Jump to content
IGNORED

Mawson appeal?


Eddie Notgetinya

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, CotswoldRed said:

I stand by what I say. If you issue bans based on the outcome rather than the intent I think its wrong.

The most honest and innocuous tackles can break legs. The most cynical and dangerous can result in no injury whatsoever. 

The intent is everything. 

So very few red cards should ever happen? If someone's been booked, if they commit 5 more fouls but they meant well and honestly went for the ball then they shouldn't get a red?

Anyway the intent isn't everything, you can be dangerous without intending to be.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, cidered abroad said:

I understand that all contact of hand/lower arm is now "handball" and a penalty.

However it seems like a triple whammy for the great majority of cases which are totally accidental.

Penalty, Sending off and One Natch Suspension.

Over the top punishment isn't it?

Indeed.

Unfair and quite disproportionate ?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MarcusX said:

So very few red cards should ever happen? If someone's been booked, if they commit 5 more fouls but they meant well and honestly went for the ball then they shouldn't get a red?

Anyway the intent isn't everything, you can be dangerous without intending to be.

 

Intent has its merits, whilst so does persistent misconduct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/02/2021 at 12:32, The Horse With No Name said:

Not really because if he hadn't handled it, accidentally or not, it was in the net. So if they had missed the penalty, wheres the advantage gone?

Interesting potential stipulation, if they score the penalty its a yellow, if the penalty is saved its a red to ensure the advantage (play restarted with a drop ball after card)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MarcusX said:

So very few red cards should ever happen? If someone's been booked, if they commit 5 more fouls but they meant well and honestly went for the ball then they shouldn't get a red?

Anyway the intent isn't everything, you can be dangerous without intending to be.

 

I'd say 3 things should be taken into account to be fair if the law were to be re-examined

Intent

Potential harm to players

Continued misconduct as fevs says

---

On your example there continued misconduct would result in a red, the innocuous challenge argument, if a player has been seriously harmed even if there's no intent can be deemed reckless and dangerous etc and intent ie Suarez handball as an example.

Mawson (seemingly) didn't have the intent of using his hand to block the ball, he isn't potentially causing harm to an opponent and it was his first offence of the game if I recall 

Obviously this is an issue with the law of the game rather than the decision but just seems a harsh punishment for something unintentional

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

Interesting potential stipulation, if they score the penalty its a yellow, if the penalty is saved its a red to ensure the advantage (play restarted with a drop ball after card)

That actually has some logic

 

oh, And if the penalty taker does a panenka and puts it over the bar ,

Send off the penalty taker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sheltons Army said:

That actually has some logic

 

oh, And if the penalty taker does a panenka and puts it over the bar ,

Send off the penalty taker

And say they're banned from taking them in future unless its a penalty shootout where they have to be 11th

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...