Balbuena Red Card (VAR) - West Ham v Chelsea

[calodo2003]

No but that's the premise he is arguing. He's cleared the ball so it doesn't matter where he lands. He's high He's studded his calf. I fail to see what the outrage is about.

Hate to employ whataboutism, but I surmise you would feel different if the roles were reversed. I know I wouldn’t feel one iota difference if the roles were reversed, nor would I change my view if a United player was on the receiving end here.

The contact occurred 0.6 seconds after contact with the ball, the WHU player probably only saw Chilwell immediately before the ball was struck, there was nothing the WHU player could legitimately do to negate the contact.

 

[calodo2003]

Wtf are you even saying right now. Any sort of kick to the face is a red card offence

Simply not true

If a player tries to head a ball at waist level & another player plays the ball with their foot & kicks the other player in the face, it’s the player that bent down who is actually committing dangerous play. If the player who headed the ball didn’t put their head there, the play would not be dangerous.

Now, this is obviously for a play that has no appreciable intent in it at all.

Similar to someone not being able to play the ball with their head while on the ground.

Here’s a good discussion of this concept...

http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/playing-the-ball-while-on-the-ground/

TL / DR - a player can cause a dangerous play against them through their conscious play regardless of they get kicked in the face.

 

[Pow]

Hate to employ whataboutism, but I surmise you would feel different if the roles were reversed. I know I wouldn’t feel one iota difference if the roles were reversed, nor would I change my view if a United player was on the receiving end here.

The contact occurred 0.6 seconds after contact with the ball, the WHU player probably only saw Chilwell immediately before the ball was struck, there was nothing the WHU player could legitimately do to negate the contact.

It doesn't matter if he couldn't negate the contact. That's irrelevant. The fact is there is contact. He's high. And he's studded him in the calf.

 

[Oly Francis]

Hate to employ whataboutism, but I surmise you would feel different if the roles were reversed. I know I wouldn’t feel one iota difference if the roles were reversed, nor would I change my view if a United player was on the receiving end here.

The contact occurred 0.6 seconds after contact with the ball, the WHU player probably only saw Chilwell immediately before the ball was struck, there was nothing the WHU player could legitimately do to negate the contact.

No way he doesn't see him coming way before, if he doesn't he has a serious peripheral vision issue and shoud stop playing professional football.

 

[Pow]

Simply not true

If a player tries to head a ball at waist level & another player plays the ball with their foot & kicks the other player in the face, it’s the player that bent down who is actually committing dangerous play. If the player who headed the ball didn’t put their head there, the play would not be dangerous.

Now, this is obviously for a play that has no appreciable intent in it at all.

Similar to someone not being able to play the ball with their head while on the ground.

Here’s a good discussion of this concept...

http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/playing-the-ball-while-on-the-ground/

TL / DR - a player can cause a dangerous play against them through their conscious play regardless of they get kicked in the face.

Not a single time in all my years watching football have I ever seen a foul given against the one whose head is low as opposed to the one whose kicked him.

 

[calodo2003]

It doesn't matter if he couldn't negate the contact. That's irrelevant. The fact is there is contact. He's high. And he's studded him in the calf.

It’s a foot off the ground, it isn’t high.

It does strike on the calf, but the Chelsea player put his calf there & the WHU player had virtually no time to adjust.

Never a red.

 

[calodo2003]

Not a single time in all my years watching football have I ever seen a foul given against the one whose head is low as opposed to the one whose kicked him.

I just don’t know what to say here.

You’re going against what legally defines a creation of a dangerous situation in football & putting into absolutes your obviously vast anecdotal evidence.

 

[Pow]

I just don’t know what to say here.

You’re going against what legally defines a creation of a dangerous situation in football & putting into absolutes your obviously vast anecdotal evidence.

What do you mean you don't know what to say ?
100 times out of a 100 even if the player who has gone in with his head is a bit too low for a high foot the ref won't ever give the foul to the guy kicking.

 

[calodo2003]

No way he doesn't see him coming way before, if he doesn't he has a serious peripheral vision issue and shoud stop playing professional football.

Looking both down a bit & to where the ball will be played does limit one’s peripheral vision.

That’s brilliant, using a static image to frame a fluid situation.

That’s actually more bizarre than going off of slow motion.

Well done.

 

[calodo2003]

What do you mean you don't know what to say ?
100 times out of a 100 even if the player who has gone in with his head is a bit too low for a high foot the ref won't ever give the foul to the guy kicking.

Of course they will, if they follow the letter of the law.

