DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 82959--------------------------------------------------
West Ham vs Chelsea - Sam Barrott
DIR By: takethejag
Date: September 21, 2024, 7:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I like a high bar, but I think on this occasion the bar was too
high. It's a clear pull-back by the Chelsea player on the West
Ham player in the box and VAR (Attwell) should have advised an
OFR. In the scheme of things, if Barrott agreed, it could have
generated a RC for DOGSO. Much as we want to keep 11 players on
the pitch, we can't ignore mandatory cards either.
#Post#: 82960--------------------------------------------------
Re: West Ham vs Chelsea - Sam Barrott
DIR By: Marvin Grapevine
Date: September 21, 2024, 7:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It’s absolutely a penalty IMO but I don’t see how you’re saying
it should be a red card. There are covering defenders and is is
not running directly at goal.
#Post#: 82962--------------------------------------------------
Re: West Ham vs Chelsea - Sam Barrott
DIR By: DerbyLad90
Date: September 21, 2024, 7:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It’s a stonewall penalty, Barrott let down massively by Attwell
#Post#: 82963--------------------------------------------------
Re: West Ham vs Chelsea - Sam Barrott
DIR By: takethejag
Date: September 21, 2024, 7:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Marvin Grapevine link ---
>
> It’s absolutely a penalty IMO but I don’t see how you’re
saying it should be a red card. There are covering defenders and
is is not running directly at goal.
>
--- End Quote ---
Sorry 'could have' not 'should have' as the position of any
defenders would've needed to be taken into consideration as
well.
#Post#: 82964--------------------------------------------------
Re: West Ham vs Chelsea - Sam Barrott
DIR By: ItsTheRefsFault
Date: September 21, 2024, 7:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. Absolutely no way a red card could be credibly argued
for there.
#Post#: 82965--------------------------------------------------
Re: West Ham vs Chelsea - Sam Barrott
DIR By: Marvin Grapevine
Date: September 21, 2024, 7:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That foul by Alvarez is borderline red IMO. No intent to play
the ball, a deliberate a violent kick on Palmer.
#Post#: 82966--------------------------------------------------
Re: West Ham vs Chelsea - Sam Barrott
DIR By: ItsTheRefsFault
Date: September 21, 2024, 7:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DerbyLad90 link ---
>
> It’s a stonewall penalty, Barrott let down massively by
Attwell
>
--- End Quote ---
Or did he let himself down.? Should have given it himself
instead of relying on someone else?
#Post#: 82969--------------------------------------------------
Re: West Ham vs Chelsea - Sam Barrott
DIR By: TillysDad
Date: September 21, 2024, 9:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The player had no need to throw himself to the ground which
maybe swayed the on field decision
#Post#: 82988--------------------------------------------------
Re: West Ham vs Chelsea - Sam Barrott
DIR By: Irishref1985
Date: September 21, 2024, 4:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Still hard to believe that this wasn’t given as a penalty. It’s
a clear one for me and one that VAR should get involved with.
Fleecing was the word used by Attwell… what a load of rubbish
#Post#: 82991--------------------------------------------------
Re: West Ham vs Chelsea - Sam Barrott
DIR By: DublinRef
Date: September 21, 2024, 6:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree with the previous poster on where the blame lies here.
Whatever one might think of the call - the referee was well
positioned and should be able to decide this in real time
without needing additional assistance.
While I favour a penalty, these type of holding fouls are always
difficult for VAR when the holding is clear, but effect of that
holding is not. Had the attacker not gone to ground, which it
seems clear to me he did of his own accord, then I don't think
anyone would be questioning the decision. This leaves the VAR in
an awkward position if they are to recommend an OFR, are they
rewarding theatrics? Or punishing a clear holding? I fall on the
side of the latter, and would go so far to say that the
threshold for an intervention was met - just. But I wouldn't go
further, on the spectrum of errors, I don't think this was an
egregious mistake.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page