in the ribs yuh woulda hear ole noise.

[Jah Gol]

why is nothing being done about this?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/pXpPZ1RsP3Y" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/pXpPZ1RsP3Y</a>

just imagine if ivanovic had put one ah dat on rooney. yuh woulda never hear the end of it, guaranteed..

Get stuck in  lads !

[Bourbon]

If drogba didnt beat up like a fish dey........it woulda be different.

[Bakes]

I now comin to ask about Jonny Evans.
How come no post-match action was taken?
What is the EPL policy incidents that were missed by the ref?

If it was Rooney who get stamp in the ribs yuh woulda hear ole noise.

What action do you think should be taken... and based on what?

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

Bourbon... agreed, the excessive wine and kick up probably work against him (especially considering his reputation).


I also understand why the ref would have shown him the yellow... not that I agree with it.

[Blue]

If drogba didnt beat up like a fish dey........it woulda be different.

for real, he earn his yellow card 4 dat.

but truth is, in real time it actually looked like drogba had rushed in on evans...if u notice d crowd eh really make too much noise considering how ridiculous d challenge was. plus d crowd took their cue from drogba and once dey saw him beatin up dey kinda quiet down wid embarrasment.

[dinho]

there is provision for retroactive punishment if the ref sees the replay and agrees that he would have sent the player off had he seen it. Adebayor suffered that fate for his challenge on Van Persie earlier this season.

The only exception for this is if the ref acted by giving a yellow where it should have been red, in which case then the player cannot be subsequently punished after the game. Evans was not booked.

imo that was a stonewall red card offence.

admittedly on first view from the tv angle i thought drogba went up with him and they clattered, but when you look at that replay you can see he has not even left the ground before evans comes in with a high foot studs up challenge.. There is no reason why his foot needs to be that high going up for a ball, and it looks fully intentional to me.

madness..

[Peong]

Got a chuckle from this

http://www.theoffside.com/leagues/england/english-premiership/the-six-reasons-why-didier-drogba-was-booked-after-johnny-evans-kicked-him-in-the-chest.html

Six Possible Reasons Why Didier Drogba Was Booked After Jonny Evans Kicked Him in the Chest
By: Daryl | November 9th, 2009

First thing’s first, I’m not sure Jonny Evans did this intentionally. So I don’t want this post to be all about him. But there’s no doubt that his studs connected with Didier Drogba’s chest during Man Utd’s 1-0 defeat to Chelsea yesterday, and there’s no doubt that said connection caused a great deal of pain. Leg-jiggling pain.

It’s possible (but by no means certain) that said leg-jiggling was exaggerated. As a result, referee Martin Atkinson booked Didier Drogba, most likely for “simulation”. But is that fair?

Diving when there’s no contact is clearly – and provably – cheating, because it’s a reaction to something that didn’t happen. But in this case there clearly was contact (and then some) so surely it’s impossible to judge the extent to which Drogba was simulating. If at all.

So if Drogba’s yellow card wasn’t for simulation, then it must have been for something else. Below are six possible alternative explanations for Martin Atkinson showing Drogba the yellow card…

1. Didier Drogba’s sternum is made of duranium metal alloy prototype 4 class b
So Jonny Evans should consider himself fortunate that his left leg didn’t immediately shatter into a million pieces. It is actually a criminal offence for Didier Drogba’s super-sternum to make contact with any part of another human, so a yellow card is actually a very lenient punishment for his vicious attack on Jonny Evans’ left leg.

2. Didier Drogba was actually booked for lewd public behaviour
Watch the leg-jiggling part of the video again. He’s not in pain, he’s clearly enjoying himself. A little too much.

3. Didier Drogba is a highly skilled magician
It may look like Evans kicked him in the chest, but that was actually just some David Blaine shit that Drogba pulled. It was literally simulated. A massive televisual event of an illusion that fooled everyone in the world. Except Martin Atkinson.