For example, a player bending down & putting his head at waist level during a 50 / 50 ball is creating the dangerous situation through that motion. A player playing the ball with their head while being on the ground is doing the same thing. Or even just playing the ball with their feet.

Why do you think players aren’t allowed to play the ball while on the ground when an opponent is present?

Because it creates a dangerous situation.

You’ve seen that call before in your vast football viewing history, haven’t you?

A head placed at waist level is just a tangent of that very rule. It creates a dangerous situation.

 

[Oly Francis]

Looking both down a bit & to where the ball will be played does limit one’s peripheral vision.

That’s brilliant, using a static image to frame a fluid situation.

That’s actually more bizarre than going off of slow motion.

Well done.

The fact that the image is static doesn't change the fact that Chilwell is in his visual field. If he doesn't see him at this very moment (and even before that) even looking a bit down, he has a medical condition.

 

[Pow]

Of course they will, if they follow the letter of the law.

For example, a player bending down & putting his head at waist level during a 50 / 50 ball is creating the dangerous situation through that motion. A player playing the ball with their head while being on the ground is doing the same thing. Or even just playing the ball with their feet.

Why do you think players aren’t allowed to play the ball while on the ground when an opponent is present?

Because it creates a dangerous situation.

You’ve seen that call before in your vast football viewing history, haven’t you?

A head placed at waist level is just a tangent of that very rule. It creates a dangerous situation.

Except we aren't talking about someone bending down to headbutt someone's foot. And even then I bet they still get the foul.
Chilwell is planted he's not put a challenge in on balbuena and has been studded in the calf.

 

[calodo2003]

The fact that the image is static doesn't change the fact that Chilwell is in his visual field. If he doesn't see him at this very moment (and even before that) even looking a bit down, he has a medical condition.

Wow.

 

[Beachryan]

If it's a foul to land on an stretching leg after thumping a football, basically every other shot in a crowded penalty area in the history of the sport should be a red card. Thoes striking a ball very, very frequently end up catching a defender after they shoot, as the defender is diving into try and stop it. Happens dozens of times a match.

Should we decide which are red cards by which look worst when forzen in a static image?

The 'height' of a challenge is not determined by the body part it hits. It's the height off the ground. And in this case it's like 1 foot.

One of the worst decisions in a season defined by worst decisions.

 

[calodo2003]

Except we aren't talking about someone bending down to headbutt someone's foot. And even then I bet they still get the foul.
Chilwell is planted he's not put a challenge in on balbuena and has been studded in the calf.

You simply do not know what you’re talking about.

Not every foot contact to the face is a red card as was your assertion.

There’s more debatable issues in this event, that’s obvious. But I’ll bet you would be up in arms of the roles were reversed.

 

[Man of Leisure]

Never a red

 

[The Brown Bull]

One of the most ridiculous red cards ever. Refs need to cop on tá fuq!
Common sense is badly lacking.

 

[jeepers]

Posters saying Valbuena deserves the red don’t understand body mechanics and probably haven’t cleared a football in their life before.

The worst argument is that Valbuena should’ve seen Chilwell in his peripheral vision. Take a feckin second to think about it objectively and logically. If people see things so clearly in their peripheral vision, then a lot of other accidents wouldn’t be occurring. Heck, in the football context, then every footballer would see off-the-ball runs and make insane through passes all the time. This Oly Francis poster must have a reaction time of a god.

 

[MadDogg]

If that's going to be a red going forward, players are going to be deliberately jumping in the way of players clearing the ball (or making any hard contact of the ball like shooting) to get them sent off. Absolutely ridiculous. It was a completely normal kicking motion where the contact was unfortunately created by the other player coming in.

 

[PoTMS]

You can really distinguish here between the posters that have actually played football and those that haven't. That is never, ever a red.

 

[calodo2003]

You can really distinguish here between the posters that have actually played football and those that haven't. That is never, ever a red.

This is obvious.

It’s simple to tell those who have never played football at even a decent level & when partisanship is totally clouding judgement.

 

[elmo]

As mentionned by a previous post, you can if you don't end up kicking anyone at nearly full power, otherwise it's a clear foul.

It's even stated clearly in the FA rules :

"PLAYING IN A DANGEROUS MANNER

Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury. "

That actually applies to Chilwell too, he's the idiot who slid into someone clearing the ball and got studded in the process.

Absolute idiot and he should have been the one carded.

 

[roonster09]

This is a red card only if players had ability to play Shaolin Soccer where they can stop the leg in mid-air after kicking the ball or if the players had magical power to make their leg disappear once they kick the ball.

 

[calodo2003]

That actually applies to Chilwell too, he's the idiot who slid into someone clearing the ball and got studded in the process.

