Show Me The Money! Posted January 4 Report Share Posted January 4 3 minutes ago, Laner said: But in the context of that tackle it was neither dangerous or reckless. Exactly, it was just a natural movement to get his foot over the ball to keep possession of it. It’s the maliciousness that’s even more annoying. It’s just not taken into account at all. It’s all black and white. Refs aren’t allowed to use common sense 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W-S-M Seagull Posted January 4 Report Share Posted January 4 16 minutes ago, Laner said: But in the context of that tackle it was neither dangerous or reckless. Whilst you and the pundits are focusing on the later part of the law, its actually this bit he's been sent off for. "A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent" He slid in with his foot up studs first which clearly endangers an opponent. The fact he wasn't seriously injured and that the contact was minimal is irrelevant. It's the fact he endangered the opponent which is what matters. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Show Me The Money! Posted January 4 Report Share Posted January 4 10 minutes ago, RedRock said: If you’re going to dive in then make sure your studs don’t contact the opponent’s leg. Particularly, don’t allow the base of your studded foot ,with your leg at full stretch, to contact the opponent’s standing leg. Having had 30 stitches in a shin caused by raised studs, I can testify it ******* hurts and takes a long time to recover. You’ve played the game though so you must totally understand that it’s a fast paced (well maybe not when I’m playing ), contact sport. There is always the chance of someone unintentionally catching someone with there studs. It’s why shin pads were invented after all. If a challenge is aggressive and reckless then whether it was intentional or not you could say it’s still a red but that challenge tonight was neither aggressive or reckless. That red card was embarrassing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W-S-M Seagull Posted January 4 Report Share Posted January 4 2 minutes ago, Show Me The Money! said: You’ve played the game though so you must totally understand that it’s a fast paced (well maybe not when I’m playing ), contact sport. There is always the chance of someone unintentionally catching someone with there studs. It’s why shin pads were invented after all. If a challenge is aggressive and reckless then whether it was intentional or not you could say it’s still a red but that challenge tonight was neither aggressive or reckless. That red card was embarrassing! A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Show Me The Money! Posted January 4 Report Share Posted January 4 1 minute ago, W-S-M Seagull said: A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play. That tackle didn’t endanger the opponent. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W-S-M Seagull Posted January 4 Report Share Posted January 4 5 minutes ago, Show Me The Money! said: That tackle didn’t endanger the opponent. Flew in with his studs up mate. That's the very definition of endangering an opponent. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Show Me The Money! Posted January 4 Report Share Posted January 4 2 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said: Flew in with his studs up mate. That's the very definition of endangering an opponent. We’ll just have to agree to disagree. He didn’t fly in to me 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted January 4 Report Share Posted January 4 13 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said: A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play. Which it wasn't. 1 minute ago, Show Me The Money! said: We’ll just have to agree to disagree. He didn’t fly in to me Maybe we watched a different game! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRock Posted January 4 Report Share Posted January 4 3 minutes ago, Show Me The Money! said: You’ve played the game though so you must totally understand that it’s a fast paced (well maybe not when I’m playing ), contact sport. There is always the chance of someone unintentionally catching someone with there studs. It’s why shin pads were invented after all. If a challenge is aggressive and reckless then whether it was intentional or not you could say it’s still a red but that challenge tonight was neither aggressive or reckless. That red card was embarrassing! Not viewed the post match analysis, but it appeared to me he made contact which, with studs up, is reckless. Agree, the game is fast and certainly faster than when I played. More speed creates greater risk in term of leg injuries from raised boots. Think the FAs logic is uncontrolled diving into tackles (and once you take your legs off the ground you ain’t got a great deal of control) is just a no, no … and a professional should know if there is contact with studs he’s more than likely going to be sent off. Even with no contact, one might suggest a studs-up diving tackle at speed may well cause a defender to pull out of a tackle giving an unfair advantage to the diver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted January 4 Report Share Posted January 4 More from Roy Hodgson speaking to ITV on the red card: "I don't know if I can understand those things these days. What to make of it. Lots of people who played in the past watching that will say that's not a red card, but people playing recently will probably say it is a red card because of the way the studs were up and he [Calvert-Lewin] was leading with a straight leg. "It is unfortunate for the player, because it was not a vicious foul by any means. I thought the referee managed the game quite well. There were a lot of decisions to make because both teams were rather physical. So he handled the game well and if that challenge is a red card then so be it I suppose. "I'm not prepared to say either it was or it wasn't, it was a modern day situation." Hodgson sums it up quite well 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W-S-M Seagull Posted January 4 Report Share Posted January 4 6 minutes ago, Super said: Which it wasn't. Maybe we watched a different game! He's clearly gone in with his studs showing which is clearly endangering an opponent. If he had snapped the fellas leg then every one would be saying red. The contact etc is irrelevant. The key word is endanger. