+-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 953
Latest: Yorksref
New This Month: 21
New This Week: 3
New Today: 1
Stats
Total Posts: 75100
Total Topics: 5526
Most Online Today: 148
Most Online Ever: 17046
(Mon 29 Mar 2021 19:08)
Users Online
Members: 8
Guests: 83
Total: 91

Author Topic: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea  (Read 2719 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Scally Bob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 231
    • View Profile
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #15 on: Sun 25 Apr 2021 09:20 »
I may be inconsistent here (well they started it) but Moyes is right: that decision is made by someone who’s never played the game.

In a fast contact sport there will inevitably be collisions and sometimes players get hurt. I know intent is no part of the Laws but really, does anybody other than Kavanagh and Bankes think the West Ham defender meant to do that? He’s cleared the ball and then they collide, where’s his foot meant to go? Every time one of these appalling decisions is made it makes me think the VAR is just looking for absolutely anything to justify their existence. It’s like the busy liners we sometimes get on Supply League who are flagging the planes down when we’re trying to let the game flow.

Every week VAR is nailing the lid and screwing it down tight on the game. It’s absolutely farcical.
Agree Agree x 5 Disagree Disagree x 1 View List

Ref Fan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 977
    • View Profile
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #16 on: Sun 25 Apr 2021 09:39 »
There have been plenty of incidents this season that have left some of us scratching our heads about the Laws, or interpretation of them, and the involvement of VAR.  Just to highlight 3 of them.

Martial / Lamela:  The conclusion of this incident was a RC for Martial and nothing for Lamela, the provocateur.  At least 3 former international referees agreed this incident could / should have been dealt with in a more mature manner, despite under the law Taylor being technically correct as Martial tapped Lamela's face.  No action against Lamela was a total injustice to many observers.

Pickford / van Dijk:  Referee and VAR were reportedly so wrapped up in the offside / penalty questions they forgot to consider the actual challenge properly.  No respective action could be taken as the incident was seen by the officials.  Rough justice for Liverpool and van Dijk.

It's gone under the radar so far on here, but in the Liverpool v Newcastle game yesterday, Fernandez elbowed Jota quite violently in the face which certainly didn't look like a mere brushing off of an opponent. Yet Andre Marriner only considered it a YC offence and VAR presumably did not consider it a clear and obvious error.  Compared to the Martial incident, it's laughable frankly, but merely helps to highlight the absurdities and inconsistencies in application of the law, bearing in mind these 3 incidents involved 3 of our top officials. 

Going back to this incident, I still think a case to be made for the RC.  However, having seen Chris Kavanagh stick to an original decision on a previous occasion in another game when referred to the monitor, I think in this case he would have been justified in seeing it as reckless rather than dangerous, and given a YC.  a cop-out maybe but I'm still not convinced that high contact was merely a natural follow through.
« Last Edit: Sun 25 Apr 2021 09:45 by Ref Fan »

ARF

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 249
    • View Profile
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #17 on: Sun 25 Apr 2021 10:22 »
I know intent is no part of the Laws but really, does anybody other than Kavanagh and Bankes think the West Ham defender meant to do that?
You answered your own question.

Leggy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: East Grinstead
    • View Profile
  • Referee Level: Long Retired Level 3
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #18 on: Sun 25 Apr 2021 10:53 »
I'm just not so sure about no intent.  My initial reaction on seeing the replay was that there was a sort of extended and unnecessary second movement with the foot turned up and studs showing.  It didn't come as a complete surprise when VAR recommended Kavanagh to look at the monitor. If he took the view that the follow through was excessive and endangered an opponent, I can see a case for a RC.

Fully expect to be in a minority of one and advised to visit Specsavers.  My only plea is age!

Just to clarify. I'm not suggesting a RC was 100% correct, but I don't think the incident was as clear cut as posters so far have stated, and there's certainly a doubt in my mind as to whether the West Ham player was entirely innocent.


I suspect that, on watching a slow motion reply, one could appear to detect "a sort of extended and unnecessary second movement".  I believe, however, that the slow motion reply does not show what actually happened.  In full speed there is none and the short time makes none possible (see below)

The West Ham player got there ahead of the Chelsea player and played the ball some 60 yards up the right wing.  To kick the ball that far you have to "give it some welly" and that requires a follow through (think golf:  No follow through = no distance).

I would also question whether it was at all possible for the West Ham player to add in the second (intentional) movement.  What was the time gap between playing the ball and making contact with the Chelsea player's leg?  Remember that  - in athletics - runners are deemed to have "false started" if they move off the starting blocks within 0.1 second of the starting gun because the human mind / body cannot react that quickly.  TV uses 25 frames per second - there needed to have been 3 (or 2 at least) frames for the West Ham player to have even reacted, let alone do anything.  I don't think he could have intended to injure the Chelsea player even if he had wanted to.

Now, I realise that intent is not part of the Law (thanks, bmb!) and this comes under reckless play that endangers the safety of an opponent.  The angle of the players means that the West Ham player could not reasonably have foreseen what would have happened. 

Lastly, this is entirely different to the many situations we have seen where a player who is trying to tackle an opponent who already has the ball and commits serious foul play.  That player has a decision to take in whether to make the challenge or not and takes the consequences if he gets it wrong.  Yesterday, the West Ham player played the ball first and cleanly (look how far it went).  The Chelsea player tried to prevent that / close him down - and he has a responsibility to not endanger his own safety.  If the Chelsea player abandons that responsibility and puts himself in danger, the West Ham player should not be sanctioned.

