Untold Ref Review: Bolton 1(2) – Chelsea 5

Posted on by WalterBroeckx

—————————————–

The Christmas gift for the fan with (almost) everything

—————————————–

By Ref Reviewer 04

In the game Bolton – chelsea we had ref Walton. A few interesting things happened in this game.

Min Type Foul from On C/NC Comment points weight
2 GOAL Chelsea C Correct goal 1 3
3 OTHER Ngog Bosingwa C Trip 1 1
5 OTHER Sturridge Steinson C Push in the back 1 1
6 OTHER Petrov C Handball 1 1
8 OFFSIDE Ngog C 1 1
10 OTHER Ngog Ramires C Sliding tackle on the ankle 1 1
10 YELLOW Ngog C Second foul inside first 10 minutes and this one was a dangerous tackle 1 2
11 OTHER Terry C Advantage given 1 1
12 OTHER Meireles Pratley C Meireles played the ball it seemed but the ref had seen correctly that with the other leg he took the standing leg of Pratley away first 1 1
12 YELLOW Meireles NC This was a promising attack and the fact that Meireles came to discuss the decisions. Should have been booked 0 0
15 GOAL Chelsea C Correct goal 1 3
19 OTHER Ramirez Ngog NC No real advantage to be seen 0 0
21 OTHER Drogba Cahill C Push 1 1
21 PENALTY Luis Ngog C Ngog first pushed Luis, then the ball was between them and Ngog blocked Luis more than Luis pushed Ngog. Correct decision to given nothing 1 3
22 OTHER Luis Petrov NC Trip 0 0
24 PENALTY Terry/Mereiles Davis/? NC Make your pick. Two fouls from defenders on attackers and the ref gives nothing. And that after having warned the defenders? How to undermine your own authority ref 0 0
25 GOAL Chelsea C Correct goal 1 3
27 GOAL Chelsea C Correct goal 1 3
31 OTHER Gardner Terry C Trip 1 1
33 OTHER Bosingwa Davies C Push in the back 1 1
35 YELLOW Cahill C Should have been given a yellow card for dissent after Chelsea got a corner 0 0
36 OTHER Ngog Bosingwa C Trip 1 1
37 OTHER Gardner Bosingwa NC Clear trip not given 0 0
42 OTHER Drogba Davies C Push in the back 1 1
46 OFFSIDE Drogba C 1 1
47 OTHER Davies Meireles C Push in the back 1 1
Half time 20 31
CORRECT 71,43% 75,61%
YELLOW 1 3 33,33
RED 0 0
PENALTY 1 2 50,00
GOAL 4 4 100,00
OTHER 2 2 100,00
8 11 72,73
OFFSIDE 2 2 100,00
Second half
46 OTHER Ramires Gardner C Trip 1 1
46 GOAL Bolton C Correct 1 3
47 OFFSIDE Ngog C 1 1
49 OTHER Mereiles Ngog C Holding 1 1
50 OTHER Drogba Cahill NC Trip not given 0 0
54 OTHER Ref Walton C IVANOVIC came on as a substitute and wants to take the throw in immediately. This is not allowed. A strange rule. The ref tells Ivanovic that Luis should take the throw. A strange incident that hardly happens but the ref is correct in this 1 1
59 GOAL Chelsea C Correct 1 3
60 OTHER Lampard Pratley C Trip 1 1
61 OTHER Luiz Ngog C Blocked the player 1 1
61 YELLOW Luiz C Was a promising attack 1 2
63 OTHER Reo Cocker Sturridge C Trip 1 1
68 OTHER Pratley Mikel C Holding 1 1
69 OTHER Lampard Reo Coker C Trip 1 1
76 OTHER Anelka Eagles NC Push in the back 0 0
78 OTHER Terry Petrov C Push with the hand on the face 1 1
78 YELLOW Terry C No need for Terry to raise his hand like that 1 2
80 OTHER Terry Tuncay NC Terry blocks a promising run from a Bolton player. Ref gives nothing? 0 0
81 GOAL Bolton NC The Chelsea defenders blocks the shot from Davies behind the goal line. A clear goal is denied for Bolton 0 0
88 OTHER Terry Tuncay NC Clear late tackle  but the striker jumps just over it. Late challenge No advantage signal given? 0 0
88 YELLOW Terry NC This should have been a second yellow card 0 0
88 OTHER Ramires Eagles NC Another foul seconds later again nothing given 0 0
91 OTHER Boyata Anelka C Push in the back 1 1
2nd half score
TOTAL 15 21
% CORRECT 68,18% 65,63%
YELLOW 2 3 66,67
RED 0 0
PENALTY 0 0
GOAL 2 3 66,67
OTHER 3 4 75,00
7 10 70,00
OFFSIDE 1 1 100,00
TOTAL SCORE
TOTAL 35 52
% CORRECT 70,00% 71,23%
YELLOW 3 6 50,00
RED 0 0
PENALTY 1 2 50,00
GOAL 6 7 85,71
OTHER 5 6 83,33
15 21 71,43
OFFSIDE 3 3 100,00
Correct calls For Bolton 15 42,86%
For Chelsea 20 57,14%
Total correct calls 35
Wrong calls Against Bolton 10 83,33%
Against Chelsea 2 16,67%
Total 12

