Those Grey Cats Invisible

(Image from here)

The main thing to say today is that Chris Foy allowing play to go on for Chelsea's second goal was a (to put it mildly) a very bad decision. This I know because most of the papers agree. And it has to be a pretty unarguably bad decision against us for the papers to agree...
Here's The Guardian's take:

The indignation in United's ranks was warranted. After Evra was floored, his side was still in possession and that must have persuaded the referee Chris Foy to play the advantage, but it was of no benefit when their left-back lay on the ground. Chelsea recovered possession and the sporadically effective Didier Drogba cut inside John O'Shea before picking out Lampard. Ben Foster got his hands to the ensuing drive but merely helped the ball on its way over the line via the post.

What I didn't realise, until I saw it again on Sky Sports News this morning was just how clear a view Chris Foy got of the incident. He was staring right at it. And I'm fairly sure he didn't make any signal to show he was playing advantage, he just ignored the challenge. Even if he had played advantage it was fairly quickly shown we had none and he should have stopped play. Added to that is the fact that regardless of it being a foul (it was) or not, he should have stopped play. Chelsea were right to play on, the responsibility was on Foy and, having on 2 occasions before stopped play for injured players (including Ballack who got straight back up after play was stopped), he really had no option but to do it again. I never thought I'd find myself typing this but even Graham Poll agrees:

Foy was correct to play an advantage as the ball fell nicely for Wayne Rooney to continue an attack after a blatant block by Michael Ballack on Patrice Evra.

However, with Evra still down following the German's challenge, Foy could and should have stopped play for the Frenchman to have his injury assessed and, probably, cautioned Ballack,too.

Observers could question the defending as Chelsea broke to go 2-1 up. United's experienced players should have played to the whistle, but with a defender taken out of play by foul means, a legal stoppage in play by Foy would have avoided a controversial incident.

As pointed out already I'm not entirely sure that Foy did play advantage, rather he just didn't give anything, and criticising our players' not getting back when one of our defenders, who would have been running back, is laid out also seems a little odd, but at least his hearts in the right place.
Onto the other match reports. Henry Winter in The Telegraph describes the type of game it was well:

No love lost. For those craving fireworks this season, Chelsea and Manchester United lit the fuse here. For those who enjoy their football spiked with bitter rivalry, tune in. For those who prefer love-ins, tune out. This Community Shield was all about good football and bad blood, stirring the pot vigorously as the Premier League hurtles back next weekend. Curtain-raising? Hair-raising more like. ...
United themselves stalked out of town smarting at an injustice, a sentiment that will smoulder within Patrice Evra, Wayne Rooney and company, an emotion that will ensure the champions’ fire is fully stoked for the conflict ahead.

But he's a little over eager in arguing that, "Chelsea were stronger," and he's a little equivocal on the main incident:

Some sympathy must exist for United. Foy had halted play for similar situations before, but Ferguson must realise that this is a referee who shares the nation’s scepticism about players’ feigning injury, whose idea that physios be allowed to run on while the game proceeds around them gained even more credibility.

He didn't seem too sceptical when he was running over to make sure Ballack was OK earlier on (and he was lenient on Chelsea challenges all day, not that I'm suggesting he was biased in their favour (I am and he was))...
There's nothing too striking in Sam Wallace's report in The Independent, I'll just quote this on the main incident - it's a theme than runs through a few reports, "It is a grey area that does the game no favours." Chris Foy should have stopped play, pure and simple, no grey area.
Daniel Taylor looks at Nani on The Guardian Blog:

They have been here before with Nani – the odd flash of excellence, a moment when he does something that is beyond the average player – and it is not the first time they have wanted to believe the Portugal international is finally going to flourish into a more accomplished package. The evidence of the past two seasons suggests they should refrain from snap judgments. But maybe this is, indeed, the season when he ditches that image of the playground show-off. Maybe, now he is no longer in the shadow of Ronaldo, he can fulfil the potential that persuaded United to spend £17m to sign him from Sporting Lisbon, at the age of 20, two years ago.

