Chelsea secured a 2-0 victory over Fulham, a win significantly shaped by controversial VAR interventions, marking the second consecutive home game where video assistant referee decisions proved decisive. This trend continues amidst signs of player fatigue, suggesting the team is struggling after a demanding schedule with minimal break.
Their performance against Fulham revealed a team struggling for cohesion. Chelsea`s high defensive line was frequently exploited, and their possession play often lacked penetration, embodying the less effective aspects of Enzo Maresca’s system. They seemed to require external assistance to secure the win.
Compounding their issues are significant injury concerns. Key players like Cole Palmer, Levi Colwill, and Moises Caicedo are battling various ailments. Liam Delap also suffered a hamstring injury during the match. Manager Enzo Maresca has voiced alarm over the squad`s fitness, particularly highlighting the limited availability and careful management required for players like Caicedo, who only resumed training days before the game.
Despite his injury struggles, Caicedo proved pivotal, making a brilliant block to prevent an opening goal and leading both teams with 11 ball recoveries. His defensive prowess was crucial in preventing the game from taking a different turn.
However, the most influential figures in the game were arguably referee Robert Jones and the VAR team, Michael Salisbury and Scott Ledger. Their interventions sparked significant debate.
Fulham believed they had taken a deserved lead when Josh King scored after 21 minutes, following an elegant counter-attack. However, VAR intervened, focusing on a foul by Rodrigo Muniz on Trevoh Chalobah in the build-up. Despite VAR confirming King was onside, referee Jones was advised to review the incident, ultimately deeming Muniz’s contact a `careless challenge.` This decision, which negated Fulham`s goal, drew widespread criticism, with some pundits calling it `one of the worst decisions ever seen from VAR,` suggesting it fell outside the clear and obvious error threshold VAR is meant to address.
The article notes that VAR’s interpretations have seemingly favored Chelsea repeatedly this season, a situation manager Maresca admitted he would be frustrated by if in his opponent`s shoes. Fulham manager Marco Silva was visibly stunned and struggled to contain his anger, particularly when explaining to 18-year-old King why his dream goal was disallowed.
«He’s going home not understanding why the goal was disallowed,» Silva expressed. «If you are in a Fulham shirt probably you’re going to not understand many things as well. A great moment from him. It should not be disallowed. Definitely.»
The extensive VAR review for the first incident led to eight minutes of added time in the first half. Fulham’s misfortune continued when Joao Pedro scored Chelsea’s opening goal from a corner in the ninth minute of stoppage time. Silva vehemently disagreed with the amount of added time, stating, «The game didn’t stop one time,» highlighting his team’s growing frustration.
The controversial decisions persisted. Another VAR intervention awarded Chelsea a penalty for a handball by Ryan Sessegnon. Fulham, however, argued that prior fouls and handballs (Caicedo’s stamp on Alex Iwobi, Pedro’s handball) in the build-up were overlooked. Silva recounted his players’ disbelief, stating they «were laughing» after reviewing the screen, unable to comprehend the inconsistent application of rules where their own appeals were ignored.
This intense scrutiny of every minor infraction, dictated by remote officials, detracts from the match experience for everyone involved – players, fans, and viewers alike.
Before the game was overshadowed by VAR debates, Fulham had been the dominant side, posing a significant threat to a tiring Chelsea. However, once Enzo Fernandez converted the penalty, Fulham’s morale plummeted, preventing them from mounting a late comeback.
Silva praised his team’s initial performance, calling it «Outstanding first half from ourself. We dominated the whole half, we were clearly the best team on the pitch… It was a very good first half that didn`t end in the way we wanted.»
Silva labeled his experience «unbelievable,» asserting that his side was defeated not by their opponent, but by officials` subjective interpretations of key incidents. He argued that VAR, intended for clear referee errors, is now altering games based on debatable calls, fundamentally changing the nature of football. Instead of discussing Chelsea`s player management and future challenges, the focus now remains on the ongoing debate surrounding video intervention in football.
Maqolaning o‘zbek tilidagi talqini
Chelsea jamoasi Fulham ustidan 2:0 hisobida g`alaba qozondi, bu g`alaba munozarali VAR qarorlari bilan sezilarli darajada shakllandi. Bu ularning ketma-ket ikkinchi uy uchrashuvida video yordamchi hakam qarorlari hal qiluvchi bo`lganini ko`rsatadi. Ushbu tendensiya o`yinchilarning charchoq belgilari orasida davom etmoqda, bu esa jamoaning talabchan jadval va minimal tanaffusdan so`ng qiynalayotganini ko`rsatadi.
Fulhamga qarshi o`yindagi chiqishlari jamoaning o`zaro tushunishda qiynalayotganini ko`rsatdi. Chelseaning yuqori himoya chizig`i tez-tez buzildi va ularning to`pni egallashdagi o`yinlari ko`pincha hujumkorlikdan yiroq bo`lib, Enzo Mareskaning tizimidagi samaradorliksiz jihatlarini aks ettirdi. G`alaba qozonish uchun ular tashqi yordamga muhtojdek tuyuldi.
Ular duch kelayotgan muammolarni jiddiy jarohatlar yanada og`irlashtirmoqda. Cole Palmer, Levi Colwill va Moises Caicedo kabi asosiy o`yinchilar turli xil jarohatlar bilan kurashmoqda. Liam Delap ham o`yin davomida son payini jarohatladi. Murabbiy Enzo Maresca jamoaning jismoniy holatidan xavotir bildirib, ayniqsa Caicedo kabi o`yinchilarning cheklangan mavjudligi va ehtiyotkor boshqaruvini ta`kidladi, u o`yindan bir necha kun oldin mashg`ulotlarga qaytgan edi.
