Official Matchday Thread-Chelsea v Nottingham Forest 2nd XI KO 15.00 4 May 2026

Cheating Chelsea v Nottingham Forest

  • Total voters
    46
  • Poll closed .
T

The Frog

Viv Anderson
Yates in the Fjord said:
I can’t believe people are even questioning the Chelsea penalty. The Chelsea player clearly gets to the ball first, Abbott is miles too late, nowhere near the ball, and crashes straight into him. It’s a stonewall penalty. It’s exactly the same principle as when a player mistimes a tackle, misses the ball and fouls the opponent, or when a goalkeeper comes out, misjudges it, and ends up smashing into someone’s head instead, like the one we got at West Ham.

As for the MGW incident: the Chelsea keeper gets to the ball first, the two collide, and the keeper gets the free‑kick because he’s first there and MGW runs into him. Both decisions are correct.
Click to expand...
It’s the exact same principle as to the pen we won versus WH when the keeper punched MGW after he had won the ball
 
Yates in the Fjord

Yates in the Fjord

First Team Squad
The Frog said:
It’s the exact same principle as to the pen we won versus WH when the keeper punched MGW after he had won the ball
Click to expand...
The Chelsea penalty is the same principle yes, as the WH keeper doesn't get to the ball either, but hits MGW in the head instead. The MGW incident is different beacause Sanchez gets to the ball first and MGW crashes into him.
 
MaxiRobriguez

MaxiRobriguez

Bob McKinlay
GregorRobertson said:
More possession and more shots on target than West Ham. And we deserved the penalty that won the game. The equaliser we scored was also pretty good as I remember.
Click to expand...

We had more possession and shots on target vs Wolves too, we were bad in that game too. The equaliser vs WHAM was crap wasn't it? A corner with a weird looped header from Dominguez that somehow found the back of the net? It wasn't intentional. Penalty was correct but it was a dumb error from their keeper. We literally created nothing all game and West Ham conspired to miss a few really good chances and then we win the game on a fluke and an opposition error.

Dyche chose to say this after a last minute winner beating our relegation rivals: "We've obviously played better since I've been in the club"

I'll take the points but lets not rewrite history, it was one of our weaker performances of the season. Not quite as Everton home bad, but up there.
 
GregorRobertson

GregorRobertson

Jack Burkitt
MaxiRobriguez said:
We had more possession and shots on target vs Wolves too, we were bad in that game too. The equaliser vs WHAM was crap wasn't it? A corner with a weird looped header from Dominguez that somehow found the back of the net? It wasn't intentional. Penalty was correct but it was a dumb error from their keeper. We literally created nothing all game and West Ham conspired to miss a few really good chances and then we win the game on a fluke and an opposition error.

Dyche chose to say this after a last minute winner beating our relegation rivals: "We've obviously played better since I've been in the club"

I'll take the points but lets not rewrite history, it was one of our weaker performances of the season. Not quite as Everton home bad, but up there.
Click to expand...
We weren’t stellar no. Far from it. But then nor were West Ham.
 
Captain Sinister

Captain Sinister

Senior doom Monger
BakwaTheNet said:
Being a bit dumb here, apologies. I don’t understand how that would be any different to a toenail or not. Wouldn’t there be the exact same problem around the 3cm area and the need for long delays for fine tooth reviews and the drawing to lines around the threshold?

Wherever you decide the on or offside point is be that; parts of the body you can score with, daylight between players or a distance threshold within either of those. They could still have to piss about lines and reviews?
Click to expand...
Exactly my point when I asked if 2.9mm and 3.0mm returned a different result.
Go back to keeping things simple: rely on the linesmen and the referee to decide.
Yes, they will make mistakes.
It isn't as if VAR is infallible!
 
Mcbeth99

Mcbeth99

Jack Burkitt
Yates in the Fjord said:
I can’t believe people are even questioning the Chelsea penalty. The Chelsea player clearly gets to the ball first, Abbott is miles too late, nowhere near the ball, and crashes straight into him. It’s a stonewall penalty. It’s exactly the same principle as when a player mistimes a tackle, misses the ball and fouls the opponent, or when a goalkeeper comes out, misjudges it, and ends up smashing into someone’s head instead, like the one we got at West Ham.

As for the MGW incident: the Chelsea keeper gets to the ball first, the two collide, and the keeper gets the free‑kick because he’s first there and MGW runs into him. Both decisions are correct.
Click to expand...
fair enough...
 
I'm Red Till Dead

I'm Red Till Dead

Stuart Pearce
Yates in the Fjord said:
I can’t believe people are even questioning the Chelsea penalty. The Chelsea player clearly gets to the ball first, Abbott is miles too late, nowhere near the ball, and crashes straight into him. It’s a stonewall penalty. It’s exactly the same principle as when a player mistimes a tackle, misses the ball and fouls the opponent, or when a goalkeeper comes out, misjudges it, and ends up smashing into someone’s head instead, like the one we got at West Ham.
Click to expand...

I thought it was a penalty. Had it been a tackle as late as the header was I don't think there would be any argument, so there shouldn't really be for the header.
 
B

BakwaTheNet

The Weakling formally know as Red_Rich
Yates in the Fjord said:
I can’t believe people are even questioning the Chelsea penalty. The Chelsea player clearly gets to the ball first, Abbott is miles too late, nowhere near the ball, and crashes straight into him. It’s a stonewall penalty. It’s exactly the same principle as when a player mistimes a tackle, misses the ball and fouls the opponent, or when a goalkeeper comes out, misjudges it, and ends up smashing into someone’s head instead, like the one we got at West Ham.

As for the MGW incident: the Chelsea keeper gets to the ball first, the two collide, and the keeper gets the free‑kick because he’s first there and MGW runs into him. Both decisions are correct.
Click to expand...
If that’s true for the penalty then I din’t understand why it wasn’t at least a booking. No where near the ball, late and caused a bad injury, if that’s a tackle it’s a yellow maybe a red.
 
Statto

Statto

Free Kick Specialist
T.B.T. said:
Taiwo Awoniyi has scored more Premier League goals at Stamford Bridge this season than Alejandro Garnacho 🤣
Click to expand...
He also doesn't spread hantavirus
 
Yates in the Fjord

Yates in the Fjord

First Team Squad
BakwaTheNet said:
If that’s true for the penalty then I din’t understand why it wasn’t at least a booking. No where near the ball, late and caused a bad injury, if that’s a tackle it’s a yellow maybe a red.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s a red as it’s quite a bit of unfortune and not what you would consider serious foul or dangerous play, as if you go in with a rised foot and studs, but it should probably have been a booking. I suspect Taylor might even forgot it due to the serious injuries and chaos, and Forest substituted Abbott quit quick, so maybe they just got away with it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom