comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 15 seconds ago
tackling from behind. Red card, letter of the law.
----
Didn't go through the player..
Your posts are just embarrassing to read.
-------------------------------------------
He went through the back of him.
Come on ffs stop getting baited by LRF, he's the biggest fooking wum on this site
So he's not at the ground then is he?
Pretty sure that medical centre at the ground is at least as good, if not better than the nearest hospital for dealing with Edersons injury.
But you've admitted you're wrong.. so that's a start at least.
Dangerous play is a clear red. Intent is irrelevant. A player should still be sent off for dangerous play even if it was a genuine attempt to win the ball with no intention of harming the player. That was a red, and any appeal will be stupid and may risk extension.
Bellerin didnthe same last week against Salah and it wasn't even a card
comment by Grand Cannon (U18697)
posted 1 minute ago
Dangerous play is a clear red. Intent is irrelevant. A player should still be sent off for dangerous play even if it was a genuine attempt to win the ball with no intention of harming the player. That was a red, and any appeal will be stupid and may risk extension.
----------------------------------------------
In which case, lets see how consistent all the referee's are today with there decisions about dangerous play then.
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 2 minutes ago
The injury is irrelevant, if two midfielder jump for a 50/50 knowing they will collide in mid air, and one subsequently breaks his ankle on the landing, should the survivor be sent off?
No way, if we want to start sending players off for head high boots it needs to be all the time, every coming together no matter how minor has the chance to do injury, sometimes there are freak incidents, there was no intention to harm there, it was a 50/50 and mane can rightly feel hard done by.
---------------
The intention literally does not matter. If I drive 100mph on the motorway, I do so because I want to get from a to b quicker, not because I intend to kill someone. And 99 times out of 100, no one will get killed, because I'm a pretty safe driver even at speed. And a lot of times, I won't get caught.
But that still doesn't mean it's OK. And if I got caught and punished, I wouldn't have a right to complain about it. The rules are there to prevent dangerous conduct because the consequences are potentially catastrophic, even if not all the time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Driving on the motorway is not a contact sport, they are completely incomparable.
Ederson ducked his head in, knowing the player was going to use his foot,
At what height do you consider it to no longer be a red card and accept its two players endangering themselves? Waist height? Knee height?
In a 50/50 with both players challenging for the ball you absolutely cannot make your decision based on who came off best
Ridiculous and not a discussion that should attract tribalism
What about when Salah ran through against Arsenal last week after Ron Holding's high foot? Dangerous play, high boot, no red card.
Its all about consistency
In European football its a red all day in the prem league we let things like that go sometimes
Thats the issue here
comment by Grand Cannon (U18697)
posted 3 minutes ago
Dangerous play is a clear red. Intent is irrelevant. A player should still be sent off for dangerous play even if it was a genuine attempt to win the ball with no intention of harming the player. That was a red, and any appeal will be stupid and may risk extension.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So who's play is dangerous? It's a 50/50.
Is Ederson at fault for ducking his head in where he is likely to get kicked?
Or is it mane for jumping and trying to control the ball at chest height?
Ridiculous decision. Any coming together could be considered dangerous play according to some of the posts here, yours included
At what height do you consider it to no longer be a red card and accept its two players endangering themselves? Waist height? Knee height?
In a 50/50 with both players challenging for the ball you absolutely cannot make your decision based on who came off best
=======
Height doesn't really matter that much in the decision to give the red. It is more the fact it was reckless, late and studs first.
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 2 minutes ago
The injury is irrelevant, if two midfielder jump for a 50/50 knowing they will collide in mid air, and one subsequently breaks his ankle on the landing, should the survivor be sent off?
No way, if we want to start sending players off for head high boots it needs to be all the time, every coming together no matter how minor has the chance to do injury, sometimes there are freak incidents, there was no intention to harm there, it was a 50/50 and mane can rightly feel hard done by.
---------------
The intention literally does not matter. If I drive 100mph on the motorway, I do so because I want to get from a to b quicker, not because I intend to kill someone. And 99 times out of 100, no one will get killed, because I'm a pretty safe driver even at speed. And a lot of times, I won't get caught.
But that still doesn't mean it's OK. And if I got caught and punished, I wouldn't have a right to complain about it. The rules are there to prevent dangerous conduct because the consequences are potentially catastrophic, even if not all the time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Driving on the motorway is not a contact sport, they are completely incomparable.