Jarohatlariga qaramay, Caicedo muhim rol o`ynadi, u ochilish golini oldini olish uchun ajoyib blokni amalga oshirdi va ikkala jamoa orasida 11 ta to`pni qaytarib olish bilan yetakchilik qildi. Uning himoyadagi mahorati o`yinning boshqa tomonga burilishiga yo`l qo`ymaslikda hal qiluvchi ahamiyatga ega edi.
Biroq, o`yindagi eng ta`sirchan shaxslar, shubhasiz, hakam Robert Jones va VAR jamoasi, Michael Salisbury va Scott Ledger bo`lishdi. Ularning aralashuvlari jiddiy bahs-munozaralarga sabab bo`ldi.
Fulham 21-daqiqada Josh Kingning chiroyli qarshi hujumdan so`ng kiritgan goli bilan haqli ravishda oldinga chiqib olganiga ishongan edi. Biroq, VAR aralashdi va hujum jarayonida Rodrigo Munizning Trevoh Chalobahga nisbatan qoidabuzarligiga e`tibor qaratdi. VAR Kingning o`yindan tashqari holatda emasligini tasdiqlagan bo`lsa-da, hakam Jonesga vaziyatni qayta ko`rib chiqish tavsiya qilindi va u oxir-oqibat Munizning harakatini `ehtiyotsiz chaqiriq` deb baholadi. Fulhamning golini bekor qilgan bu qaror keng tanqidlarga uchradi, ba`zi ekspertlar buni `VAR tomonidan ko`rilgan eng yomon qarorlardan biri` deb atashdi, bu VAR hal qilishi kerak bo`lgan aniq va ravshan xato chegarasidan tashqarida ekanligini ko`rsatdi.
Maqolada qayd etilishicha, VARning talqinlari bu mavsumda Chelseaga bir necha bor foyda keltirgan, bu holatni murabbiy Maresca raqib o`rnida bo`lganida o`zini ranjitganini tan oldi. Fulham murabbiyi Marco Silva ochiqchasiga hayratda qoldi va g`azabini bosishga qiynaldi, ayniqsa 18 yoshli Kingga uning orzuidagi gol nega bekor qilinganini tushuntirayotganda.
«U uyga qaytib, gol nega bekor qilinganini tushunmayapti,» dedi Silva. «Agar siz Fulham libosida bo`lsangiz, ehtimol siz ham ko`p narsalarni tushunmaysiz. U uchun ajoyib daqiqa edi. Uni bekor qilish kerak emas edi. Shubhasiz.»
Birinchi vaziyat bo`yicha keng qamrovli VAR tekshiruvi birinchi bo`limga sakkiz daqiqa qo`shib berilgan vaqtga olib keldi. Fulhamning omadsizligi Joao Pedro qo`shib berilgan vaqtning to`qqizinchi daqiqasida burchak zarbasidan Chelseaning birinchi golini kiritganda davom etdi. Silva qo`shib berilgan vaqt miqdori bilan qattiq kelishmay, «O`yin birorta marta ham to`xtamadi» dedi va jamoasining o`sib borayotgan noroziligini ta`kidladi.
Munozarali qarorlar davom etdi. Yana bir VAR aralashuvi Chelsea foydasiga Ryan Sessegnonning qo`l bilan o`ynagani uchun penalti belgiladi. Biroq, Fulham hujum jarayonida avvalgi qoidabuzarliklar va qo`l bilan o`ynashlar (Caicedoning Alex Iwobiga bosishi, Pedroning qo`l bilan o`ynashi) e`tibordan chetda qoldirilganini ta`kidladi. Silva o`z o`yinchilarining hayratini tasvirlab, ekranni ko`rib chiqqandan so`ng ular «kulishganini» aytdi, chunki o`zlarining shikoyatlari e`tiborsiz qoldirilgan holda qoidalarning nomuvofiq qo`llanilishini tushuna olishmadi.
Uzoqdagi rasmiylar tomonidan belgilangan har bir kichik qoidabuzarlikning bunday qattiq tekshiruvi barcha ishtirokchilar – o`yinchilar, muxlislar va tomoshabinlar uchun o`yin tajribasini yomonlashtiradi.
O`yin VAR bahslari bilan qamrab olinmasdan oldin, Fulham ustunlik qilayotgan jamoa edi, charchagan Chelseaga jiddiy tahdid solardi. Biroq, Enzo Fernandez penaltini golga aylantirgandan so`ng, Fulhamning ruhiyati tushib ketdi va bu ularga kech qaytishga to`sqinlik qildi.
Silva o`z jamoasining dastlabki o`yinini maqtadi, buni «Bizning birinchi bo`limimiz ajoyib edi. Biz butun bo`lim davomida ustunlik qildik, maydonda eng yaxshi jamoa edik… Biz xohlagan tarzda tugamagan juda yaxshi birinchi bo`lim bo`ldi» deb ta`rifladi.
Silva o`z tajribasini «ishonib bo`lmas» deb atadi, u jamoasi raqib tomonidan emas, balki rasmiylarning muhim vaziyatlarni subyektiv talqinlari tufayli mag`lub bo`lganini ta`kidladi. Uning fikricha, aniq hakam xatolarini tuzatishga mo`ljallangan VAR endi munozarali qarorlar asosida o`yinlarni o`zgartirib, futbolning mohiyatini tubdan o`zgartirmoqda. Chelseaning o`yinchilarni boshqarish va kelajakdagi qiyinchiliklari haqida muhokama qilish o`rniga, e`tibor endi futbolga video aralashuvi atrofidagi davom etayotgan bahsga qaratilmoqda.
