WED, 2:45PM ET
ARS4
GAL1
WED, 2:45PM ET
BAS1
LFC0
THURS, 12PM ET
KRA
EVE
THURS, 3PM ET
TOT
BES
SAT, 10AM ET
LIV
WBA
SAT, 10AM ET
SWA
NEW

Wiley 2–Hull 1: The Men in Black

3440513389 df7e469a7d Wiley 2–Hull 1: The Men in Blackmen%20in%20black%20SPLASH Wiley 2–Hull 1: The Men in Black

If today’s opening match fixture was a litmus test for the rest of the premier league season, my bet is on the match officials. As soon as the match kicked off I had that gut feeling of “here we go again”. Now I know it’s easy to accuse the officials of ruining the game for you, today’s match however was no excuse.

Chelsea had created a slew of chances, give credit where credit is due. Stephen Hunt, known for the skull fracturing incident at Reading 2 years on, made a dream debut for Hull at the Bridge with a goal in the 28th minute to put the Tigers up 1-0. The free kick was a good one, with the lucky deflection, that lead to the goal and set the tempo of the match

The Blues goal that came in the 37th minute was unbelievable by way of a Didier Drogba free kick which should have never been awarded. First of if you were watching the same match as me you would have noticed that Obi Mikel instigated Seyi Olofinjana with an (wrestling like) elbow to retaliate which ensued in the free kick being awarded. Apparently Alan Wiley didn’t see the elbow. Wiley for sure was pressured by the home supporters and we all know that the “big four” do this. So 1-1 to Alan Wiley. After that it was just a matter of time before Chelsea won.

Now the big mystery which not even Sherlock Holmes himself could have solved was where the 6 minutes of added time came from? This resulted in a chip shot from Drogba to win the match. If I was a Wolves fan I would be furious. There was absolutely no justification for 6 added minutes.  First of there were no serious injuries or crowd disturbances to warrant that much amount of time. The match would have ended 1-1, deservedly so in my opinion. I got a fishy feeling that this isn’t the last we seen of “extra time” being awarded at Stamford Bridge or other Premier League grounds. Of course with a little help from the men in the black.

I am not against Chelsea but I am against the fact when referees take over the match, they ruin it with controversial calls (i.e. Rob Styles) for everyone including the fans that paid a lot of money to see a football match and those watching at home.

If today’s match  taught me anything about the season upon us, is that I am betting on blue the next time Chelsea plays. They definitely have some powerful help from the men in black.

This entry was posted in General, Leagues: EPL. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Wiley 2–Hull 1: The Men in Black

  1. Pat says:

    I guess you missed the 4 minutes of rolling around just before the end of regulation. You probably think that Ovrebo’s performance was great and that there were no clear cut penalties in that infamous game. You also forget that Chelsea were the biggest victims of ref calls in the world last season. Barcelona, Liverpool, offside Arsenal to name just a few of the hack jobs that were performed on Chelsea and that make the work of today’s ref look like perfection incarnate.

    • Pete says:

      Bad decisions getting called all the time is hardly an excuse. We give in to these things too easily in this country. And I personally didn’t think it looked a foul in normal time either, the guy just ran into a dead-end and fell over.

    • LI Matt says:

      So, every time a call goes Chelsea’s way, their fans are going to respond by shouting “OVREBO! OVREBO!” That will get boring very quickly.

  2. christopher says:

    Apparently even in football there are “conspiracy theories” …and that was only for politics.

    • christopher says:

      That last part should have read, “and I thought that was only for politics” ..stupid blackberry keyboard.

  3. Robbie says:

    Hi Pat, Even I admit Overbo should never referee ever again. My point was that if these refereeing “tactics” continue it will ruin the league completely. I dont want that. If Hull were in the driver seat I would have said the same about them. Chelsea got some outrageous fortune on the day with many opportunities.

  4. Pete says:

    BTW, Hull are known as the Tigers, not the Wolves.