Ederson ducked his head in, knowing the player was going to use his foot,
At what height do you consider it to no longer be a red card and accept its two players endangering themselves? Waist height? Knee height?
In a 50/50 with both players challenging for the ball you absolutely cannot make your decision based on who came off best
Ridiculous and not a discussion that should attract tribalism
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ederson ducked his head in, knowing the player was going to use his foot,"
How the feck do know that? What a tool!
Or is it mane for jumping and trying to control the ball at chest height?
=====
It wasn't at chest height, ffs.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 8 seconds ago
At what height do you consider it to no longer be a red card and accept its two players endangering themselves? Waist height? Knee height?
In a 50/50 with both players challenging for the ball you absolutely cannot make your decision based on who came off best
=======
Height doesn't really matter that much in the decision to give the red. It is more the fact it was reckless, late and studs first.
------------------------------------------
Lets revisit this at 5:00PM tonight. This red card, like you've just said wasn't because of height, it was because it was reckless, late and studs first. I wonder how many tackles we will see in the PL just like that today that ref's don't bat an eyelid at.
So who's play is dangerous?
-----
Really? Some people are amazing.
if your going to be second there, then you risk a red card, more often its the keeper who gets sent off,if Mane got to the ball first Ederson would of been sent off its high risk either way,but he had to go
I wonder how many tackles we will see in the PL just like that today that ref's don't bat an eyelid at.
------
None most likely.
comment by Zlatan The King Ibrahimovic (U10026)
posted 19 seconds ago
I wonder how many tackles we will see in the PL just like that today that ref's don't bat an eyelid at.
------
None most likely.
-------------------------------------
Alright then lets see. I don't mean a copy of Mané's challenge, I mean challenges that are reckless, late and studs first, as said by DJ, which was why Mané was sent off correct?
There will be tonnes about in the PL today of that description.
comment by T Bone Steak Roysters (U3947)
posted 9 minutes ago
Bellerin didnthe same last week against Salah and it wasn't even a card
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your epic defence should be able to cope
Driving on the motorway is not a contact sport, they are completely incomparable.
Ederson ducked his head in, knowing the player was going to use his foot,
At what height do you consider it to no longer be a red card and accept its two players endangering themselves? Waist height? Knee height?
In a 50/50 with both players challenging for the ball you absolutely cannot make your decision based on who came off best
Ridiculous and not a discussion that should attract tribalism
--------------
The comparison is supposed to show the fallacy of using the 'no intent' argument. The law doesn't care about intent. It cares about reckless conduct which has an above-average potential to injure.
The argument that taking out such play turns football into a non-contact sport is ridiculous. You can still barge, jostle, go shoulder to shoulder etc.. And you can still tackle in a controlled manner where you poke the ball or sweep across a player (as a lot of defenders do near the touchline). Key is to keep your studs under control. Mane didn't. That's why it was dangerous and that's why he has probably broken a keeper's jaw.
You guys are all guilty of two things
1. Reacting to the fact that there was a freak injury, which it seems isn't all that bad.
2. Picking a side based on your club, I can guarantee if it was your own player your opinion or old version the opposite.
It was barely late, a 50/50 and no less out of control than ANY aerial coming together.
Bizarre.
Ederson's injury appears very severe doesn't it. An hour after it's happened and still no word. Nothing will be said of it now. If it was that bad, something would have been said by now.
2. Picking a side based on your club, I can guarantee if it was your own player your opinion or old version the opposite.
-----------------
Says a Liverpool fan. It's funny that you think your opinion on the incident is in no way influenced by your emotional attachment to the club or player it concerns.
1. Reacting to the fact that there was a freak injury, which it seems isn't all that bad.
2. Picking a side based on your club, I can guarantee if it was your own player your opinion or old version the opposite.
It was barely late, a 50/50 and no less out of control than ANY aerial coming together.
===========
1 - Wrong. I called it a nasty challenge as soon as it happened and felt it was a red.
2 - Nope, judging it on the foul.
Most Liverpool fans seem to be saying they agree with the red, Jamie Carragher agrees with the red. Not sure club bias is relevant in this...
Sign in if you want to comment
The Mané red
Page 5 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9
posted on 9/9/17
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 15 seconds ago
tackling from behind. Red card, letter of the law.
----
Didn't go through the player..
Your posts are just embarrassing to read.
-------------------------------------------
He went through the back of him.
posted on 9/9/17
Come on ffs stop getting baited by LRF, he's the biggest fooking wum on this site
posted on 9/9/17
So he's not at the ground then is he?