The most debatable decision was the not given goal for Bolton. I could not see the position of the assistant but if he would have done what he supposed to do he should have been virtually on the goal line. How he could not see the ball clearly passing the goal line is surprising a bit. It didn’t change the course of the game or the final outcome. But just imagine that Bolton would go down on goal difference at the end of the season?

This was a pure advertisement for the use of goal line technology. Like our match commentator said: “for everybody who could see the images it was clear within 30 seconds after the incident that it was a goal. Would it be that difficult to use the evidence and give the goal?” I can only agree with him.

Also a poor moment from the ref in the first half was when he warned the players against holding and shirt pulling when Bolton was about to take a corner. When the corner was given Terry was pulling Davies clearly down by his shirt and another Bolton player was wrestled to the ground. He should have given a penalty for either of the fouls but gave nothing. If you warn the players to stop it and if they just carry on doing it and you do nothing as a ref you are making a fool of yourself.  Not the right way to build up our authority.

—————————————–

——————————-

Untold Arsenal – the (fairly) complete index

With over 2000 followers: Untold Arsenal on Twitter @UntoldArsenal

Recent Posts

14 Replies to “Untold Ref Review: Bolton 1(2) – Chelsea 5”

  1. I would welcome a brave referee who, before a game, would go into both dressing rooms and issue a warning that he would not tolerate the pushing, shoving and shirtpulling in the penalty area. No notice will be taken, of course.
    Then award a penalty for the first incident and another for the next. BOY!!!Panic stations among the players of both teams. And a different setup in the area from then on.
    But where is this brave guy?????

  2. Hi Ref Reveiwer 04

    Not sure about the substitue taking a throw.

    From what I see in the interpretation of the laws (p61 in 2011/2012 version) says

    A substitue who has not completed the substitution by setting foot on the field of play cannot restart play by taking a thwoin or corner kick.

    So all he has to do is to set foot on the pitch, then he can take the throw.

  3. @Nicky – I do that! I referee lower level games, but it does cause panic.

    Not that I go into the dressing room, but do tell the captains at the start.

    But obviously you can only give a penalty/free kick once the ball is in play.

  4. Paul,
    I agree but as it happened in the PL I thought I would not let the occasion go by to mention it.
    I think in fact it is a bit a stupid rule.
    Because like you say when a player runs on to the pitch and then goes back to throw the ball or to take the corner there is no problem.
    But if he stays outside and takes the ball in his hands and throws in then he is not allowed to do it because he is not yet “on the field”.
    One of the more bizarre rules I would say. If the ref would have done nothing nobody would have noticed it. So he was putting the dots on the i.

    Just give me a ref who is dotting a bit more when it comes to fouls…

  6. We here moan about Webb,Dean,Dowed but in my eyes this Walton chap is the worst, totally blind and incompetent and might add corruption at highest order.

  7. Paul the ref.
    Well done you!
    I only wish a few EPL refs would spend some time watching you in action.

  10. We must be careful Dogface not to disturb our wage policy 😉
    Oh, that’s right there is no wage policy…

  11. Again very clear evidence that the ref is biased toward chelsea and against bolton.

    When is the EPL going to look into this?!!!!!!

  12. @ many – re throw-in below

    And I know people will get on my case for nitpicking. But, as an engineer I go looking for boundary conditions.

    I didn’t see the game, I just read reports. But I will disagree with the call by the reviewer at 12 minutes (Meireles played the ball it seemed but the ref had seen correctly that with the other leg he took the standing leg of Pratley away first).

