The Official Chelsea Thread [Vol 3]

[wjb]

ChevyChase77 said:

Great to see CHO sign a five year deal and now to get Fikayo Tomori to sign a new long term deal.

Rumoured to be £180k a week...

[ChevyChase77]

wjb said:

ChevyChase77 said:

Great to see CHO sign a five year deal and now to get Fikayo Tomori to sign a new long term deal.

Rumoured to be £180k a week...

I'm sure I read yesterday it's £120k a week.

[m3sye]

ChevyChase77 said:

I'm sure I read yesterday it's £120k a week.

Yeah I saw BBC put 120k a week - bit more than expected but if you afford it who cares...

We pay VVD 120k a week at the moment - but will no doubt go up to 200k a week soon...

So weekends game, whats your expected team chaps? should be an open game, I imagine both teams will score

[wjb]

ChevyChase77 said:

wjb said:

ChevyChase77 said:

Great to see CHO sign a five year deal and now to get Fikayo Tomori to sign a new long term deal.

Rumoured to be £180k a week...

I'm sure I read yesterday it's £120k a week.

Both are stupid figures and more money than a human being can realistically spend.

Unless you're my wife, obviously.

[smn159]

m3sye said:

ChevyChase77 said:

I'm sure I read yesterday it's £120k a week.

Yeah I saw BBC put 120k a week - bit more than expected but if you afford it who cares...

We pay VVD 120k a week at the moment - but will no doubt go up to 200k a week soon...

So weekends game, whats your expected team chaps? should be an open game, I imagine both teams will score

I'm expecting a reasonably heavy defeat if I'm honest, but I hope I'm wrong

[Wadeski]

We are due a tonking from the bin-dippers.

Unless N'Golo plays, in which case we will merely lose.

[ChevyChase77]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

ChevyChase77 said:

monarodom said:

ChevyChase77 said:

That's the problem with VAR, it's still going to be inconsistent so I don't see the point of it - unless it only steps in for clear and obvious errors. The foul on Abraham in the build up to Norwich's equaliser. The VAR team decided the 'foul' was in a different phase of play. But if you watch the goal there is no different phase of play. The goal clearly comes from that phase.

What I gathered from that is if you know you have got away with fouling someone and can go on the attack, just play one pass backwards so it's deemed a different phase!

The foul in the box not given on Azpiliceuta was just ridiculous.

IMO it wasn't a different phase as Norwich kept possession in Chelsea's half and maintained their forward momentum - it was the same phase. Had Chelsea got a touch on the ball or Norwich passed the ball back in their half before commencing another attack I could see that it was a different phase. But that didn't happen.

The point is, they didn't maintain their forward momentum. They were looking to play the ball forward and attack, couldn't spot a way thru, so played the ball backwards and started again. That's the ruling. You can play the ball backwards and still be in the same phase, such as a player getting to the by-line and then cutting the ball back to an attacker on the edge of the box. That's a backwards pass but the same phase. But in this case, Norwich went back because there was nothing on going forward. That ends one phase and starts another.

So going back to this 'different phase of play'.

Spurs disallowed goal yesterday. Son was marginally offside, but the play went on. Son was then tackled by Söyüncü. The ball then fell to Kane who passed it backwards to Aurier who put the ball in the back of the net from just inside the 18 yard box. So not only did Spurs lose the ball briefly, the ball also went backwards, so shouldn't it have been a 'different phase of play' and the goal should have stood?

Edited by ChevyChase77 on Sunday 22 September 11:45

[A Winner Is You]

It was a ridiculous decision, but on the plus side we can laugh about Spurs being 2-0 up and managing to lose 2-1. As for today's game, I'm not confident, and would be very happy with a point.

[jammy-git]

You guys played well today, especially in the second half and deserved at least a point.

[BadBull]

We were nowhere near our best but you'll get third if you can maintain performances like that. Well played.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

A Winner Is You said:

It was a ridiculous decision,

Why? I'm not in favour of VAR at all but if you're going to have it, why is it a ridiculous decision. Mount is clearly offside in the build up.

[A Winner Is You]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

A Winner Is You said:

It was a ridiculous decision,

Why? I'm not in favour of VAR at all but if you're going to have it, why is it a ridiculous decision. Mount is clearly offside in the build up.

Posted before the game, in reference to the Spurs non-goal from yesterday.

But with reference to Mount, there were at least 15 second and half a dozen touches between that point and the goal, so how far are we taking it back? And if we're checking decisions that lead to a goal, shouldn't the fouls that lead to both Liverpool goasl have been reviewed as well? Advantage should be given to the attacking team, and only used when it is a clear and obvious error or dangerous play. The other big thing is how it kills momentum - celebrating a goal, thinking you are level only to be told a minute later it's been chalked off. Feels like it's not much of a coincidence that both Leicester and Liverpool scored immediately after.