Oliver Kay in The Times also falls for the stronger Chelsea argument but is unequivocal on the second goal:

Chelsea’s second goal, in the 71st minute, should not have stood. The problem was not with their decision to play on, with Evra lying prone after an ugly challenge from Michael Ballack, but in the failure of Chris Foy, the referee, to spot the challenge itself. Ferguson suggested the German could have been sent off, which was not totally unreasonable

Mark Fleming in The Independent has a predictably negative look at Nani:

Nani's certainly a wonderful footballer, but there is little evidence to support the theory that he will one day blossom into a world-beating player away from the overwhelming presence of Ronaldo.

Sam Wallace has a look at Foster, and even I have to admit, is probably justified in being a bit harsh:

Foster made a bad job of punching clear Florent Malouda's cross in the build-up to Ricardo Carvalho's equaliser and was almost caught in possession twice by Didier Drogba in the first half. Frank Lampard's goal in the 70th minute also seemed to go straight through the United goalkeeper. There was little the United goalkeeper could do about Chelsea's expertly taken four penalties.

Also on Foster, Oliver Kay suggests his performance won't affect him playing against Holland midweek:

He made an unconvincing start to his trial yesterday, as he was at least partly culpable for Chelsea’s goals. But with James sidelined by a knee injury, he is expected, nonetheless, to play some part in the game in the Amsterdam ArenA on Wednesday.

And he quotes Sir Alex on him:

“Ben should have done better for the second goal, with the ability he has,” Ferguson said. “It’s the first big challenge he has had and he has waited a long time. What I did in pre-season was spread the load between Van der Sar, Foster and [Tomasz] Kuszczak and maybe he’s not had enough games. But I don’t have any worries about him.”

There's an absolutely stupid article on Berbatov by Alan Smith in The Telegraph. Not worth reading, or quoting from, not sure why I'm even mentioning it. It starts with a racist assertion about players from the Balkans and then does the usual Berba, a bit lazy? thing. Not as lazy as people who can't be bothered to think of something new to write perhaps...
Not a bad look at Nani from Ian Ladyman in The Mail, I'll only quote this though, pointing towards optimism over his injury:

given that he was later seen leaving the stadium with two shopping bags we can maybe presume that his absence will not be a long one.

Quotes from Sir Alex, on the second goal:

“If the referee sees it properly, it’s a red card,” Ferguson said. “[Ballack] elbowed him, clearly. He’s lucky. The referee was in line and should have seen it.”

Ferguson also accused Foy of inconsistency. “When it came to their second goal, the referee made a rod for his own back. He’d stopped the game twice already, when Nani was down and a second occasion when Ballack was down,” he said. “I spoke to the referee and he said it was a serious incident and [Ballack] needed treatment, though he was up straight away. When he did that, I didn’t see why he didn’t stop the game [for Evra]. The least he should have done was stop the game . That incident cost us the game. There’s no question it’s a grey area.” ...

“When players are acting to get the game stopped when they don’t have possession, in terms of lying down — it’s an area I’m concerned about. We’ve got to find a solution to that. You see it when a team has attacked and the others have a counter-attack, then a player from the first team lies down in the penalty box to try and get the game stopped. It’s not right. Something has to be done about it.”

Since 2006-07, players have been told not to kick the ball out so that a team-mate or opponent can receive treatment. “If the referees put more onus on the players again to stop the game, then fine,” Ferguson said. “But he didn’t get it right today. You have to be consistent and he did it twice, but not a third time.”

And yes, Sir Alex calls it a "grey area," but I'm assuming he means that in the mind of Foy it's a grey area, or that in terms of the wider game, because in this game, with the 2 previous incidents setting a precedent, there was no grey area.
Quotes from Owen on England:

“I’ve been in the provisional squad quite a few times but the final squad is the one you want to be in. But it’s down to them.

“I’ve had a good start to my United career and haven’t missed a training session or a match. I’ve just got to continue doing well and see where that takes me.”