4. Jonny Evans is a Jedi
Turns out Star Wars is not a fictional film. It is a documentary, and Jedi mind tricks are real. Watch Evans after the foul. He’s clearly telling Atkinson that “I’m not the player you’re looking for.”

5. It was temporarily opposite day
It was Drogba’s misfortune that for the few second in which this collision took place, the laws of football were briefly reversed. He’s lucky he didn’t win the ball from Evans and run through to score, because that would have been an own goal and given Man Utd a 1-0 lead.

6. A new FA “Look After Yourself” Campaign?
Referees are sick and tired of being responsible for players’ safety. These are grown men, not babies. So from now on it’s each player’s own responsibility to look after themselves and not get fouled. Failure to do this results in a booking. Harsh, but it’s the only way they’ll learn.

Why only six? Because that’s all I could come up with. But if you have any more, please share them in the comments.

[Bakes]

there is provision for retroactive punishment if the ref sees the replay and agrees that he would have sent the player off had he seen it. Adebayor suffered that fate for his challenge on Van Persie earlier this season.

The only exception for this is if the ref acted by giving a yellow where it should have been red, in which case then the player cannot be subsequently punished after the game. Evans was not booked.

imo that was a stonewall red card offence.

admittedly on first view from the tv angle i thought drogba went up with him and they clattered, but when you look at that replay you can see he has not even left the ground before evans comes in with a high foot studs up challenge.. There is no reason why his foot needs to be that high going up for a ball, and it looks fully intentional to me.

madness..

Can you say with certainty that it was intentional?

If the answer is "no" then there goes any argument for retroactive punishment.  From previous situations there appears to be two overriding concerns which bring about retroactive punishment:

a) Intent + Foul, irrespective as to whether there is actual injury (see Adebayor on Van Persie). 
b) Foul + Actual Injury, irrespective of intent (see Martin Taylor on Eduardo).

Here you can't conclusively say the foul was intentional (although I personally suspect it wasn't fully accidental); and there certainly wasn't any injury.

As for Drogba's yellow... it wasn't a 50-50 ball, Drogba arrived late to the challenge and the ref probably thought he could have pulled out of it (which he actually tried to do).  Add to the fact his history of embellishment and play acting= yellow card.

The irony is that this is probably the first time Drogba's been punished when he had a legitimate claim, to counter all the other times when others were punished when he didn't.  Moral of the story take the win and doh cry wolf no more.

[Peong]

Yes you can conclusively say it was intentional.

Evans' foot was not merely raised, he kicked out at Drogba.

[dinho]

Can you say with certainty that it was intentional?

If the answer is "no" then there goes any argument for retroactive punishment. 

Umm.. No.

A foul doesn't have to be 'certainly intentional' for retroactive punishment to apply. It could very well be that the foul was clumsy, late or negligent such that it could cause damage to another player (See Essien's tackle on Didi Hamann in his first season in the EPL). Determining intentionality is a subjective process, both for me and for the panel that reviews the incident and in this case from the video above, I do in fact think that Evans meant to harm Drogba with that challenge.

From previous situations there appears to be two overriding concerns which bring about retroactive punishment:

a) Intent + Foul, irrespective as to whether there is actual injury (see Adebayor on Van Persie). 
b) Foul + Actual Injury, irrespective of intent (see Martin Taylor on Eduardo).

Here you can't conclusively say the foul was intentional (although I personally suspect it wasn't fully accidental); and there certainly wasn't any injury.

Actual injury should never be a determining factor in retroactive punishment because there can be incidental contact that causes an injury, or a player can get seriously injured in a yellow card or non-punishable challenge. There was a tackle shown right here in the 'Worst ever tackles' thread in the French league that break off a man foot worse than Eduardo but the man was going for the ball and it was unfortunate.

Admittedly though, it weighs into the decision making as in the Martin Taylor challenge you referenced but actual injury is not a stated criteria.

As for Drogba's yellow... it wasn't a 50-50 ball, Drogba arrived late to the challenge and the ref probably thought he could have pulled out of it (which he actually tried to do).  Add to the fact his history of embellishment and play acting= yellow card.