[ChevyChase77]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

A Winner Is You said:

It was a ridiculous decision,

Why? I'm not in favour of VAR at all but if you're going to have it, why is it a ridiculous decision. Mount is clearly offside in the build up.

Quite a bit of time elapsed and the ball went backwards so it has to be a different phase of play right?

[ChevyChase77]

A Winner Is You said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

A Winner Is You said:

It was a ridiculous decision,

Why? I'm not in favour of VAR at all but if you're going to have it, why is it a ridiculous decision. Mount is clearly offside in the build up.

Posted before the game, in reference to the Spurs non-goal from yesterday.

But with reference to Mount, there were at least 15 second and half a dozen touches between that point and the goal, so how far are we taking it back? And if we're checking decisions that lead to a goal, shouldn't the fouls that lead to both Liverpool goasl have been reviewed as well? Advantage should be given to the attacking team, and only used when it is a clear and obvious error or dangerous play. The other big thing is how it kills momentum - celebrating a goal, thinking you are level only to be told a minute later it's been chalked off. Feels like it's not much of a coincidence that both Leicester and Liverpool scored immediately after.

Another small thing that VAR should pick up on but didn't was the Tomori challenge on Henderson. The replay clearly showed there was no contact, so why can't VAR check and rescind the incorrectly awarded yellow card? And potentially award Henderson the yellow for simulation? That's the only way to really stamp out diving.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

ChevyChase77 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

A Winner Is You said:

It was a ridiculous decision,

Why? I'm not in favour of VAR at all but if you're going to have it, why is it a ridiculous decision. Mount is clearly offside in the build up.

Quite a bit of time elapsed and the ball went backwards so it has to be a different phase of play right?

I thought it was the same phase of play. The ball went backwards as part of the build up, not because there was nothing on so they had to reset and start again.

Of course, it's all subjective, just like offside was before VAR, so officials on VAR are going to give decisions people disagree with. So really we are no further forward. VAR was always going to be st, and now it's here and it's st, people seem surprised.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

A Winner Is You said:

The other big thing is how it kills momentum - celebrating a goal, thinking you are level only to be told a minute later it's been chalked off. Feels like it's not much of a coincidence that both Leicester and Liverpool scored immediately after.

Again, that was always going to be the case, which is why I've always been so against it. Fans will have to get used to not celebrating goals as they go in. That's never going to get better, as VAR is always going to take time to give a decision.

It's st (did I mention that before).

[ChevyChase77]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

ChevyChase77 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

A Winner Is You said:

It was a ridiculous decision,

Why? I'm not in favour of VAR at all but if you're going to have it, why is it a ridiculous decision. Mount is clearly offside in the build up.

Quite a bit of time elapsed and the ball went backwards so it has to be a different phase of play right?

I thought it was the same phase of play. The ball went backwards as part of the build up, not because there was nothing on so they had to reset and start again.

Of course, it's all subjective, just like offside was before VAR, so officials on VAR are going to give decisions people disagree with. So really we are no further forward. VAR was always going to be st, and now it's here and it's st, people seem surprised.

Yep - it's all subjective still so we're still no better off imo......Spurs even lost the ball at one stage when the Aurier goal was chalked off - so yes, I've no idea what the same or different phase of play is, and neither do the officials/VAR team.....and just how far do you take the play back!?

[mikal83]

DeltonaS said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Thru the group, a fortunate draw up to the semis, and a bit of luck after that, and who knows.

Part one of that plan is looking tougher now.

And it makes part 2 less likely as well.

I think Chelsea will end in 3rd place.

Not a chance, they will be lucky to be 6th.

[ChevyChase77]

mikal83 said:

DeltonaS said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Thru the group, a fortunate draw up to the semis, and a bit of luck after that, and who knows.

Part one of that plan is looking tougher now.

And it makes part 2 less likely as well.

I think Chelsea will end in 3rd place.

Not a chance, they will be lucky to be 6th.

Do you think we'd be where we are in the table now had

Rudiger
RLC
CHO
Kante

had been fully fit from the start of the season? We've got these to come back, so will strengthen us significantly. I personally think top 4 again isn't being unrealistic.....

[wjb]

ChevyChase77 said:

Do you think we'd be where we are in the table now had

Rudiger
RLC
CHO
Kante

had been fully fit from the start of the season? We've got these to come back, so will strengthen us significantly. I personally think top 4 again isn't being unrealistic.....

You looked good yesterday, our toughest test so far for sure.

Even on current form I'd back you in a head to head against Utd Arsenal or Spurs, so I'd agree you'll be a strong contender for top 4, maybe even 3rd.