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard Posted January 4 Report Share Posted January 4 1 hour ago, W-S-M Seagull said: Flew in with his studs up mate. That's the very definition of endangering an opponent. No There was **** all force. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavington Robin Posted January 4 Report Share Posted January 4 Interesting reply from Roy Hodgson and also Keith Hackett. Not a red card for me but as Roy stated it’s the way the modern game is unfortunately. Don’t get me started on hand balls I have given up trying to fathom them out nowadays Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard Posted January 4 Report Share Posted January 4 1 hour ago, W-S-M Seagull said: Flew in with his studs up mate. That's the very definition of endangering an opponent. Whilst his studs were up, he didn't fly in did he? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W-S-M Seagull Posted January 4 Report Share Posted January 4 3 minutes ago, The Bard said: No There was **** all force. Irrelevant mate. He went in with his studs showing which endangers the safety of the opponent. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kibs Posted January 5 Report Share Posted January 5 (edited) He’s just trying to hook the ball, eyes only on the ball. It’s madness. If you slowed down and reviewed every single challenge during a game, there would be several instances where it suddenly “appears” dangerous in super slow mo and “endangers” the player. We’d end up with 7-aside!! Edited January 5 by Kibs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted January 5 Report Share Posted January 5 It’s a red for me. Because I think it meets the laws / rules that are in place today. The sooner players discipline themselves to tackle properly, the better. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W-S-M Seagull Posted January 5 Report Share Posted January 5 12 minutes ago, Davefevs said: It’s a red for me. Because I think it meets the laws / rules that are in place today. The sooner players discipline themselves to tackle properly, the better. I agree that according to the laws its a red. Should the laws be that this sort of challange is a red? I don't know. I can see the argument that people say well he's barely touched him but then I can also see the argument that the potential is there in this type of incident to cause a serious injury. Anyone that's had studs in them will agree it is very nasty! I think when people are saying "that's not a red" they are infact saying "the laws shouldn't be that this is a red" I think along with a misunderstanding about the laws there is also a bit of anti var bias added in too with a sprinkle of lasting sympathy for Evertons points deduction. I'm not sure I agree with any arguments that say "everything looks worse slowed down" sometimes things happen too fast for the human eye to see properly and you can only see the true extent of it by slowing it down. Police use slow mo in courts all the time for example. I've seen a few challanges that in real time look pretty innocuous as it happened so fast only for VAR to show how serious it was. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted January 5 Report Share Posted January 5 8 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said: I agree that according to the laws its a red. Should the laws be that this sort of challange is a red? I don't know. I can see the argument that people say well he's barely touched him but then I can also see the argument that the potential is there in this type of incident to cause a serious injury. Anyone that's had studs in them will agree it is very nasty! I think when people are saying "that's not a red" they are infact saying "the laws shouldn't be that this is a red" I think along with a misunderstanding about the laws there is also a bit of anti var bias added in too with a sprinkle of lasting sympathy for Evertons points deduction. I'm not sure I agree with any arguments that say "everything looks worse slowed down" sometimes things happen too fast for the human eye to see properly and you can only see the true extent of it by slowing it down. Police use slow mo in courts all the time for example. I've seen a few challanges that in real time look pretty innocuous as it happened so fast only for VAR to show how serious it was. Spot on. You have to learn to play within the laws, or you change the laws! The Hull player Morton had his red on Monday rescinded. And that was worse that DCL’s. The inconsistency is what makes it worse too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheltons Army Posted January 5 Report Share Posted January 5 9 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said: I agree that according to the laws its a red. Should the laws be that this sort of challange is a red? I don't know. I can see the argument that people say well he's barely touched him but then I can also see the argument that the potential is there in this type of incident to cause a serious injury. Anyone that's had studs in them will agree it is very nasty! I think when people are saying "that's not a red" they are infact saying "the laws shouldn't be that this is a red" I think along with a misunderstanding about the laws there is also a bit of anti var bias added in too with a sprinkle of lasting sympathy for Evertons points deduction. I'm not sure I agree with any arguments that say "everything looks worse slowed down" sometimes things happen too fast for the human eye to see properly and you can only see the true extent of it by slowing it down. Police use slow mo in courts all the time for example. I've seen a few challanges that in real time look pretty innocuous as it happened so fast only for VAR to show how serious it was. Good post WSM , Spot on 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markthehorn Posted January 5 Report Share Posted January 5 (edited) Didn’t help the ref played on and gave nothing then VAR gets involved and suddenly it’s a straight red . Not even as if DCL got booked then upgraded to a sending off which would be more understandable maybe The solution is not use VAR for subjective