Pretty sure that medical centre at the ground is at least as good, if not better than the nearest hospital for dealing with Edersons injury.
But you've admitted you're wrong.. so that's a start at least.
posted on 9/9/17
Dangerous play is a clear red. Intent is irrelevant. A player should still be sent off for dangerous play even if it was a genuine attempt to win the ball with no intention of harming the player. That was a red, and any appeal will be stupid and may risk extension.
posted on 9/9/17
Bellerin didnthe same last week against Salah and it wasn't even a card
posted on 9/9/17
comment by Grand Cannon (U18697)
posted 1 minute ago
Dangerous play is a clear red. Intent is irrelevant. A player should still be sent off for dangerous play even if it was a genuine attempt to win the ball with no intention of harming the player. That was a red, and any appeal will be stupid and may risk extension.
----------------------------------------------
In which case, lets see how consistent all the referee's are today with there decisions about dangerous play then.
posted on 9/9/17
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 2 minutes ago
The injury is irrelevant, if two midfielder jump for a 50/50 knowing they will collide in mid air, and one subsequently breaks his ankle on the landing, should the survivor be sent off?
No way, if we want to start sending players off for head high boots it needs to be all the time, every coming together no matter how minor has the chance to do injury, sometimes there are freak incidents, there was no intention to harm there, it was a 50/50 and mane can rightly feel hard done by.
---------------
The intention literally does not matter. If I drive 100mph on the motorway, I do so because I want to get from a to b quicker, not because I intend to kill someone. And 99 times out of 100, no one will get killed, because I'm a pretty safe driver even at speed. And a lot of times, I won't get caught.
But that still doesn't mean it's OK. And if I got caught and punished, I wouldn't have a right to complain about it. The rules are there to prevent dangerous conduct because the consequences are potentially catastrophic, even if not all the time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Driving on the motorway is not a contact sport, they are completely incomparable.
Ederson ducked his head in, knowing the player was going to use his foot,
At what height do you consider it to no longer be a red card and accept its two players endangering themselves? Waist height? Knee height?
In a 50/50 with both players challenging for the ball you absolutely cannot make your decision based on who came off best
Ridiculous and not a discussion that should attract tribalism
posted on 9/9/17
What about when Salah ran through against Arsenal last week after Ron Holding's high foot? Dangerous play, high boot, no red card.
posted on 9/9/17
Its all about consistency
In European football its a red all day in the prem league we let things like that go sometimes
Thats the issue here
posted on 9/9/17
comment by Grand Cannon (U18697)
posted 3 minutes ago
Dangerous play is a clear red. Intent is irrelevant. A player should still be sent off for dangerous play even if it was a genuine attempt to win the ball with no intention of harming the player. That was a red, and any appeal will be stupid and may risk extension.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So who's play is dangerous? It's a 50/50.
Is Ederson at fault for ducking his head in where he is likely to get kicked?
Or is it mane for jumping and trying to control the ball at chest height?
Ridiculous decision. Any coming together could be considered dangerous play according to some of the posts here, yours included
posted on 9/9/17
At what height do you consider it to no longer be a red card and accept its two players endangering themselves? Waist height? Knee height?
In a 50/50 with both players challenging for the ball you absolutely cannot make your decision based on who came off best
=======
Height doesn't really matter that much in the decision to give the red. It is more the fact it was reckless, late and studs first.
posted on 9/9/17
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 2 minutes ago
The injury is irrelevant, if two midfielder jump for a 50/50 knowing they will collide in mid air, and one subsequently breaks his ankle on the landing, should the survivor be sent off?
No way, if we want to start sending players off for head high boots it needs to be all the time, every coming together no matter how minor has the chance to do injury, sometimes there are freak incidents, there was no intention to harm there, it was a 50/50 and mane can rightly feel hard done by.
---------------
The intention literally does not matter. If I drive 100mph on the motorway, I do so because I want to get from a to b quicker, not because I intend to kill someone. And 99 times out of 100, no one will get killed, because I'm a pretty safe driver even at speed. And a lot of times, I won't get caught.
But that still doesn't mean it's OK. And if I got caught and punished, I wouldn't have a right to complain about it. The rules are there to prevent dangerous conduct because the consequences are potentially catastrophic, even if not all the time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Driving on the motorway is not a contact sport, they are completely incomparable.