The irony is that this is probably the first time Drogba's been punished when he had a legitimate claim, to counter all the other times when others were punished when he didn't.  Moral of the story take the win and doh cry wolf no more.

No one is arguing the yellow for Drogba, just the lack of punishment for Evans.

[Bakes]

Umm.. No.

A foul doesn't have to be 'certainly intentional' for retroactive punishment to apply. It could very well be that the foul was clumsy, late or negligent such that it could cause damage to another player (See Essien's tackle on Didi Hamann in his first season in the EPL). Determining intentionality is a subjective process, both for me and for the panel that reviews the incident and in this case from the video above, I do in fact think that Evans meant to harm Drogba with that challenge.

If you read on you'll see I clearly state that the foul doesn't HAVE to be intentional.  If it's unintentional however there has to be injury in order for there to be retroactive punishment.  The incident you cite with Essien and Hamann actually occurred during a UEFA game and UEFA suspended Essien, not the English FA.  I am speaking specifically of the English FA whose standards are different from UEFA (see UEFA's sanction of Eduardo vs. the FA's non-sanction of N'gog for diving).  If you can find a case where the FA suspended a player who had NO intention to foul/injure and the foul did NOT result in injury yet the fouling player was suspended retroactively (meaning the ref saw if and didn't sanction it) then by all means...

Actual injury should never be a determining factor in retroactive punishment because there can be incidental contact that causes an injury, or a player can get seriously injured in a yellow card or non-punishable challenge. There was a tackle shown right here in the 'Worst ever tackles' thread in the French league that break off a man foot worse than Eduardo but the man was going for the ball and it was unfortunate.

Admittedly though, it weighs into the decision making as in the Martin Taylor challenge you referenced but actual injury is not a stated criteria.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here... in ever instance you cite there was injury.  Maybe the use of "actual" (as opposed to "possible" or "near" injury) is what throwing you off.  If there is no intent an no injury then there is not retroactive sanction... simple.

No one is arguing the yellow for Drogba, just the lack of punishment for Evans.

You sure about that?

   

   And Droigba get a yellow on top ah that too? Where the FA?
   

[dinho]

Umm.. No.

A foul doesn't have to be 'certainly intentional' for retroactive punishment to apply. It could very well be that the foul was clumsy, late or negligent such that it could cause damage to another player (See Essien's tackle on Didi Hamann in his first season in the EPL). Determining intentionality is a subjective process, both for me and for the panel that reviews the incident and in this case from the video above, I do in fact think that Evans meant to harm Drogba with that challenge.

If you read on you'll see I clearly state that the foul doesn't HAVE to be intentional.  If it's unintentional however there has to be injury in order for there to be retroactive punishment.  The incident you cite with Essien and Hamann actually occurred during a UEFA game and UEFA suspended Essien, not the English FA.  I am speaking specifically of the English FA whose standards are different from UEFA (see UEFA's sanction of Eduardo vs. the FA's non-sanction of N'gog for diving).  If you can find a case where the FA suspended a player who had NO intention to foul/injure and the foul did NOT result in injury yet the fouling player was suspended retroactively (meaning the ref saw if and didn't sanction it) then by all means...

I really don't think injury is a pre-requisite for retroactive punishment, i just think you would be hard pressed to find a red card challenge that called enough attention to merit a review where the player just got up immediately and walked away from it. And are we talking in-game injury that prevents the player from continuing or longer term damage?

Retroactive punishments deal with red card offences regardless, for example you can be punished for an intentional handball that went unnoticed in a game, but then the ref comes back after the fact and says that he would have given red if he had seen it.

Actual injury should never be a determining factor in retroactive punishment because there can be incidental contact that causes an injury, or a player can get seriously injured in a yellow card or non-punishable challenge. There was a tackle shown right here in the 'Worst ever tackles' thread in the French league that break off a man foot worse than Eduardo but the man was going for the ball and it was unfortunate.