  5. EZ says:

    Rob mate, I am glad your not holding back from these referees. Wiley did help the “Chels” a bit today. The 6 minutes was way of bugger and the plonker Wiley got it all wrong. I wont be suprised if this goes on through the season because my telly cant take any more abuse by me throwing stuff at it cause of these stupid officials, at the moment, mate. Good stuff. Cheers.

    EZ

  6. Jk says:

    In the 85th minute or so Cech got hurt and a player for Hull too. Three min. went right there. And to say Drogba’s winner wouldn’t have happened it came in the 93rd min! I rarely watch a game in any league with less then 3 min of stoppage time in the 2nd half. So the 6 min had nothing to do with the winner.

  7. EZ says:

    He did say Wolves mate.

  8. Lily says:

    I guess it’s supposed to read ” If I were a HULL CITY fan I would be furious.”? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

  9. wllmhll says:

    the freekick that led to didier drogba’s 1st goal was arguably weak from watching the replays, but in normal speed the two hull players seemed to foul mikel.

  10. Joel says:

    The free-kick award was weak, but those things get called all of the time. I don’t like it necessarily, but it happens. It certainly looked worse at full-speed than it did in the replay. Drogba’s goal was, as someone else said, in the 93rd minute. I don’ t think there should have been 6 minutes of stoppage time, but 3 was more than fair considering there were subs and injuries on both sides. Let it be known that I LOATHE Chelsea, but calling this a “ref-aided” win is silly.

  11. Panda says:

    For every sub, the Ref is to add on 30 seconds. There were 4 in the second half so that’s at least 2 minutes.

    Tack on another 2 or 3 for the injuries to Cech and the Hull player and a 93rd minute goal doesn’t seem suspicious anymore.

    Sure calls will always go the big clubs way and the way Hull played, they deserved at least a point but Wiley didn’t hand them this win.

  12. Dave12 says:

    what about the 1st foul in the game? high foot from hunt toward lampard. it was dangerous play

  13. Chris says:

    I’ll continue to read this website for the news (EPL on ESPN), but the opinion pieces are pretty dreadful. The blinkers on this guy are pretty incredible. Would we be reading the same article if this happened to liverpool? Its hard to have a credible football news/opinion website when you are so plainly biased to one team mate. Not that you can’t express who you support, but it just kind of damages your credibility at times. Just a suggestion. And for the record I support Hull.

    • AttackRint says:

      Agreed.

      I mean, i am not even a fan of either team but the time extended was not an issue. People were rolling around in the last 10 minutes or so on several occasions

      Some just need to admit what they are writing is personal rather than trying to be objective. It’s pathetic to read some write these idiotic articles

  14. Eric says:

    Ref-aided win?? Huh were you watching the same game we all were?

  15. DC says:

    It’s okay to criticize the six minutes of stoppage time, but it’s a little dubious to connect that decision to the second Drogba goal, which was scored at 90+2. There probably should have been closer to four minutes instead of six, but to say that the referee handed Chelsea the game with the extra few minutes is kind of ridiculous. I don’t particularly care for Chelsea, but it’s pretty clear that the win was legitimate – and for a website that gets so many hits, it’s a little embarrassing to post something on here that implies otherwise.

  16. sean says:

    rob it didnt matter about the 6 minutes of added time as drogbas goal came in the fist or second minute of added time therefore the big deal that your making over that is just plain stupid

    sounds like someone should write better and more accurate articles instead of having vendettas against certain teams.

  17. JW says:

    I agree with DC–while 6 mins may have been a stretch, the goal was scored within 2, which was more than deserved considering the 2nd-half issues.

  18. Patrick says:

    Yeah the Wolves fans are probably ticked that West Ham put on a clinic of keeping the ball on the floor… something you don’ see much in the fizzy.

    as for Hull, yeah we know the referee’s a wanker

    I hate Chelsea, but perhaps hate Mr spray tan Phil Brown even more, and maybe that’s why Hull didn’t get any calls, nobody likes him.

