Was it even a Foul?

[Mike Oxlong]

3 minutes ago, Lillehamring said:

problem i have is that the contact was fractional and didn't seem enough to bring a player down - which, i admit, doesn't make any difference these days: any contact seems to equate to a foul - but my problem is that chelsea must have made a dozen or more challenges that were worse than the red card where the ref didn't even give us a free kick, including several when we had just won possession and were countering.

 

So, by the ref's own general standard of 'what is a foul?', the red card should not have been given as a foul.

Two down, 97 to go 

[HybridFox]

10 minutes ago, Lillehamring said:

problem i have is that the contact was fractional and didn't seem enough to bring a player down - which, i admit, doesn't make any difference these days: any contact seems to equate to a foul - but my problem is that chelsea must have made a dozen or more challenges that were worse than the red card where the ref didn't even give us a free kick, including several when we had just won possession and were countering.

 

So, by the ref's own general standard of 'what is a foul?', the red card should not have been given as a foul.

He was waving away plenty of challenges all over the pitch then decides to play hero on a dubious call. If it was anywhere else on the pitch, he would have played on

Edited 17 March by HybridFox

[RobHawk]

Looked like minimal contact, not a foul in my opinion, struggled to see contact in the slow.mo, let alone full speed. Very very soft. 

 

That being said, if the foul was given it had to be a red card

[Lillehamring]

1 hour ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Two down, 97 to go 

Nah, this is the just a single problem - so 98 to go....

 

Where do we start!

[wokinghamfox]

2 hours ago, Elsie Efsie said:

Seems that VAR just looked at whether the alledged foul was in or out of the box. Correct decision whatever the contact was it was outside the box, however, from the limited veiws they gave all I saw was the Chelsea player clip his own legs?

Must admit I thought exactly that the first time I saw it. Got to have a closer look

[Clever Fox]

I don't blame Doyle for anything because he didn't foul him. Yes he touched his foot but a foul has to be with intent.,Not an accidental contact.

 

I thought Var was supposed to correct mistakes.

[Paninistickers]

2 hours ago, Chelmofox said:

Ragrdless - Sterlings free kick was a moment of beauty. 

Huth 

[filbertway]

30 minutes ago, Clever Fox said:

I don't blame Doyle for anything because he didn't foul him. Yes he touched his foot but a foul has to be with intent.,Not an accidental contact.

 

I thought Var was supposed to correct mistakes.

There is nothing in the rules that states a foul has to be done on purpose. Imagine a ref having to decide if a player  has intentionally decided to foul an opponent 

 

[Legend_in_blue]

Why are we questioning the decision when Vardy has made a career out of such deft arts? 

 

 

 

[OnlyOneCity]

3 hours ago, KFS said:

It’s the double jeopardy rule. You can’t lose a man to a pen 

I believe Reguillon was sent off against Burnley yesterday for a foul in the box, denying scoring opportunity but couldn’t understand why he had the double jeopardy of penalty and sending off. Though that had been stopped. Wasn’t a bad tackle.

[Pita]

Yes it was a foul and red card. That’s life

[themightyfin]

5 minutes ago, OnlyOneCity said:

I believe Reguillon was sent off against Burnley yesterday for a foul in the box, denying scoring opportunity but couldn’t understand why he had the double jeopardy of penalty and sending off. Though that had been stopped. Wasn’t a bad tackle.

He didn't go for the ball so you can still get a red and give a pen. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

3 hours ago, Guest said:

Even accounting for blue-tinted glasses I am sort of amazed anyone could think it's anything other than a foul and a red card

The only mitigation (which doesn't change anything, so it's not really even that) is that it harsh in that it was the slightest of touches and you'll see far worse offences getting yellows further up the pitch. It's merely the goal-scoring opportunity that turns it into a red.

[Chelmofox]

Just now, Pita said:

Yes it was a foul and red card. That’s life

Yes, but it was one of those soft as pi55 ones as he goes down hard because he clipped his own legs. If Jackson wanted to stay on his feet he could have. But as someone else said, Vardy (and Maddison as well) have done this shizzle for years.

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Two down, 97 to go 

Took me a while

 

[Foxmeister]

VAR made the right decision but what bothers me is if the ref was too far away to see where it was he was too far away to see what it was.

[StanSP]

2 hours ago, Foxmeister said:

VAR made the right decision but what bothers me is if the ref was too far away to see where it was he was too far away to see what it was.

Not necessarily. 

[UniFox21]

 

Still not sure

 

[Gamble92]

3 hours ago, filbertway said:

There is nothing in the rules that states a foul has to be done on purpose. Imagine a ref having to decide if a player  has intentionally decided to foul an opponent 

 

People are only saying the intent thing because Keown said it on commentary. I thought the commentators had a mare on so many occasions today. I expect them to know nothing about our players but don't start telling us things like Fatawu never tracks back.

[filbertway]

12 minutes ago, Gamble92 said:

People are only saying the intent thing because Keown said it on commentary. I thought the commentators had a mare on so many occasions today. I expect them to know nothing about our players but don't start telling us things like Fatawu never tracks back.

Thought it was the same in the game v Bournemouth as well. They seem to have a tenuous grasp on football in general, never mind any sort of knowledge of teams they're commentating on.

[Bob Weasel Fox]

To the letter of the law and all that correct decision and card etc etc

 

however as soft as you will ever see

 

pathetically soft 

[Royston.]

Foul and prevented a goal scoring chance so red card was right decision.

 

That happens 20 yards further back its a foul and no card.

 

Play slow defenders and you are prone to these outcomes.

[RonnieTodger]

As much as I hate VAR, they got it spot on. 

[splinterdream]

It wasn't a foul, just seen a replay, i'd post video if i knew how but he trips himself up

[splinterdream]

Frame just before he trips himself up, wheres the foul? 

I cant see on video any contact. Doyle nearly pulls him with his arm but pulls back