Admittedly though, it weighs into the decision making as in the Martin Taylor challenge you referenced but actual injury is not a stated criteria.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here... in ever instance you cite there was injury.  Maybe the use of "actual" (as opposed to "possible" or "near" injury) is what throwing you off.  If there is no intent an no injury then there is not retroactive sanction... simple.

You said:

b) Foul + Actual Injury, irrespective of intent (see Martin Taylor on Eduardo).

is an overriding factor..

I'm basically saying the same thing as above. Whether or not the player is injured shouldn't be an overriding factor, because it should be about the challenge. If there is an unintentional yet mistimed challenge that caused a serious injury to a player that was not deemed red-cardable, then there should be no retroactive sanction.

By the way, Drogba was injured out of the game and is also out of Ivory Coast's next game because of Evans challenge.

[Jah Gol]

Intended or not I would send off a player for that challenge.  Drogba got a boot to his chest I think he's entitled to react and how do we know he wasn't in awful pain.

[FF]

they should rescind that card in any case!

[Blue]

Intended or not I would send off a player for that challenge.  Drogba got a boot to his chest I think he's entitled to react and how do we know he wasn't in awful pain.

What that video doesnt quite show in the close up shot is that Evans actually went to head the ball and indeed headed the ball clear, and ended up kicking Drogba moments later.

It would have been very hard for him to concentrate on heading the ball and simultaneously try to maim Drogba. I think he kicked out for fear that Drogba was gonna clatter him right after heading the ball. If he had been sent off at the time there would have been little to complain about, but not sure whether it warrants a retrospective red.

We got de 3 points, we go take dat  

[elan]

I realize is lil boys on here trying to pose as big men. How in the hell you could see why the ref gave Drogba a yellow, for excessive leg shaking. Apparently alyuh accustom with men riding alyuh chest for alyuh to expect Drogba to take that drop kick and not roll around.
That kick was intentional, after Evans head the ball he see Drogba and extended his leg, foot what ever anatomical term you want to use.
That right there is a straight red, 3 games ban and a fine. So much for so called objectivity

[Bakes]

I really don't think injury is a pre-requisite for retroactive punishment, i just think you would be hard pressed to find a red card challenge that called enough attention to merit a review where the player just got up immediately and walked away from it. And are we talking in-game injury that prevents the player from continuing or longer term damage?

Retroactive punishments deal with red card offences regardless, for example you can be punished for an intentional handball that went unnoticed in a game, but then the ref comes back after the fact and says that he would have given red if he had seen it.

Sure... but we're not talking about handballs, we're talking about fouls committed against other players.  You'll be hard-pressed to find an instance in which there was an unintentionally rash tackle which DID NOT result in injury, in which the player was not disciplined on the field (the ref didn't miss it, he just didn't adjudge it a red card offense at the time- so quite different from your hand-ball example)

You said:

b) Foul + Actual Injury, irrespective of intent (see Martin Taylor on Eduardo).

is an overriding factor..

I'm basically saying the same thing as above. Whether or not the player is injured shouldn't be an overriding factor, because it should be about the challenge. If there is an unintentional yet mistimed challenge that caused a serious injury to a player that was not deemed red-cardable, then there should be no retroactive sanction.

By the way, Drogba was injured out of the game and is also out of Ivory Coast's next game because of Evans challenge.

I never said anything of the sort... never said it was an "overriding" factor.  What I did say was that there were two ways in which the FA (seems) to adjudicate retroactive punishment (involving tackles):

a) Intent

b) Injury

Nothing about overriding, just the two different... emphasis on different scenarios I've been able to identify.

[Bakes]

Intended or not I would send off a player for that challenge.  Drogba got a boot to his chest I think he's entitled to react and how do we know he wasn't in awful pain.

You miss de conversation... nobody really arguing what we would do, more what the FA is likely to do.

Also, I don't think anybody questioning Drogba's right to kick up and roll arung... just what might have been going thru the ref's mind at the time in assessing the yellow.

