Should Luiz have walked?

If Gary Cahill was sent off, shouldn't David Luiz have been sent off? Or do you think that Demba Ba fell over too easily?

Definate red card, don't know how it could be said otherwise, you've got to say if that was at the likes of Old Trafford or Stamford Bridge the away defender would be walking.

Certain red card. Would've changed the game as well, depsite his horrendous first half I don't think he made an error in the second.

That was a blatant red card and would have changed the game in Newcastle's favour.

If it was the other way around at the Sports Direct Arena (Newcastle Player Fouled a Chelsea Player) then the Newcastle player would be off.

No.

The red card is for denying a clear goalscoring opportunity. Cahill fouled Parker, Parker was through on goal with Lennon alongside him.

Demba Ba wasn't definitely going to even get the ball ahead of Cech, so it's not a CLEAR goalscoring opportunity.

Being the last man means nothing.

Although if the ref gave a red no-one could have really complained.

I'd say being through one on one with the keeper is a clear goalscoring opportunity. If Luiz hadn't obstructed Ba he was definitely getting a touch on the ball, he wasn't too far away even after being pulled and brought down.

should have been switched, red for Luiz and yellow for Cahill

You guys don't know the rules....

Last man, goalscoring opportunity = red.....unless it's early into the game....with a big team... and you have a referee that has no rocks...

You don't know the rules either.

"Last man" appears nowhere in the rules.

I think it was, Ba would have gotten the ball. A clear opportunity.

It was a red card, Demba Ba was probably going to get to the ball, and the referee has to make decisions on the probable. I would say that the Luiz foul was obstructing a clear goal scoring opportunity, Cahill's is certainly less clear, and I think although it's a possibility that it could have been a clear goal scoring opportunity, it was so far back and with Parker's pace I just think it's was probably not going to be one so a yellow card should have been sufficient.

invincibleILeak (CL-6WF) wrote: it was so far back and with Parker's pace I just think it's was probably not going to be one so a yellow card should have been sufficient.

This is where i differ from most people when parker has been taken down all their is zak knight with defoe running with him so it would lead to a goalscoring opportunity all he'd have to do is continue on and square it essentially or take the shot himself if knight didn't come over.

invincibleILeak (CL-6WF) wrote:It was a red card, Demba Ba was probably going to get to the ball, and the referee has to make decisions on the probable. I would say that the Luiz foul was obstructing a clear goal scoring opportunity

That's my point.

It's not a clear goalscoring opportunity if it's based on probability.

I was at WHL and the Cahill sending off was harsh in the extreme. Not sure how you can say that a foul just over the half way line far out on the touchline is a clear goalscoring opportunity. Just hear what Harry said afterwards.
The Newcastle-Chelsea foul looked a certain red. Funny old game, eh?

It was a red card irrespective of the Cahill incident.

The rules don't help here, you will see people saying last man, goal scoring opportuinty etc.

For me, it wasn't a red card, Ba may well have been through on goal, but I kinda dont think Luiz did it on purpose, not sure he knew Ba was there.

I see teh Cahill one differently, and for me is should have been a red.

No, he wasn't clean through (this is scott parker after all) and no it wasnt a clear goal opportunity, but what it was, was a cynical hack, and IMO a professional foul!

What difference does it make if Luiz saw him or not?

He took the player out. If he didn't see him, it's his own fault for being a sh*t Collocini.

Facts are that Ba was the last man for 20 yards. Through on goal and got taken out be the last defender, in the eys of the law it's a red card.

Dean bottled it.

King beer, that is just the problem though, in the eyes of the law etc etc.

The law says a clear goalscoring opportunity etc, now your interpratation of that is probably different mine and 100 others.

The people who make the rules really dont help the refs, IMO, you should only get sent off for something really bad, every fould these days is a yellow, and with players diving at every opportunity, it is becoming a joke.

Luiz should have gone, not sure how wrapping your arm around someone and pulling them to the floor when he would be through on goal isn't a red card.

The Cahill one was soft, realised he'd lost control of the ball and dived in, you can guarantee that if it was a bigger club it would have been a yellow.

I agree that it's all about interpretation, but if we look at the basics....

~ Ba was clean through on goal
~ He would've had an chance to score
~ Luiz fouled him
~ Luiz was the last man

4 key points that should warrant a red card. You can't judge every decision on probability, because every scenario carries an alternative, for example...

