Jose Mourhino - mind games?

[proclaimer]

I, obviously, was not at the game but all the Sky pundits seem agreed That Chelsea should have had a penalty late on. Mourino was also quite upset about it.
What was the view of you that were at the game?
Good result though.

I was at the game and had a clear view of the incident. My immediate reaction was no penalty, although I think there was contact, the player went down easily. I was surprised at the yellow card which in my opinion was not merited. The incident was on the opposite side of the pitch to the Chelsea bench so I am not so sure that they had as clear a view. But of course the usual mind games come into it.

It will be interesting to see what they make of it on MOD with all the slow motion freeze frames etc. I anticipate they will make a case for Chelsea, because that is what usually happens. But they can say what they like, it wont bother me.

[/quote]

Your right,

[Charlie_Wayman]

But, having watched MOD I have to say yes I think it was a penalty. We got a fortunate decision there, but who cares. At last a decision goes our way. Overall, I was proud of our lads. A great backs to the wall second half and the point gained was well merited.

[Brockley_Jack]

Yeah it was a penno. Had Fabregas not gone down like the Bismarck then the ref might have given it. I actually like the fact that refs are clamping down on showmanship and applaud them if they deem anything that looks like it gets punished.

They had one shot on goal and that's embarrassing for the so called champions to be. That's the sole reason why Mourinho is whinging about the penno incident!

I say credit to our patchwork defence.

[kernow]

He's an expert at these so called mind games but it didn't work on this occasion.

Their team have great individual skill, strong in every position, very fit, physical and aggressive. They dominate and destroy the opposition...but not on this occasion.

Saints stood their ground, kept their shape and organisation Even though they couldn't dominate possession they ensured a frustrating afternoon of effort from Chelsea. One shot on target for the whole game says it all about the quality of both teams.

It wasn't a penalty, the attacking player was falling over before any contact was made and all the freeze frames, replays, opinions and scandals mean diddly, no matter which famous expert expresses them.

Well done Saints. We march on !

[CostaBaz]

If refs give penalties for this type of incident, then they have to give them for "ball to hand" where similarly there is no intent by the defender, to gain an advantage.
Too often, the pundits and commentators lose sight of the rules, and argue for what THEIR opinion of the rule is, rather than what the rule actually is.

Similarly I have long believed that a striker, played offside by a defender "stepping up" to put him in an offside position, should be allowed to continue, as he wasn't seeking to gain an advantage by being in an offside position, which I believe is the basis of the offside law.
Difficult to police, I know, but another example of how the rules have been twisted to suit, in this case, the defending team.

Now that Jose has accused the refs of a conspiracy, will he get a touch line ban for what amounts to calling all the refs cheats?

[Dirtyweasel]

The refs job isn't made any easier with the likes of Ivanovic going down quicker than a Bangkok hooker at the slightest opportunity. Their diving surprised me yesterday given the quality Chelsea had on the pitch.

Mane needs to have a word with himself as well.

[BlueAdder]

Having watched MotD, and screwing down hard on my Pompey bias, I have come down on the side of no penalty. I think making a real dramatic job of going down must count against the attacker.
COYS PUP

[proclaimer]

Funny game this isn't it?

On the one hand the slightest touch must mean a penalty and a player will usually be sent crashing to the ground for good measure but on the other hand you can hold a player in a virtual wrestling hold in the penalty area without any penalty at all.

[chiswickmart]

I was watching the game and didn't think it a penalty on first viewing but did after slow motion replays. Question I always ask is, would he give a free kick if it was outside the box? I think he would for that so you probably got away with one.

Chelsea didn't really do enough to win the game, but it took quite a defensive effort to keep them out. I wonder if that will take an effect for the next 2 games in this ridiculous period.

[Charlie_Wayman]

I was watching the game and didn't think it a penalty on first viewing but did after slow motion replays. Question I always ask is, would he give a free kick if it was outside the box? I think he would for that so you probably got away with one.

Chelsea didn't really do enough to win the game, but it took quite a defensive effort to keep them out. I wonder if that will take an
effect for the next 2 games in this ridiculous period.

Your comments in the first paragraph pretty much reflect my sentiments in previous posts on this thread.

With regard to the punishing schedule who knows, and we will soon find out. Ok we will be without Morgan, but Bertrand can come back and hopefully Clyne might be fit. Don't forget we played Chelsea without either of out first choice full backs. Arsenal are not Chelsea, we have already beaten them once and were very unlucky on the second occasion. We have nothing to fear, if we get beat so what,