[SOBRIQUET]

I don't think that Drogba got the card for play-acting, but rather for his challenge on Evans.  If you look at the replay; as soon as the foul was committed, the Ref pointed in favor of Man United.  Drogba saw that Evans had left the ground and kept moving forward into Evans as he was airborne.  Evans initially put his foot up to protect himself (as goal-keepers typically do with their knees), but added a little umph to it with a mild kick-out.  In my opinion, they should have both gotten a yellow card.  Drogba, for the attempted "under-cut" and Evans for lashing out. 

But more importantly, we got the 3 points, so no hard feelings 

[Bakes]

I don't think that Drogba got the card for play-acting, but rather for his challenge on Evans.  If you look at the replay; as soon as the foul was committed, the Ref pointed in favor of Man United.  Drogba saw that Evans had left the ground and kept moving forward into Evans as he was airborne.  Evans initially put his foot up to protect himself (as goal-keepers typically do with their knees), but added a little umph to it with a mild kick-out.  In my opinion, they should have both gotten a yellow card.  Drogba, for the attempted "under-cut" and Evans for lashing out. 

But more importantly, we got the 3 points, so no hard feelings 

You musse ah next li'l boy posing as ah big man 

As for Drogba's yellow... it wasn't a 50-50 ball, Drogba arrived late to the challenge and the ref probably thought he could have pulled out of it (which he actually tried to do).  Add to the fact his history of embellishment and play acting= yellow card.

...I tend tuh agree with yuh on that.  Also agree that Evans to an extent seemed to be concerned with protecting himself foremost... but that he did kick out ah li'l bit.

[Jah Gol]

Intended or not I would send off a player for that challenge.  Drogba got a boot to his chest I think he's entitled to react and how do we know he wasn't in awful pain.

You miss de conversation... nobody really arguing what we would do, more what the FA is likely to do.

Also, I don't think anybody questioning Drogba's right to kick up and roll arung... just what might have been going thru the ref's mind at the time in assessing the yellow.

If I have to operate within the loosely defined framework of the argument then I would say rescind the yellow card to Drogba and ban Evans for 1 game for dangerous play since determining intent is so difficult. 

[Bakes]

If I have to operate within the loosely defined framework of the argument then I would say rescind the yellow card to Drogba and ban Evans for 1 game for dangerous play since determining intent is so difficult. 

Nah yuh do have to... my bad fuh how dat come across, was in de middle ah something else when ah post dat.  I think rescinding the yellow is fair.... banning Evans isn't, especially as you self concede determining intent is so difficult.  If anything the only intent we could fairly attribute to him is an intent to protect himself from being undercut as Sobriquet said.

[Jah Gol]

If I have to operate within the loosely defined framework of the argument then I would say rescind the yellow card to Drogba and ban Evans for 1 game for dangerous play since determining intent is so difficult. 

Nah yuh do have to... my bad fuh how dat come across, was in de middle ah something else when ah post dat.  I think rescinding the yellow is fair.... banning Evans isn't, especially as you self concede determining intent is so difficult.  If anything the only intent we could fairly attribute to him is an intent to protect himself from being undercut as Sobriquet said.

I guess that's a fair compromise since intent seems to be judged subjectively.

[elan]

Ref are independent to the game, so a ref who is reffing a game on assumptions or judging players on history has no place in the game. each game is a new game and to say he knows Drogba history is makes all argument for the yellow void.
Not even a GK is allowed to extend his foot. So the argument that Evans was trying to protect himself does not apply, preemptive strike?
It like going into a slide takle straight on, to protect yourself properly you have to expose your studs, which is illegal.

[Mango Chow!]

Ref are independent to the game, so a ref who is reffing a game on assumptions or judging players on history has no place in the game. each game is a new game and to say he knows Drogba history is makes all argument for the yellow void.
Not even a GK is allowed to extend his foot. So the argument that Evans was trying to protect himself does not apply, preemptive strike?
It like going into a slide takle straight on, to protect yourself properly you have to expose your studs, which is illegal.

  I only NOW see that somebody finally makin' sense.