~ Ba gets past Luiz, is fouled but Cech was coming out anyway....

but..

~ Cech could've parried the ball back to Ba, who if he hadn't been fouled would've had a shot on goal, or drawn the fould from Cech to win a penalty.

Of course, if the ref at Tottenham sent Cahill off for the ferocity, or cynical nature, of the foul then it's a different matter. The preponderance of bookings - and poor tackles - is often down, IMHO, to the over-watering of pitches, the good quality of the grass and poor tackling technique.
The watery pitches lead to the slide in which the player does, in fact, get the ball, or some of it, but then careers through and takes the man. In the old days the players were not fit enought to get in the challenge, or they were prevented from doing so by the thick mud (remember that?).
As for the tackling technique. It's practically non-existent these days. The modern method, it seems, is to go in studs up and two-footed.
Parker - ironically on the rough end of it on Saturday - is a throw back in that he tackles, mostly, in a legitimate way, putting one foot out sideways to block the ball. Others take note.

Those basics, are all your opinion and open the interpratation, that is the problem.

JDandfries wrote:Those basics, are all your opinion and open the interpratation, that is the problem.

Sorry. but it's clear for all to see that Ba was through on goal, and that it was a foul. What more do you need?

The first thing I could see was Ba falling over, was he pulled, pushed, or tripped, I dont know - to me it looked like they ran into each other, much like when Boswinga was sent of against QPR. The ref had a better view than me though!

I think intent has to come into it, like with the Cahil one, it wasn't a miss timed tackle, he deliberately fouled him, did Luiz? Possibly, probably etc etc

My point being, there are too many different rules, so much so that interpratation is becoming more of an issue than the offence.

As it stands, a players is deemed to deserve a red card if they deny a clear goalscoring opportunity, last man is now irrelevant.

So aswell as having to decide if it was a foul, if it was deliberate or if it was a dive, the ref now has to decide if he thinks there was a clear golascoring opportunity! But that is so ambiguous, refs have no chance. A clear goalscoring opportunity could realistically be a shot from 20 yards with 4 defender in front of you, it could also be a 1 on 1 with the keeper.

Current rules leave the refs in a no win situation, i genuinely feel sorry for them, and can see why the two high profile incidents(Cahill and Luiz) were given the way they were - I can also see the other arguement but can't for the life of me say which is technically correct and can only give my opinion on what I thought of the two incidents.

like the offside rule, this professional foul has also gotten out of control

How the heck is a clear goalscoring opportunity a shot from 20 yards and 4 defenders infront of you? Look at the stats and see which goals come more often in terms of chances. Number of long shots with defenders in the way probably leads to a lower goal ratio than 1 on 1 chances.

Look at the definition of word opportunity, this makes the term, 'clear goalscoring opportunity' totally ambiguous.

Particularly in the Luiz case, as Ba was about 35 yards out when fouled, so how was it a clear opportunity if we use your logic?

JDandfries wrote:Look at the definition of word opportunity, this makes the term, 'clear goalscoring opportunity' totally ambiguous.

Particularly in the Luiz case, as Ba was about 35 yards out when fouled, so how was it a clear opportunity if we use your logic?

35 yards out? Try watching the footage. It was on the edge of the area.

Am i right in thinking you're a Smoggie?

Edge of the area? Really?

It was at least five yards outside the area, which by your locis means it wasnt a clear cut opportunity and thus not a red card

What difference has being a smoggie got to do with it?

http://watchhighlightsonline.blogspot.com/2011/12/video-david-luiz-tackle-on-demba-ba.html

How can you not say that Ba was going to get that had Luiz not had his arm around him?

I never said that at all, I am merely debating the definition of 'clear goal scoring opportunity' which seems to say he should have been sent off, and saying that it is ambiguous and therefore cannot be easily defined!

JDandfries wrote:Edge of the area? Really?

It was at least five yards outside the area, which by your locis means it wasnt a clear cut opportunity and thus not a red card

What difference has being a smoggie got to do with it?

Bias towards anyone other than Newcastle.

Not at all, as you should know, if you are from the NE, Chelsea are not particularly well liked up here and aside from Liverpool, I want to see them beaten by anyone really!