Ederson ducked his head in, knowing the player was going to use his foot,
At what height do you consider it to no longer be a red card and accept its two players endangering themselves? Waist height? Knee height?
In a 50/50 with both players challenging for the ball you absolutely cannot make your decision based on who came off best
Ridiculous and not a discussion that should attract tribalism
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ederson ducked his head in, knowing the player was going to use his foot,"
How the feck do know that? What a tool!
posted on 9/9/17
Or is it mane for jumping and trying to control the ball at chest height?
=====
It wasn't at chest height, ffs.
posted on 9/9/17
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 8 seconds ago
At what height do you consider it to no longer be a red card and accept its two players endangering themselves? Waist height? Knee height?
In a 50/50 with both players challenging for the ball you absolutely cannot make your decision based on who came off best
=======
Height doesn't really matter that much in the decision to give the red. It is more the fact it was reckless, late and studs first.
------------------------------------------
Lets revisit this at 5:00PM tonight. This red card, like you've just said wasn't because of height, it was because it was reckless, late and studs first. I wonder how many tackles we will see in the PL just like that today that ref's don't bat an eyelid at.
posted on 9/9/17
So who's play is dangerous?
-----
Really? Some people are amazing.
posted on 9/9/17
if your going to be second there, then you risk a red card, more often its the keeper who gets sent off,if Mane got to the ball first Ederson would of been sent off its high risk either way,but he had to go
posted on 9/9/17
I wonder how many tackles we will see in the PL just like that today that ref's don't bat an eyelid at.
------
None most likely.
posted on 9/9/17
comment by Zlatan The King Ibrahimovic (U10026)
posted 19 seconds ago
I wonder how many tackles we will see in the PL just like that today that ref's don't bat an eyelid at.
------
None most likely.
-------------------------------------
Alright then lets see. I don't mean a copy of Mané's challenge, I mean challenges that are reckless, late and studs first, as said by DJ, which was why Mané was sent off correct?
There will be tonnes about in the PL today of that description.
posted on 9/9/17
comment by T Bone Steak Roysters (U3947)
posted 9 minutes ago
Bellerin didnthe same last week against Salah and it wasn't even a card
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your epic defence should be able to cope
posted on 9/9/17
Driving on the motorway is not a contact sport, they are completely incomparable.
Ederson ducked his head in, knowing the player was going to use his foot,
At what height do you consider it to no longer be a red card and accept its two players endangering themselves? Waist height? Knee height?
In a 50/50 with both players challenging for the ball you absolutely cannot make your decision based on who came off best
Ridiculous and not a discussion that should attract tribalism
--------------
The comparison is supposed to show the fallacy of using the 'no intent' argument. The law doesn't care about intent. It cares about reckless conduct which has an above-average potential to injure.
The argument that taking out such play turns football into a non-contact sport is ridiculous. You can still barge, jostle, go shoulder to shoulder etc.. And you can still tackle in a controlled manner where you poke the ball or sweep across a player (as a lot of defenders do near the touchline). Key is to keep your studs under control. Mane didn't. That's why it was dangerous and that's why he has probably broken a keeper's jaw.
posted on 9/9/17
You guys are all guilty of two things
1. Reacting to the fact that there was a freak injury, which it seems isn't all that bad.
2. Picking a side based on your club, I can guarantee if it was your own player your opinion or old version the opposite.
It was barely late, a 50/50 and no less out of control than ANY aerial coming together.
Bizarre.
posted on 9/9/17
Wow
posted on 9/9/17
Ederson's injury appears very severe doesn't it. An hour after it's happened and still no word. Nothing will be said of it now. If it was that bad, something would have been said by now.
posted on 9/9/17
2. Picking a side based on your club, I can guarantee if it was your own player your opinion or old version the opposite.
-----------------
Says a Liverpool fan. It's funny that you think your opinion on the incident is in no way influenced by your emotional attachment to the club or player it concerns.
posted on 9/9/17
1. Reacting to the fact that there was a freak injury, which it seems isn't all that bad.
2. Picking a side based on your club, I can guarantee if it was your own player your opinion or old version the opposite.
It was barely late, a 50/50 and no less out of control than ANY aerial coming together.
===========
1 - Wrong. I called it a nasty challenge as soon as it happened and felt it was a red.
2 - Nope, judging it on the foul.
Most Liverpool fans seem to be saying they agree with the red, Jamie Carragher agrees with the red. Not sure club bias is relevant in this...
Page 5 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9