Football - Leicester's Shakespearean Tragedy

[Mark Antony]

That was an awful half for a neutral. Uniteds plan to stop Hazard seemed to be just foul him non stop. Herrera deserved to be sent off for being dumb enough to stick his leg out when he was already on a booking. 

[Consigliere]

Sometimes mistimed tackles happen. I don't see anything in the Herrera challenge that was 'tactical' and that was certainly not a bookable foul. Jones in particular has been persistently fouling Hazard yet he received no booking. Idiotic refereeing.

[brAnthelAstgreenseer]

Costa is such a scumbag.

[Lord Friendzone]

If Mourinho goes on about referees going against Man Utd which is entirely possible. Man Utd should be lucky to finish the game in 10 men, don't even have to mention EFL Cup final nd other games. Some decisions goes their way and some don't. Herrera should be smarter but then Rojo stamp, two footed tackle on Kante and Hazard constantly being manhandled. Not very enjoyable for the neutrals.

[mormont]

10 hours ago, Consigliere said:

Sometimes mistimed tackles happen. I don't see anything in the Herrera challenge that was 'tactical' and that was certainly not a bookable foul. Jones in particular has been persistently fouling Hazard yet he received no booking. Idiotic refereeing.

It was tactical in that continually fouling Hazard was clearly a deliberate tactic on Mourinho's part.

[Consigliere]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

It was tactical in that continually fouling Hazard was clearly a deliberate tactic on Mourinho's part.

What does that have to do with the Herrera incident which was clearly a mistimed tackle rather than deliberate/cynical? Nobody is denying that fouling Hazard was a deliberate tactic on Mourinho's part, however, the players who where most responsible for persistently fouling Hazard were not even booked. Herrera was unlucky because the ref arbitrarily decided that the next foul on Hazard = yellow card regardless of whether it is actually a bookable offence.

[baxus]

Come on, now. If a team tactically fouls a player, is warned by the ref to stop it and then in the very next play the same guy is fouled again, then it's a booking. It doesn't matter if it was a mistimed tackle or a deliberate foul or whatever, ref needs to book the offender in order to force the team to cut it out. It is that simple.

Don't forget that repeat offenses are cause for booking, even if any single one of them isn't.

[Calibandar]

A predictable loss. Chelsea is just too good for any other team in the league this year.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Consigliere said:

What does that have to do with the Herrera incident which was clearly a mistimed tackle rather than deliberate/cynical?

It was clearly a continuation of a tactic that the ref had literally seconds ago told the team captain to cut out.

The alternative was to give a foul and let it go. Do you know any referee who would have done that?

You're insisting on the foul being viewed in isolation, which is just unrealistic. In those circumstances, to ignore the context would be absurd. The player is demonstrating either recklessness or a clear lack of respect for the referee. It's a fair yellow card either way. Herrera was a moron. The sending-off was his own fault, 100%.

1 hour ago, Consigliere said:

Nobody is denying that fouling Hazard was a deliberate tactic on Mourinho's part, however, the players who where most responsible for persistently fouling Hazard were not even booked.

OK, so in addition to Herrera being sent off at least two other players on the Man U team should arguably have been booked. That's not really relevant to the sending-off, though.

[baxus]

7 minutes ago, mormont said:

You're insisting on the foul being viewed in isolation, which is just unrealistic. In those circumstances, to ignore the context would be absurd. The player is demonstrating either recklessness or a clear lack of respect for the referee. It's a fair yellow card either way. Herrera was a moron. The sending-off was his own fault, 100%.

Calling him a moron might be a bit too much, but sending off was his own fault. He thought ref wouldn't give him a second yellow card (the old "it's not a SECOND yellow card offense" theory) for that and tried to call ref's bluff. Unfortunately for him and his team, ref wasn't bluffing.

[Consigliere]

10 minutes ago, mormont said:

It was clearly a continuation of a tactic that the ref had literally seconds ago told the team captain to cut out.

You're insisting on the foul being viewed in isolation, which is just unrealistic. In those circumstances, to ignore the context would be absurd. The player is demonstrating either recklessness or a clear lack of respect for the referee. It's a fair yellow card either way. Herrera was a moron. The sending-off was his own fault, 100%.

OK, so in addition to Herrera being sent off at least two other players on the Man U team should arguably have been booked. That's not really relevant to the sending-off, though.

Then explain how both Jones and Rojo both go the entire match without even being booked. It was shitty refereeing, plain and simple. Here's a novel idea: how about carding players actually responsible for persistent fouling rather than arbitrarily deciding the next foul is a yellow regardless of who commits it and whether it is actually deserving of a card. If, say, Jones was sent off for persistent fouling, I would not be complaining.

