Media Bias: Chelsea website continues to deliver post-truth match reports as Hull are robbed
Media Bias: Chelsea beat Hull City 2-0 today in the Premier League. With the score at 1-0 to Chelsea, a Hull player tumbled in the home side’s penalty area. Should a penalty have been given? Let’s see what the reporters say:
The Hull City website says they were robbed:
Hernandez should have been awarded a penalty early in the second half when he was tripped by Marcos Alonso inside the box, but again appeals fell on deaf ears.
What about Hull’s local newspaper?
The Hull Daily Mail appraises Abel Hernandez’s performance:
The isolated front man at the tip of City’s attack but got no favours from the officials. Denied a foul in the build-up to Chelsea’s opener and then a clear-cut penalty in the second half.
The Guardian says: “That was a clear penalty, a clumsy foul by Alonso on Hernandez. He was beaten to the ball on the edge of the area and kicked Hernandez’s heel.”
Get West London says Hull “were unfortunate not to be awarded a penalty after the break when Marcos Alonso brought down Abel Hernandez”.
The London Evening Standard says: “Somehow Hull not awarded a penalty for a blatant foul by Alonso on Hernandez.”
The Telegraph: “Chelsea were even more fortunate that a penalty was not awarded against them four minutes after the restart when Alonso clearly clipped the heel of Hernandez.”
And on the Chelsea website, football’s version of Pravda? Nothing. The official Chelsea website makes no mention of either ‘foul’.
Such are the facts.
Posted: 22nd, January 2017 | In: Back pages, Chelsea, Sports Comment | TrackBack | Permalink
