 Thursday, 27th Oct 2011 00:57 by Chris King Reduced to nine men, losing to a contested penalty and having spot kick appeals of your own waved away is always going to be a recipe for referee bashing. But Chris King wonders exactly what Chelsea have to moan about. Some bookies had Queens Park Rangers at 6/1 to beat Chelsea at Loftus Road at the weekend. A bet of £10, not an unreasonable amount, would have paid for a lengthy drinking session at the local pub for a number of good friends. For our nouveau riche, and somewhat arrogant, West London neighbours money has long since been no object. However, it seems their drink of choice would undoubtedly have been bitter, particularly for Andre Vilas Boas, who watched his moneyed charges lose composure amidst indiscipline and profligacy.
Some have been insensitive as to suggest – in the aftermath of this famous victory – that referee Chris Foy was the R’s proverbial twelfth man, ignoring the rules of the game in favour of doling out a lesson in humility to a side long accustomed to surrounding officials and raising a collective middle finger to the FA’s “Respect” campaign. With one article after another to this effect still pouring forth from Chelsea equivalents of this website, overshadowing QPR’s famous win, let us take a look at the incidents in question. Firstly, the penalty award was entirely justified. David Luiz’ challenge on Heidar Helguson was unbelievably clumsy and extremely easy to spot. The Icelandic striker was undoubtedly clever, in the manner in which he shifted his body and effectively invited the challenge, but it was nonetheless a fair spot kick award.
Jose Bosingwa’s sending off was perhaps the only real contentious decision made by Mr Foy on Saturday. Wright-Phillips was in the clear, Bosingwa was to all intents and purposes the last man, and thus if the referee believed him to have committed the offence he is obliged to show the red card. The challenge itself was not excessively violent and certainly lacked any malice or apparent cynicism, but if you are going to make tackles on players with the goal at their mercy – bar the enormous frame of Petr Cech – then they must be timed to perfection, and Bosingwa’s simply wasn’t. Like Luiz he took a risk and paid the price. Drogba then demonstrated the true extent of Chelsea’s arrogance with a reckless, two-footed lunge on Adel Taarabt. Whilst I’m sure many would occasionally love to dole out similar treatment to the temperamental, self-obsessed Moroccan, Drogba can have absolutely no argument that his challenge was worthy of a red card. This was the sending off which changed the game, not Bosingwa’s, and even the Chelsea camp seemed to accept that it was just. With ten men on the pitch, Chelsea could probably have equalised, after all they came close enough having been reduced to just nine.
As for Luiz’ penalty appeal, he was just as guilty of pulling Helguson’s shirt as the Icelandic striker was of pulling his, which was clearly the offence the Brazilian lamented the referee for “failing to spot”. Thus, the lack of a penalty award was once again fair, an inconvenient truth for many no doubt including Villas Boas whose highly unprofessional post-match comments practically sanctioned Foy’s removal from top-flight refereeing. Villas Boas awaits an almost certain FA charge.
The fact is that Chelsea’s indiscipline - not Foy’s refereeing, or misfortune, or anything else - was the deciding factor in this most heated of West London derbies. Blues fans ought to be looking a little closer to home rather than desperately searching for scapegoats - it’s worth noting they’ve had another man sent off in the League Cup tonight - because even with nine men they dominated proceedings and really ought to have equalised. Nicolas Anelka will presumably be replaying that dire miss in his head for some time. Imagining what Chelsea would have done to QPR had the number of players on each side remained constant at 11 is nothing short of terrifying, although Rangers set about the task well when the numbers were even, however the excessive emphasis placed on Rangers’ inability to take control of the game seems a little unjustified. Few supporters and even fewer journalists or pundits would have given the R’s more than four points from the following five games: Chelsea at home, Tottenham Hotspur away, Manchester City at home, Norwich City away, and Stoke City away – yet Neil Warnock’s side already have three.
Perhaps we should allow Warnock to implement the same principles at Queens Park Rangers this season, and assess the situation further in January, when the transfer window can be used to excellent effect. Tweet @chriskking, @loftforwords Photo: Action Images Please report offensive, libellous or inappropriate posts by using the links provided.
You need to login in order to post your comments |
   Blogs 31 bloggersQueens Park Rangers Polls[ Vote here ] |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Pundits have also focused heavily on Chelsea’s various penalty shouts, all of which seem to have been accepted as reasonable by certain portions of the British media. The Lampard shout was little more than that, and a rather cynical attempt to redress the perceived imbalance of decisions by Foy. He was giving the referee a chance to even things up basically, like so many officials have in the past. There was minimal contact between Hall and the Chelsea midfielder, certainly less than between Wright-Phillips and Bosingwa, and the challenge was nowhere near as clumsy and blatantly against the rules of the game as Luiz’ felling of Helguson.
Too many teams have strolled through the Championship, beating away all comers with consummate ease, only to be annihilated in the top-flight whilst playing aesthetically-pleasing, relegation-bound football. Tony Mowbray’s West Brom side springs to mind. Grit, determination, and excellent man-management have worked wonders for Stoke City.