All in all a nonsense decision that needed thinking through based on years of watching, playing and refereeing hundreds of games.  It did not need dozens of slow motion replays and a warped interpretation of Law.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Scally Bob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 231
    • View Profile
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #19 on: Sun 25 Apr 2021 11:58 »
I know intent is no part of the Laws but really, does anybody other than Kavanagh and Bankes think the West Ham defender meant to do that?
You answered your own question.
What I mean by that is that the West Ham player played the ball and although the follow through hurt the Chelsea player it was nothing more than their momentum leading to a collision. There have been countless incidents where players have been injured, often seriously, but there was no foul. In a contact sport it will happen. Referees are meant to make decisions based on the challenge rather than whatever injury might occur as a consequence.
Agree Agree x 4 View List

guest42

  • Guest
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #20 on: Sun 25 Apr 2021 14:07 »
Petr Cech and Stephen Hunt being a good example

Acme Thunderer

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,397
    • View Profile
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #21 on: Sun 25 Apr 2021 14:14 »
I know intent is no part of the Laws but really, does anybody other than Kavanagh and Bankes think the West Ham defender meant to do that?
You answered your own question.
What I mean by that is that the West Ham player played the ball and although the follow through hurt the Chelsea player it was nothing more than their momentum leading to a collision. There have been countless incidents where players have been injured, often seriously, but there was no foul. In a contact sport it will happen. Referees are meant to make decisions based on the challenge rather than whatever injury might occur as a consequence.

In agreeing with you Scally Bob, I note that there was a very similar incident later in the same game which didn't even warrant a second look from ref or VAR. In this instance, I think the red card was wrong!

LateTackle

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 171
    • View Profile
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #22 on: Sun 25 Apr 2021 14:54 »
What I mean by that is that the West Ham player played the ball and although the follow through hurt the Chelsea player it was nothing more than their momentum leading to a collision. There have been countless incidents where players have been injured, often seriously, but there was no foul. In a contact sport it will happen. Referees are meant to make decisions based on the challenge rather than whatever injury might occur as a consequence.
Sorry, your post is invalid as it contains far too much common sense.   ;)

As I have said many times, football is not a non-contact sport.  Accidental contact, (what Dermot calls a 'coming-together') are part of the game, and when that ceases we no longer have a viable sport.  It's bad enough seeing players throwing themselves around and screaming for the slightest touch.  To send people off for genuine attempts to play the game fairly is ludicrous.

As for VAR, I think it serves a purpose, but only when used sensibly.  The system may be fine but its operators are sadly lacking.  I am starting to agree with Ashington that they are desperately trying to justify the thing.  Decisions like the one under discussion are just undermining it.
Like Like x 3 Agree Agree x 1 View List

Referee21

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #23 on: Sun 25 Apr 2021 19:08 »
It’s great to see another referee slagged off for a good performance but then ruined by VAR. Kavanagh had a great game to this point. Not one mention for the advantage. Yes again this website is pathetic. No balance. Just negative. What a great fan site
Disagree Disagree x 5 View List

TillysDad

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #24 on: Sun 25 Apr 2021 19:20 »
But it was his decision to issue a red card
Agree Agree x 4 View List

ajb95

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,391
    • View Profile
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #25 on: Sun 25 Apr 2021 19:25 »
It’s great to see another referee slagged off for a good performance but then ruined by VAR. Kavanagh had a great game to this point. Not one mention for the advantage. Yes again this website is pathetic. No balance. Just negative. What a great fan site

If I was being observed on supply level and I had a fantastic game but gave a red card when it wasn’t, do you think I would get a good overall Mark?

Carter

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 194
    • View Profile
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #26 on: Sun 25 Apr 2021 19:27 »
It’s great to see another referee slagged off for a good performance but then ruined by VAR. Kavanagh had a great game to this point. Not one mention for the advantage. Yes again this website is pathetic. No balance. Just negative. What a great fan site

Surely the referee has to take criticism as he had the ultimate decision to not dismiss the player which was the big decision in the game, you cant criticise VAR and not the referee in this instance.

PhiltheRef

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • View Profile
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #27 on: Sun 25 Apr 2021 23:00 »
VAR, in this case, and I suspect others, get no idea of context seeing only the contact with the player.
The West Ham player was attempting a clearance and The Chelsea player trying to block the clearance If the 5 or 10 seconds prior to the "collision" had been shown as part of the package Chris might have made a different decision
Incidentally, when I was coaching I told defenders in similar circumstances to put their foot through it. Doing that automatically results in a follow through with the kicking foot
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 1 View List

bruntyboy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
    • View Profile
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #28 on: Mon 26 Apr 2021 22:50 »
It's strange because normally it is the player who "follows through" in clearing the ball who ends up rolling around on the floor and getting a free kick after their foot/leg makes the merest contact with the opposing player attempting to block the clearance.
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 1 View List

Acme Thunderer

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,397
    • View Profile
Re: C KAVANAGH - West Ham v Chelsea
« Reply #29 on: Tue 27 Apr 2021 08:35 »
Red card is to be appealed according to today's Times.