Chelsea Vs Everton

[Mooseybaby]

The main talking point from the game seems to be the protracted arguments between Chelsea players over who would take Chelsea's penalty with the score already at 4-0...

2 challenges in the box, Palmer caught from behind, play continues until Madueke is clattered by Tarkowski on the follow through. Paul Tierney awards the penalty. Initially Sky were unsure which challenge was penalised, but replays confirm it's the initial challenge the penalty was awarded for. With the Chelsea arguments at the award of the penalty, Tarkowski's somewhat robust challenge with an arm across the face of Madueke seems to have gone under the radar.

 

[GraemeS]

I'm not 100% convinced by the claim it was the first foul the penalty was given for on-field - the whistle was a normal amount of thinking time after the second challenge (ie a loooong way after the first challenge) and there's no justification for looking for an advantage on a penalty when the ball immediately leaves the PA.

I'll have to watch it again to be sure (I've only seen it once and relaxed having assumed a penalty would be given for the first foul), but my initial thoughts on the two challenges were that it was a clear penalty for the first one, and an attacker initiating the contact by running into a static defender for the second.

It's never going to be a major talking point given the result, the game state at the time and the fact the right outcome was reached regardless, but again the audio being released would be interesting. There's a plausible world where the ref gave the penalty for the second challenge, the VAR disagreed with that decision but felt he'd missed a penalty on the first challenge and so determined no intervention was needed because the result was the same - wheras I think technically if that was the case, he should go to the screen to confirm both parts of that VAR recommendation?

 

[RustyRef]

I'm not 100% convinced by the claim it was the first foul the penalty was given for on-field - the whistle was a normal amount of thinking time after the second challenge (ie a loooong way after the first challenge) and there's no justification for looking for an advantage on a penalty when the ball immediately leaves the PA.

I'll have to watch it again to be sure (I've only seen it once and relaxed having assumed a penalty would be given for the first foul), but my initial thoughts on the two challenges were that it was a clear penalty for the first one, and an attacker initiating the contact by running into a static defender for the second.

It's never going to be a major talking point given the result, the game state at the time and the fact the right outcome was reached regardless, but again the audio being released would be interesting. There's a plausible world where the ref gave the penalty for the second challenge, the VAR disagreed with that decision but felt he'd missed a penalty on the first challenge and so determined no intervention was needed because the result was the same - wheras I think technically if that was the case, he should go to the screen to confirm both parts of that VAR recommendation?

I was struggling with this one a bit as well. The first is clearly a foul, the defender treads on the ball of the attacker's achilles. But he doesn't give it for an age, and only after the second challenge, which definitely wasn't a penalty, was made.

I do think he was, perhaps ill-advisedly, playing advantage. If you look when he blows the whistle he immediately points at where the first offence occurred, which suggests to me there couldn't have been a VAR intervention. Completely agree that if he'd missed that and given it for the second challenge VAR would be right to get involved, but there would have to be an on-pitch monitor check as it would have been subjective.

 

[deusex]

Cringeworthy attempt to save face that makes the referee team look like... Well, liars.
The referee was 100% awarding the pen for the 2nd challenge.

 

[RustyRef]

Cringeworthy attempt to save face that makes the referee team look like... Well, liars.
The referee was 100% awarding the pen for the 2nd challenge.

So why did he immediately point at the first foul when blowing the whistle? VAR can't have spoken to him by that point.

 

[deusex]

So why did he immediately point at the first foul when blowing the whistle? VAR can't have spoken to him by that point.

Couldn't tell you. But have you ever awarded a penalty that long after the contact?

 

[RefereeX]

Couldn't tell you. But have you ever awarded a penalty that long after the contact?

Couple of possible reasons. As said above, he was playing a discreet advantage (which he shouldn't have) or he got advice from his AR that the first one looked very much like a penalty.