Quote

The alternative was to give a foul and let it go. Do you know any referee who would have done that?

Yes. A good one.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Consigliere said:

Then explain how both Jones and Rojo both go the entire match without even being booked.

First, explain how that's relevant! Saying that player A should have been booked is emphatically not an argument as to why player B should not have been booked.

OK, two more Man U players should have been booked, I'm happy to agree to that. If that's the only argument you have against Herrera being sent off - then you have no arguments at all.

'Persistent fouling', by the way, isn't defined as a set number of fouls in the rules or guidance. Given that Herrera had already been booked for fouling Hazard, and that he then did so again in front of the ref moments after the ref had asked his team's captain to cut out the deliberate fouling on that player, it more than meets a reasonable definition of 'persistent fouling'. He was warned. He was given an explanation. He persisted.

1 hour ago, Consigliere said:

Yes. A good one.

Any ref that had done that would have completely lost control of the players, who would have continued to take turns fouling Hazard as they had been doing all game.

If your definition of 'a good ref' is one who allows your team to ignore him and surrenders control of the game, then that's not really a very objective definition. The ref drew a line, Herrera ignored it despite being on a booking, there was no world in which Herrera was not going to be sent off.

[Consigliere]

27 minutes ago, mormont said:

First, explain how that's relevant! Saying that player A should have been booked is emphatically not an argument as to why player B should not have been booked.

OK, two more Man U players should have been booked, I'm happy to agree to that. If that's the only argument you have against Herrera being sent off - then you have no arguments at all.

'Persistent fouling', by the way, isn't defined as a set number of fouls in the rules or guidance. Given that Herrera had already been booked for fouling Hazard, and that he then did so again in front of the ref moments after the ref had asked his team's captain to cut out the deliberate fouling on that player, it more than meets a reasonable definition of 'persistent fouling'. He was warned. He was given an explanation. He persisted.

Any ref that had done that would have completely lost control of the players, who would have continued to take turns fouling Hazard as they had been doing all game.

If your definition of 'a good ref' is one who allows your team to ignore him and surrenders control of the game, then that's not really a very objective definition. The ref drew a line, Herrera ignored it despite being on a booking, there was no world in which Herrera was not going to be sent off.

A good ref would have been consistent. This ref wasn't. It's not as though the persistent fouling of Hazard ended when Herrera was sent off. Neither of Herrera's fouls on Hazard warranted a booking as far as I'm concerned yet he received two while the most egregious offenders went unpunished. This ref did lose control of the game by punishing Herrera for two innocuous challenges yet happy to let worse challenges go without even issuing a yellow. How Jones and Rojo finished the game without a single booking between them, I'll never understand.

[mormont]

When people start using the word 'consistent', it's time to bow out.

ps Hazard was fouled four times in the 35 minutes before the warning: twice in the 60 minutes that followed it.

[Consigliere]

I should have bowed out once the defending of shitty refereeing started.

[Lord Friendzone]

1 hour ago, Consigliere said:

A good ref would have been consistent. This ref wasn't. It's not as though the persistent fouling of Hazard ended when Herrera was sent off. Neither of Herrera's fouls on Hazard warranted a booking as far as I'm concerned yet he received two while the most egregious offenders went unpunished. This ref did lose control of the game by punishing Herrera for two innocuous challenges yet happy to let worse challenges go without even issuing a yellow. How Jones and Rojo finished the game without a single booking between them, I'll never understand.

So tackle from behind without intentention of playing a ball is not a yellow card? Very interesting and for that matter when Herrera stopped Hazard in the first foul from making his way without intention of playing ball. Which was another of fouls on him.

 

[Consigliere]

47 minutes ago, Lord Friendzone said:

So tackle from behind without intentention of playing a ball is not a yellow card? Very interesting and for that matter when Herrera stopped Hazard in the first foul from making his way without intention of playing ball. Which was another of fouls on him.

 

It was not a bookable offence. End of story.

[baxus]

1 hour ago, Consigliere said:

I should have bowed out once the defending of shitty refereeing that didn't go my way started.

There, I fixed that for you.

[Consigliere]

If you say so. Yet more defending of rubbish refereeing.

[mormont]

I'll say this, the ref did miss that stamp on Hazard by Rojo. If you want to make a case that the ref wasn't hard enough on your team that would be one you could throw in. Still doesn't make the Herrera decision wrong, though.