  19. Mike says:

    So 33 shots. 70% possession. I guess that was the refs fault. The only reason the scoreline wasn’t more was because of an excellent performance by the hull keeper.

  20. Scott says:

    Come on now. I’m far from a Chelsea fan, but I didn’t see any egregious bias from Wiley. The foul that set up Drogba’s free kick was weak after seeing it on replay. I have to admit, I thought it was a foul live though. And people shove each other and put in elbows all the time in England. Your not going to see that called.

    The 6 mins of stoppage time, came from, amazing all of the stoppages in the 2nd half. Refs have a constant problem of not giving enough time at the end. Wiley did right this time. The only problem I saw was that he only added, at most, 17 seconds after the 6 mins for Drogba’s celebration. They should have had at least a minute more.

  21. Adam says:

    Rob,

    Drogba scored in the 92nd minute. Did you not expect the referee to give 2 minutes of stoppage time? You’re clearly being biased. You ignored that the free-kick awarded to Hull was as soft as it gets, a 2 finger shirt tug that didn’t put Hunt off and Hull still had the advantage. Don’t know why I’m explaining this to a person who complains about 6 minutes of stoppage time when the goal went in before 92:00. If you want to make the argument that there wasn’t actually 6 minutes of stoppages in the second half, where there clearly was, go ahead but don’t accredit the goal to the referee when every single Premier League referee would have allotted enough time for Drogba to score again. You’ll probably say something along the lines of Hull being able to waste more time if there wasn’t 6 minutes. If that’s your choice, you should watch Hull’s centre-backs on the goal. One kept Drogba onsides and the other let him run off of him. Chelsea 2-1 Hull City.

  22. Duke says:

    Let’s also not forget that Drogba should have scored in the first minute of each half.

    Add to that the amount of time Chelsea spent in front of Hull’s goal (seemed like 30 minutes or more). Good defense? Shoddy offense? A bit of both?

    In any event, watching time of posession and shots on goal, you would expect a score more like Chelsea 4-1 Hull City. You can dun Chelsea for not scoring more or laud Hull for stellar defense, but the officials influenced this game no more than any other I’ve seen, and a great deal less than some.

  23. Tiger Phil says:

    I am as bigger Tigers fan as they come- I was there yesterday- loved every minute of it. I was shocked when the board read 6 minutes- but hey get on with it. As for wiley- the big decisions he got right. I though a few of Drogba’s dives should have not been given as free kicks- but he gets them all the time. Wiley was ok as a ref today. Nothing contentious. No real flash points- I did feel that Chelski got a few soft free kicks- but homew sides tend to anyway. The free kick for the 1st was one of those soft ones- you see them given but are disappointed when they are given against you.

    What disappointed me more about the game was how poor John Terry is as a sportsman- he twice got City players booked- Mendy slipped as he went in fore a tackle- JT ran straight up and had a right go at him and the ref. Then Barmby in the 2nd half made a good strong challenge- which was’nt really a foul and Teryry again had a barny at the ref and got him booked- he is really a bad sport.

    For all Chelsea’s attacking they only had 2 or 3 really good chances besides the goals. City created some decent chances and I feel if we can strengthen that little bit more then we will be contenders for places 10-15 rather than struggling- something that will be a big improvement on the 2nd half of last season.

  24. cy says:

    3 minutes for Cech injury
    1 minute for a Hull injury
    2 minutes for 5 subs and constant time wasting by Hull

  25. The Fog says:

    Hey, Wiley could have missed a call like in the Crystal Palace game. See the picture of what was called “no goal”.

    No Goal??

  26. Its actually Drogba 2-1 Hull says:

    Fact is Drogba scored in the 92nd minute and not in the 95th. Even with 3 minutes of injury time, it would still end up as 2-1. Sorry Rob but facts are facts.

  27. Mick says:

    just pointing out that you see how when rob realized he was an idiot, he shut his mouth.

  28. Connery says:

    Mikel got his shirt pulled just as much as Hunt did when he was awarded a free kick. To be honest, this article is 100% biased dross.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>