Jump to content

Weekends Football 17/19 December


andykeenan

Recommended Posts

"Rule" aside, does anyone actually think that a pen should be given for that? Indirect FK, yes, but a golden chance at a goal via a pen when there wasn't a goal threat and the attacker wasn't in possession?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

Chelsea are "angry" that their request to postpone Sunday's Premier League game at Wolves because of a Covid-19 outbreak was rejected, said Blues manager Thomas Tuchel.

The German boss said the club thought it had "a strong case regarding the security and health of players".

 

"It is very hard to understand it," said Tuchel, who confirmed there are seven positive cases at the club.

Six of the league's 10 weekend matches have been postponed because of Covid.

Chelsea were already without Romelu Lukaku, Timo Werner and Callum Hudson-Odoi because of positive Covid tests.

As a result, the European champions have only been able to name four outfield players on their bench for the game at Wolves. Among them is midfielder Mateo Kovacic, who has been out for 11 games.

"We applied to not play and put the situation under control and it was rejected," Tuchel said.

"We were made to be in the bus and travel together for three hours, were in meetings together, in dinner and lunch - and the situation does not feel like it will stop.

"We end up with players who play coming from injuries and we take the risk.

"I am worried from a medical point of view, we have had four days of consecutive positive tests. How will it stop if we are in a bus together and in meetings together?

 

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/59719428

 

So what's the rule? The PL are just making it up as they go along hiding behind "case by case" but not having to justify it. It's an absolute farce, they should be following the specific rule about 14 fit players, or estbalishing a defined exception for covid that is explained and understood, feels like they're flipping a coin.

Edited by Davkaus
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, a-k said:

"Rule" aside, does anyone actually think that a pen should be given for that? Indirect FK, yes, but a golden chance at a goal via a pen when there wasn't a goal threat and the attacker wasn't in possession?

I'm happy with utterly reckless goalkeeping being punished with a penalty kick, yes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, a-k said:

"Rule" aside, does anyone actually think that a pen should be given for that? Indirect FK, yes, but a golden chance at a goal via a pen when there wasn't a goal threat and the attacker wasn't in possession?

see this is an argument against a pen I could actually kind of get behind. I agree that the goal threat had been taken away by Cancelo initially prior to the contact. However, I've seen so many pens given in similar situation where a striker punts the ball away from the defender and seeks the contact and goes down. Technically there's no goal threat anymore in those situations either since the ball would have never been chased down realistically. So there's not really that much difference here imo and I think the pen should stand in that case.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just watch every little niggly foul that the ref is giving elsewhere on the pitch and try to rationalise them being fouls but it being fine to wipe out a player without even an effort to play the ball

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/59719428

 

So what's the rule? The PL are just making it up as they go along hiding behind "case by case" but not having to justify it. It's an absolute farce, they should be following the specific rule about 14 fit players, or estbalishing a defined exception for covid that is explained and understood, feels like they're flipping a coin.

A dice would be more reliable than the PL and other assorted authroities such as PGMOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, villa4europe said:

Can only name 4 players on the bench because they have 72 players out on loan

**** Chelsea 

You're not wrong, but I don't believe for a moment the teams in the other cancelled games couldn't name 14 players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, villa4europe said:

Can only name 4 players on the bench because they have 72 players out on loan

**** Chelsea 

Premier league should actually make them recall Drinkwater from Reading in January.

Tuchel would probably rather forfeit the game than play him though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, VillaChris said:

Premier league should actually make them recall Drinkwater from Reading in January.

Tuchel would probably rather forfeit the game than play him though!

tbf who wouldn't?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, a-k said:

"Rule" aside, does anyone actually think that a pen should be given for that? Indirect FK, yes, but a golden chance at a goal via a pen when there wasn't a goal threat and the attacker wasn't in possession?

Yes. Penalties are there to de-incentivise players from fouling, especially in the most important area of the pitch where a team can get a shot on goal. Don’t want to give away a pen, don’t foul.

Edited by a m ole
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LondonLax said:

Zero shots on target for Chelsea first half. 

I can see Wolves winning 1-0 with 95th minute mishit cross from Traore or something.

Would rather they didn't win as we obviously have a good chance of finishing above them now. And they get to play Chelsea when they obviously don't want to play while Boxing day will probably be called off tomorrow.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â