Absolute idiot and he should have been the one carded.

If someone argues that it should have been a red card, there’s also the argument that Chilwell created the dangerous situation himself.

Application of the dangerous play law works both ways. A player can’t create a dangerous situation through his body positioning / motion & not expect to get an infraction called on him.

The contrived response by Chilwell is also being taken into account by those who believe this was a red card.

The resultant effect (in this & many cases completely contrived & feigned) on the player should never impact the severity of an administration by the referee, but all too often it does.

 

[Karel Podolsky]

Wtf are you even saying right now. Any sort of kick to the face is a red card offence

Phil Jones is a dirty player, he always tries to make opponents get sent off with his clever trick.

 

[Barnslig]

Wtf are you even saying right now. Any sort of kick to the face is a red card offence

Are you saying any sort of accidental kick to the head should be an immediate red card, regardless?

 

[Carolina Red]

Embarrassing call. Should have never been a red.

 

[Barnslig]

That actually applies to Chilwell too, he's the idiot who slid into someone clearing the ball and got studded in the process.

Absolute idiot and he should have been the one carded.

Lawyered himself.

 

[Rektsanwalt]

I'm not so sure Balbuena doesn't keep his leg stretched deliberately after hitting the ball. It's very hard to tell imo, since you had to be looking inside the players head in this case (no obvious sign of deliberate action to be able to tell that it's not just neglectful). In doubt, no punishment. I know the Premier League's rules are not criminal law, but basic principles of criminal law can be transferred easily to football rules in terms of punishment for these actions.
No red for me in the end. A yellow should do because of at least neglectful actions.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

It doesn't matter if he couldn't negate the contact. That's irrelevant. The fact is there is contact. He's high. And he's studded him in the calf.

Good grief

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Wow, horrendous decision, worse than Nani for me. Chilwell puts his body in harms way, utterly bizarre.
VAR is being used so poorly, slow anything down enough and you’ll find reason for a different decision.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I'm not so sure Balbuena doesn't keep his leg stretched deliberately after hitting the ball. It's very hard to tell imo, since you had to be looking inside the players head in this case

In real time it’s happening in the blink of an eye, only VAR slow mo makes you consider this, but life doesn’t run in slow mo.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Posters saying Valbuena deserves the red don’t understand body mechanics and probably haven’t cleared a football in their life before.

The worst argument is that Valbuena should’ve seen Chilwell in his peripheral vision. Take a feckin second to think about it objectively and logically. If people see things so clearly in their peripheral vision, then a lot of other accidents wouldn’t be occurring. Heck, in the football context, then every footballer would see off-the-ball runs and make insane through passes all the time. This Oly Francis poster must have a reaction time of a god.

Posters not realising Valbuena plays his football on the wing for a team in Greece probably don’t understand much of anything.

 

[Rektsanwalt]

In real time it’s happening in the blink of an eye, only VAR slow mo makes you consider this, but life doesn’t run in slow mo.

Yes, it's a lot faster in real life, obviously. But that's exactly the point of VAR and the use of slowmotion - to be able to see tiny details of a players body language etc in such a situation.
Just for the record, I already said it shouldn't be a red card since from my perspective, it's not possible to see deliberate action. I just have doubts and am not convinced to a level of such certainty I would need to have to give someone a red card or say that it's definitely not done deliberately. Which I think is actually a pretty realistic view in such a case.

 

[Dargonk]

That's a joke of a red. He has cleared the ball, and the other guy has been caught with a little bit of follow through. That will happen half a dozen times every game.

 

[Andersons Dietician]

Amazing and yet somehow that challenge on Henderson last week wasn’t even picked up as a foul. Two footed studs up to the hip not regarded as wreckless play.The numpties in charge of VAR need to do one.

 

[Mrs Smoker]

It's just another joke decision in the League of Super Six and Friends.

 

[giorno]

Not sure if he could have more to avoid it, but yeah, i don't think that should be a foul, nevermind a red card

 

[Mb194dc]

Clear red for me, thought that the moment I saw the first replay of it. Balbeuna studs Chillwell and I'm 50/50 on if he's also left it in to do him. Doesn't matter anyway though, it's dangerous. Won't get away with that in modern football.

As I said in the other thread, if one of our players does that against Real Madrid and doesn’t get a red, I'd be amazed.

Not sure why there is controversy about it or a separate thread. Maybe it's a good sign though, if cages are being rattled to this extent .

 

[roonster09]

Not sure why there is controversy about it or a separate thread. Maybe it's a good sign though, if cages are being rattled to this extent .