Jump to content

Chelsea 6-0 Arsenal


Jase
 Share

Man of the Match  

209 members have voted

  1. 1. Who is your Man of the Match?



Recommended Posts

First thing first, ox was not even a "questionable" decision compared to the dive of neymar. It was a clear cut red and a disgraceful action. Intentionallu handling the ball dearrves a red.

Now for the last man tackle/fouls while debying clear goal scoring oppurtunity (which I think was the xase last night) , while I except that sometimes they can be harsh, but u have to accept that they do make some sense.

I mean like someone said above, say the conversion rate of a pen is 80% in the world (4 out of 5), and you just give a pen or a pen + yellow, then the defender is commiting a foul and still reducing the chances of the striker scoring fron 100% to 80%. Which is what will happen if the refs stop givng reds for denying goalscoring oppurtunities. Hence, I have to say, the rule should defo stay.

What's the point of giving a double punishment?

That's what the ref do with such rules.

In cases like chamberlain and Suárez at the world Cup, I understand.

But giving the same punishment for a foul, doesn't make any sense. You kill the game. Given a red card you already handicap the game.

Why give more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know mate but there is no way you can rewrite that rule without causing other problems.

Maybe they need to detail it more then, so it applies to specific moments only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the point of giving a double punishment?

That's what the ref do with such rules.

In cases like chamberlain and Suárez at the world Cup, I understand.

But giving the same punishment for a foul, doesn't make any sense. You kill the game. Given a red card you already handicap the game.

Why give more?

If not, then what is the ref supposed to do?

Like I said, the defender reduces the chance of scoring but still gets away with fouling. In the end, if a striker is thru on goal, a defender can foul a striker and yet the defending team is in a better position than before the tackle which is just absurd.

You have to understand that a red + a pen is given ONLY in situatiins where a defender is deemed to have stopped a clear cut goal scoring oppurtunity. Xabi was not given a red last night for a foul on iniesta and neither was alves. It is only the most obvious goal scoring oppurtunities which are generally deemed to be a red + pen offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the point of giving a double punishment?

That's what the ref do with such rules.

In cases like chamberlain and Suárez at the world Cup, I understand.

But giving the same punishment for a foul, doesn't make any sense. You kill the game. Given a red card you already handicap the game.

Why give more?

What if you only give a yellow card and the team misses the penalty ? The team of the player that committed the foul basically get's away with cheating.

You'd constantly see defenders and goalkeeper cynically taking down players who are in a great goalscoring position, happily take the yellow card and a chance for their goalkeeper to save the penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and what happened to the so called 'Rock' that is Per Mertesacker? Some fucking rock him and Koscielny where eh?

Don't blame them to be fair, has a lot more to do with Wenger's suicidal tactics.

Both are very good defenders IMO (especially Koscielny).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and what happened to the so called 'Rock' that is Per Mertesacker? Some fucking rock him and Koscielny where eh?

totally exposed in these games to be fair. even cahill-terry will struggle when the opposition forwards are outnumbering them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has to be a red and a penalty. Looking at it from a game theory point of view:

-ball is going into net=100% goal

-opponent palms the ball off the line to save a goal

-what does the punishment have to be to make the opponent indifferent to palming or not palming the ball off the line (making the opponent indifferent being the absolute minimum, the punishment should actually be a deterrent)

Let's look at some punishments we could give:

-a penalty is given:

-this results in a goal ~85% of the time. This gives the opponent a 15% less likely chance of conceding a goal compared to the previous 100%. That's a huge win for the opponent and they should take that trade off any time.

-a penalty is given and a yellow:

-this results in a goal ~85% of the time and i couldn't even bother counting the ratio of bookings:second bookings it was so insignifant. Essentially, a yellow rarely results in seeing that same player receive another booking that match. So the opponents have shaved their chance of conceding a goal by 15% and will rarely be down a man.

The only way we even get close is by making it a red and a penalty (unfortunately I couldn't find a stastic for how often teams in the Prem concede after going down to 10 men to add up the 85% chance of pk goal + the chance of scoring with a man advantage).

The other option is to simply award the goal. It's not without precedent in sports. This happens in hockey if Team X has an empty net, Team Y gets the puck and is in all alone on the empty-net, only to be hauled down by a Team X player to prevent the empty-net goal. The goal is simply awarded in such empty-net cases rather than the usual penalty shot being awarded (which in hockey only has a roughly 33% chance of being converted). Doesn't even matter if the player got a shot off. We also see such a rule with goaltending in basketball. For goaltending to be awarded, the ball only has to have the possibility of going in, be on a downward arc, and not touching the rim. In this specific case, going with the hypothetical punishment of simply awarding the goal, I'd say it's harsh since we know the ball was going wide.

Some may argue that since the ball was going wide, it shouldn't have been a sending off. That's the only argument that holds ground here. To that, I'd argue that Ox clearly thought the ball had a high chance of going in otherwise he wouldn't have done something so drastic. He would have just let the ball go wide. So for all intents and purposes, Ox believed he was preventing a goal and palmed the ball away. Knowing that, his actions have to be considered in that light.

Actually your concept of free goal is interesting. Giving free goal (penalty without gk + yellow card) is imo the way to go. It deter opponent to deny clear goalsxoring opportunity because it is counted a goal plus you will receive a Yellow card.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • 0 members are here!

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

talk chelse forums

We get it, advertisements are annoying!
Talk Chelsea relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online because over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this website and help us by switching your ad blocker off.

KTBFFH
Thank You