Should Naughton have sacrificed himslef?

[Sjb 13]

If he took the sending off, instead of ruddy, Chealsea would have still had to score from a free kick. And we wouldnt have had to use our last sub on a goalkeeper.

[Calle 20]

Simple answer... Yes...

[Thirsty Lizard 3,215]

In depth answer - No. You could clearly see that he pulled out of the tackle realising that he was very likely to miss the ball and get the player and therefore be sent off. However, what he couldn''t know was what would happen next. Usually in that situation the attacking player will overun the ball or lose control of it or get in a shot that the goalie saves. Therefore he made the right decision. Kind of ironic that there''s been quite a few posts saying that De Laet v Wigan, Barnett v Stoke and Ruddy today shouldn''t have dived in and given the ref the opportunity to send them off. When Naughton stays on his feet and doesn''t dive in some people have a go at him for not diving in.

[Baldyboy 1]

having just seen it the simple answer is YES he should have, was poor to jump out of the way!!!

[Gerry Harrison 2]

At the time I thought Ramires had overrun the ball after Naughton pulled out of the challenge, and Ruddy was favorite to get there first.

[Icecream Snow 777]

That interesting question makes a mockery of the whole "professional foul" rule. Chop a player outside the box to get a definite red. Or let the keeper get sent off, and get a penalty to boot.

[The_Chaser 0]

My main problem wasn''t with the goal wasn''t on end of the pitch but the other. Can''t remember the player involved (I think Malouda) was going to be closed down by a norwich player then the Norwich player backpeddled to allow the through ball he shouldve closed him down and get a tackle in imo.

[Cantiaci Canary 610]

It would have still been a long 19 minutes with ten men!

[AndyCanary 0]

[quote user="Cantiaci Canary"]It would have still been a long 19 minutes with ten men![/quote]As opposed to a long 19 minutes with ten men as it stood?!I think it''s easy to say Naughton should have sacrificed himself in hindsight but I can GUARANTEE you if he had done that there would be posts on here saying "Should Naughton have left Ruddy to come out and collect the ball? instead of sacrificing himself?".. and the answer would be yes!

[Strappy 0]

[quote user="Icecream Snow"]That interesting question makes a mockery of the whole "professional foul" rule. Chop a player outside the box to get a definite red. Or let the keeper get sent off, and get a penalty to boot.[/quote]Or deliberately trip a player to break up an attack but look innocent and shrug at the referee and avoid a second yellow card because the referee is horribly inconsistent.The Ruddy incident shouldn''t have happened because Torres should have been warming the bench by then.

[smooth 114]

Tierney should have gone through with his potential challenge in chelsea''s half. He bottled it and let the play run through which meant Naughton could if his angle was right.

So there we three chances to bring him down.

tierney would have got a yellow, naughton possibly a red and ruddy a red and a pen.

Unfortunately it got to the last one.

But these are loessons we learn and to stay in the premiership you learn from your mistakes quickly. Tierney should have gone for the 50-50, concentration is the key thing in the prem. and unfortunately we were caught out.

I hope we don''t see a similar incident again if you have a chance in the opposing half to stop a break away with a foul take it.

[ZLF 334]

Agreed smooth,  Torres kicked Johnson to break up play in a safe area of the pitch, our team needs to recognise the danger when our defence is not in shape,  we have had 3 pens following that scenario so far.

[Canarino 0]

Presume this will be a one-match ban for Ruddy?

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,615]

[quote user="Gerry Harrison"]At the time I thought Ramires had overrun the ball after Naughton pulled out of the challenge, and Ruddy was favorite to get there first.[/quote]Same.I thought about whether Naughton could''ve committed after watching the replays, and in hindsight, he should''ve done. But at the time, he did the right thing, because as Gerry said above, I thought Ruddy had it covered. Obviously not.

[Smudger 0]

Naughton although probably our best player yesterday, was lucky to stay on the pitch anyhow.  He could well have been yellow carded 3 times prior to the discussion you lot are having here and could consider himself lucky to have been on the pitch.Crofts on the other hand was yellow carded for just one dodgy tackle and I thought that was harsh when you look at the inconsistent decisions that went on elsewhere yesterday.Those that are banging on about the missed 2nd yellow card that should''ve been awarded to Torres seem to forget that Naughton could maybe count himself lucky not to see red yesterday too.The Ruddy sending off probably followed the letter of the law, but could be considered very harsh considering the Chelsea lad was perhaps going away from goal and there were at least a couple of players on the pitch more deserving of getting their marching orders prior to that.