    As I understand the laws of the game, the ONLY thing that is allowed to “trip” any player, is the ball. Whether the person tackling gets the ball first is irrelevant. If the player tackling stops the ball, and the offensive player trips over the ball, it is the ball which tripped the player, not the tackler.

    I do agree that most people play the game (or referee the game) such that getting the ball first makes a difference. But as the laws seem to be worded to me, getting the ball first is not relevant.

    To use the ridiculous to demonstrate, a player goes into a tackle with two legs. The leg closest to the ground is extended, and makes contact only with the ball (first). The second leg was held retracted (spring loaded) and at the moment contact was made with the ball on the other leg, this high leg is extended (studs showing) towards the throat or face of the attacking player. No call? The defender got the ball first. It’s a ridiculous example, but a line needs to be made somewhere. The laws drew a line, nobody follows. Where do you want that line?

    In a season, there are probably O(10) (between 1 and 100) examples where an incident such as the Bolton non-goal shows up. Yes, it may be that it only takes 30 seconds to look at a replay. My concern for using technology (and a time out, so to speak) is that even rarer events will happen, where it isn’t one replay, or even two. There will be situations where it might take hundreds of replays from different angles to decide. And even then, there is the chance that no determination can be made. If you want to bring in technological help, you need to define how it will be used. But you can’t abandon a game because it takes too many replays to look at an incident.

    The throw in. If a player is substituted at an out of bounds (and according to the laws, that team will be taking possession of the ball), play has been suspended. Play is not restarted until the ball is touched by a player on the field of play who was present when play was suspended. It is possible for a substituted player to simultaneously touch the ball on it coming back onto the playing field and have that touch indicate play had been resumed. But the player making the throw in, does not determine that play has been resumed. Which is why the newly substituted player cannot take a throw in.

    Perhaps we need an example, but not as ridiculous as earlier. Everyone knows the throws of Delap at Stoke. Let’s say that Delap is named a substitute for a game. At some point of the game, something happens and Delap is injured to the point where he would not normally be considered a viable substitute. Deep into time added on for stoppages, Stoke gets a throw in “close” to the goal. Delap can’t run, he has been injured too badly. Can he take the throw in?

    I’m not trying to be a stick in the mud, but it is good to discuss things.

  13. @Gord

    Regarding technology. You are right that it needs to be defined as to how it would be used. But I don’t see that as a problem. Let’s look at the examples of Rugby and Hockey. Both are free flowing games. Both in fact have a more urgent need to keep track of time since the game stops once time is up. There is no provision for stoppage time. Hence they usually stop the clock.

    As far as I know, Rugby uses video replay only for whether a try has been scored and whether a kick went in the goal. Do they also have the mandate to use it for other things such as bad fouls committed? I suspect they might but I’m not sure. However, one ‘technology’ that Rugby uses is something we should see in football immediately. The referee is miked up and we can hear him explaining his decisions to the players. We also hear the conversation between the referee and the TV umpire.

    Hockey uses videos for incidents in the penalty area. I think this too can be implemented in football. It can lead to certain problems if say, a person was fouled in the box but no penalty was awarded, and the defending team then went up the other end and scored. How far back in the game can the replay be used. One solution is to have a video ref who can advise the ref on the field to review his decision immediately, or when the ball goes out of play. Another is to have a challenge system. Now I know that brings images of American football and the ‘flag’ being thrown up to indicate a challenge. But what’s wrong with a manager having one incorrect challenge available to him? Maybe offsides can also be tackled that way.

    As for if the video is inconclusive. Well. Yes. That’s certainly a possibility. So what? The referees decision then stands. The video isn’t supposed to overrule the referee. It is meant as a tool to help him make the right decision.

    Plus, if the players know that the technology is there to back their claims, they would spend a lot less time surrounding the referee after a wrong penalty decision for example. Which saves some time. Hey, you might even cut out diving in the box (though not outside it I suppose) Ultimately, you cut down on the wrong decisions, and in a world where people all around the world can see in a matter of seconds that the referee made the wrong decision, it is ridiculous that the referee himself doesn’t have that available to him.

  14. @shard

    My comment about abandoning the game was more or less along the lines of the inconclusive video review. There were times when I was younger (and still watching hockey), that reviews could take a long time. Long delays kill a game, and they also leave players open to getting injured, as they cool down. If video is to be used, there should be a definite time limit, and I don’t know what it should be. Three minutes?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *