Chelsea Discussion 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
£105m Fernandez secured and on an 8 and a half year deal.

Now let’s hope they crash and burn…
 
SuperRash said:
£105m Fernandez secured and on an 8 and a half year deal.

Now let’s hope they crash and burn…
Click to expand...
Here's hoping. I think a lot of people are anticipating it all going horribly wrong.
 
Just imagine the clubs accounts team coming into work today.

FFS who let Todd loose with the company credit card again last night.

They really need this group to of players to gel together into a world class team to get players to sign that sort of contract you must be paying them huge wages as that's basically them tying up their prime year career earnings in 1 deal.

They basically need this lot to become the core of the team like Cech, Terry, Cole, Lampard, Drogba players that basically held the club together for a decade.
 
Ziyech loan move to PSG has been rejected by the French league.

Correct paperwork wasn't submitted on time, PSG claim Chelsea sent the wrong version of the paperwork over and by the time the correct version arrived it was to late.
 
Yeah, very much all the Chelsea eggs in this basket. Once UEFA close the loophole that allows a club to amortize the fee over the length of the contract, and institutes a max of 5 years, they're going to be up against FFP regulations. Watching this crash and burn would be hilarious.
 
Chelsea must surely be the favourites for the Europa Conference League next season now, or one of them, especially if they keep spending in the Summer ....
 
Spent a gazillion pounds but couldn’t muster up a quality number 9.
 


I mean, you really just hate to see this happen to such an honest, hardworking club with the best fans ever.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RVN
Justin Cider said:
That wasn't handball yesterday, it's got to be intentional.
Click to expand...

Does it?

It is handball if you make your body bigger and the ball hits it. Soucek knew what he was doing and he got away with one yesterday. It was needless as it was a tame shot that the keeper had well covered. You could tell from his reaction he knew he’d messed up.

You are the first person I’ve seen claim that isn’t handball and that includes Peter Walton who will normally jump through hoops to defend the refs decision.
 
jsp said:
Does it?

It is handball if you make your body bigger and the ball hits it. Soucek knew what he was doing and he got away with one yesterday. It was needless as it was a tame shot that the keeper had well covered. You could tell from his reaction he knew he’d messed up.

You are the first person I’ve seen claim that isn’t handball and that includes Peter Walton who will normally jump through hoops to defend the refs decision.
Click to expand...

Yeah because sadly there's very few of us left that know the actual rule.
 
I've moved the VAR chat to the VAR thread. It seems to come up every few days, and it might help to keep it organized in one place.
 
Justin Cider said:
The only time a Ref would even consider giving handball for that is if there was a rival player in an 'onside position' behind Soucek, and as there wasn't ....
Click to expand...
What? The only time a ref shouldn't give that as handball is if his arm was stationary and being used to support his body before ball hit it. Soucek moved his arm toward the ball as he was going to ground. That's as obvious a pen as they come.
 
Cruella ne Ville said:
What? The only time a ref shouldn't give that as handball is if his arm was stationary and being used to support his body before ball hit it. Soucek moved his arm toward the ball as he was going to ground. That's as obvious a pen as they come.
Click to expand...

Come back to me when you've read the rules/laws of the game, and not just the part that suits your argument.
 
Justin Cider said:
Yeah because sadly there's very few of us left that know the actual rule.
Click to expand...

Keep telling yourself that.

Arm away from the body, plenty of distance from the ball is a penalty.

Refs are allowed to show some concession for sliding players or falling players but that guidance applies to close range handballs not when the ball comes from 10 yards away.
 
Justin Cider said:
Come back to me when you've read the rules/laws of the game, and not just the part that suits your argument.
Click to expand...
Justin Cider said:
The only time a Ref would even consider giving handball for that is if there was a rival player in an 'onside position' behind Soucek, and as there wasn't ....
Click to expand...
Like this gem? What part of the law says it's only a handball if there is a player in behind?
 
Cruella ne Ville said:
Like this gem? What part of the law says it's only a handball if there is a player in behind?
Click to expand...

Are you purposely being an idiot?

It's only considered(or should be) as handball if the ball is thought to be going into the net if it weren't for the handball, or the handball stops the ball going to an opponent in an onside position who would have been through on goal otherwise.

And you are allowed to use common sense. In this instance the Ref and VAR did.
 
Justin Cider said:
Are you purposely being an idiot?

It's only considered(or should be) as handball if the ball is thought to be going into the net if it weren't for the handball, or the handball stops the ball going to an opponent in an onside position who would have been through on goal otherwise.

And you are allowed to use common sense. In this instance the Ref and VAR did.
Click to expand...
One of us certainly is.

Player A runs through on goal. He thinks there's a teammate on the break with him so he squares it across the 6 yard box. Defender B bats the ball away with his hand. Referee says play on because the ball wasn't going to an attacking player and it wasn't a shot on goal?

Give your head a shake man.
 
Cruella ne Ville said:
One of us certainly is.

Player A runs through on goal. He thinks there's a teammate on the break with him so he squares it across the 6 yard box. Defender B bats the ball away with his hand. Referee says play on because the ball wasn't going to an attacking player and it wasn't a shot on goal?

Give your head a shake man.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah let's factor in the defender being an idiot as well, yawn
 
On top of the penalty it may also have been a straight red card if the ref deemed it was a deliberate handball to stop a shot at goal.
 
jsp said:
On top of the penalty it may also have been a straight red card if the ref deemed it was a deliberate handball to stop a shot at goal.
Click to expand...

Well luckily for West Ham the Ref and his chums at VAR weren't idiots.

Expecting a few of you to 'out' as Chelsea fans anytime soon ....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Login or Register

Forgot your password?
or Log in using
Don't have an account? Register now
Back
Top