decisions really and accept the on pitch decision made by the on pitch ref but we all know that won’t happen . And for on on pitch officials to stick by their decisions more rather than clearly be influenced by the VAR and sacred to go against them . Edited January 5 by Markthehorn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted January 5 Report Share Posted January 5 3 minutes ago, Markthehorn said: Didn’t help the ref played on and gave nothing then VAR gets involved and suddenly it’s a straight red . Not even as if DCL got booked then upgraded to a sending off which would be more understandable maybe The solution is not use VAR for subjective decisions really and accept the on pitch decision made by the on pitch ref but we all know that won’t happen . And for on on pitch officials to stick by their decisions more rather than clearly be influenced by the VAR and sacred to go against them . Yep he had a great view of it, Should of had the balls to stick to his decision. Hopefully Everton appeal as a 3 game ban makes it even worse for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W-S-M Seagull Posted January 5 Report Share Posted January 5 4 minutes ago, Super said: Yep he had a great view of it, Should of had the balls to stick to his decision. Hopefully Everton appeal as a 3 game ban makes it even worse for them. But isn't this exactly what VAR is for? To be used when a ref makes an error? VAR have obviously said to him "we think you have made an error here and recommend that you take another look" The ref has then had another look at it and then came to the conclusion that he has made an error. What needs to happen is that the conversations with the ref and VAR need to be broadcast and the ref should explain why he's changed his decision. I think we would then end up in a situation where there is much less outrage about decisions as people will have more context and understanding of decisions. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markthehorn Posted January 5 Report Share Posted January 5 18 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said: But isn't this exactly what VAR is for? To be used when a ref makes an error? VAR have obviously said to him "we think you have made an error here and recommend that you take another look" The ref has then had another look at it and then came to the conclusion that he has made an error. What needs to happen is that the conversations with the ref and VAR need to be broadcast and the ref should explain why he's changed his decision. I think we would then end up in a situation where there is much less outrage about decisions as people will have more context and understanding of decisions. And more consistency but then guess that is the issue with so many subjective calls and laws that are different depending on where you are playing ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted January 5 Report Share Posted January 5 40 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said: But isn't this exactly what VAR is for? To be used when a ref makes an error? VAR have obviously said to him "we think you have made an error here and recommend that you take another look" The ref has then had another look at it and then came to the conclusion that he has made an error. What needs to happen is that the conversations with the ref and VAR need to be broadcast and the ref should explain why he's changed his decision. I think we would then end up in a situation where there is much less outrage about decisions as people will have more context and understanding of decisions. He had the perfect view. As soon as VAR got involved he is basically told to overturn the decision even if he doesn't agree with it. Has anyone actually stuck to the original decision when going to the screen? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted January 5 Report Share Posted January 5 Will be very interesting to see if it gets overturned Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W-S-M Seagull Posted January 5 Report Share Posted January 5 34 minutes ago, Super said: He had the perfect view. As soon as VAR got involved he is basically told to overturn the decision even if he doesn't agree with it. Has anyone actually stuck to the original decision when going to the screen? You've missed my point. Even with a perfect view, he still made a mistake. That's what VAR is there for. No refs do not get told to overturn decisions. VAR doesn't have that power. The referees always have the final say. They can recommend he takes a look and give their opinions but ultimately the decision is his. Maybe this will help to understand the process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted January 5 Report Share Posted January 5 3 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said: You've missed my point. Even with a perfect view, he still made a mistake. That's what VAR is there for. No refs do not get told to overturn decisions. VAR doesn't have that power. The referees always have the final say. They can recommend he takes a look and give their opinions but ultimately the decision is his. Maybe this will help to understand the process. So how many have actually stuck to the original decision? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W-S-M Seagull Posted January 5 Report Share Posted January 5 3 minutes ago, Super said: So how many have actually stuck to the original decision? It has happened. You'd need to ask the PL for the numbers you're asking for. The fact not many original decisions get stuck to highlights the effectiveness of the process between ref and VAR. The biggest issue with VAR is the many incidents that seemingly go unnoticed and the ref doesn't get sent to the monitor. But just because one part of VAR is ineffective that doesn't mean all of VAR is ineffective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markthehorn Posted January 5 Report Share Posted January 5 6 minutes ago, Super said: So how many have actually stuck to the original decision? Not many has to be said . Michael Oliver did once in a Forest v Bournemouth game . https://www.footballinsider247.com/nottingham-forest-controversy-may-spark-var-shift-as-bbc-footage-analysed-pundit/?amp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.