Quicklinks    Message boards | News Alerts | SMS Alerts | Free Video | Betting

Controversy Corner

Plenty to reflect on this week but we have chosen John Terry's blatant block on Martin Taylor as the focus of our Controversy Corner this Monday.

The move by the Chelsea skipper was not part of a training ground routine, he claimed afterwards, but his clever obstruction of Taylor allowed his central defensive partner Robert Huth to storm in unchallenged and head the hosts into an early lead.

Terry admitted the misdeed on Sky Sports afterwards and probably feels it is part and parcel of the strong-arm tactics that constantly unfold in penalty boxes when corners are being taken.

But is the England international right? Should this manoeuvre have been punished with a free kick to the visitors?

Have your say using the feedback form below.

Matt Bassant
If Terry was not obstructing, as he clearly was, then would Huth have scored the goal? That is the most important point!

Tim Higgins
It is not obstruction to stand your ground on the pitch. Obstruction is when you move into the path of another player. As Huth attacks the ball, it is obvious that Taylor cannot defend because he has to run into Terry (commiting a foul) what player was supposed to be marking Terry? That player should have switched his attention to Huth. Perfectly good goal and should Hituh have missed a penalty should have been awarded for the foul by Taylor on Terry.

Matt Kingston
John Terry was just being clever. Okay, according to the rules it probly was obstruction but if Terry had gone down would it have been a penalty? I think something should be done though else loads of players will be running into each other all the time!

Kevin Lau
Wow! A basketball move is now being used in football! Is that allowed? A screen that is? Anyways, I've always thought that football was a contact sport, and things like this should be allowed in a way.. as Matt argued, Taylor ran into Terry, not Terry barging into Taylor.

Andrew Boyd
Whether it was a foul or not, the referee did not spot it and a free kick was not given. Day-in day-out we see deliberate fouls and these do not gather the same level of debate. Players constantly push the boundaries to gain advantage, whether attacking or defending, and on this occasion it worked in Chelsea's favour. Birmingham did not have a lot to offer in the game so I doubt this goal changed the final result in any way.

Sophie Baker
I agree that it should have been a free kick to Birmingham which was up to the ref to spot. But he didn't. Terry probably realised that the ref would have been watching the corner being taken and not what was happening in the box so he tried his luck at blocking Taylor!

Peter Prince
Apart from Chelsea being worthy of the victory their first goal should have been disallowed. Terry knew what he was doing and that is a free kick. The referee was standing no more than 10 yards away but didn't react. This is a case where the referee hasn't played the game at any significant level and therefore doesn't understand what was happening.

Jon Reilly
Yet again, Chelsea get "the rub of the green". It seems to me that referees no longer see, either through incompetence or predilection, actions by Chelsea players. But to be fair, this also happened to Arsenal when they were winning Doubles and Man United when they were winning Trebles.

Bill Moulds
Clearly obstruction (with the referee well positioned and clear view); free kick most definitely. Unsatisfactory refereeing.

Matt Lewis
As a Chelsea fan many will see this as a biased opinion but I believe that football is a contact sport, with 'limited' amounts of contact allowed. This particular incident is nothing but a purely well thought-out manouevre. Terry is stood in the path of Taylor and therefore Taylor runs into Terry. Not blocked. Put it this way, if Huth didn't score, and after being run into, Terrry went down, would it have been a penalty?!?

FOOTBALL QUIZ
Take some time out to test your footballing knowledge.