comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Desperate Dier (U6468)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 42 seconds ago
Lets be honest, you'd have no interest in this if it didn't potentially impact your season
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, so you actually don't care that there was a foul committed that wasn't punished.
Your only interest is because it could help Liverpool.
So why should people from outside of Liverpool care about it if you wouldn't under a different scenario?
There lies the real problem
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody is asking anybody to care. Only that the FA review the challenge and apply the rules accordingly. The referee missed it, is there enough there to charge the player? It looked to me that he meant to catch the player with his foot and that it was dangerous. The United player certainly thought so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Draft that petition mate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would I draft a petition? The FA look at challenges themselves, they don't need petitions. Were you dropped on your head recently? Perhaps during the school holidays?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They won't look at it. You need to draft the petition so the rest of us can laugh at your desperation you sheite faced clown
Dangerous play and endangers the safety of an opponent are two different things within the laws.
"Violent conduct and endangering the safety of an opponent doesnt require any kind of force. You can be sent off for not even making contact."
Yes, but there was contact in this challenge, so taking into account the extent of the force is absolutely relevant.
I'm afraid this is another example of you not understanding the laws of the game, reading them online and thinking you do.
“My point is that you wouldn't be calling for this to be looked at if it didn't impact you.”
In other news, bear shiites in woods.
You don’t think this is the same of every fan of every club?
Oh and by the way TOOR, you're wrong - because violent conduct still requires an attempt at using excessive force or brutality - hence the degree of force in the challenge is relevant.
comment by Desperate Dier (U6468)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Desperate Dier (U6468)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 42 seconds ago
Lets be honest, you'd have no interest in this if it didn't potentially impact your season
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, so you actually don't care that there was a foul committed that wasn't punished.
Your only interest is because it could help Liverpool.
So why should people from outside of Liverpool care about it if you wouldn't under a different scenario?
There lies the real problem
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody is asking anybody to care. Only that the FA review the challenge and apply the rules accordingly. The referee missed it, is there enough there to charge the player? It looked to me that he meant to catch the player with his foot and that it was dangerous. The United player certainly thought so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Draft that petition mate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would I draft a petition? The FA look at challenges themselves, they don't need petitions. Were you dropped on your head recently? Perhaps during the school holidays?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They won't look at it. You need to draft the petition so the rest of us can laugh at your desperation you sheite faced clown
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why won't they look at it? That's the whole point of the roles, to look at challenges the referees miss. They may not punish the player but I see no reason why they won't look at it.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
Dangerous play and endangers the safety of an opponent are two different things within the laws.
"Violent conduct and endangering the safety of an opponent doesnt require any kind of force. You can be sent off for not even making contact."
Yes, but there was contact in this challenge, so taking into account the extent of the force is absolutely relevant.
I'm afraid this is another example of you not understanding the laws of the game, reading them online and thinking you do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK. I thought dangerous play was the same as endangering the opponent. Struggling to see why it's different but anyhow, I therefore meant endangering an opponent.
The law doesn't say anything about force. It just says endangering the safety of an opponent which I'd say a kick to the chest/ribs area is doing. You'll notice the word 'or' and not 'and' in the law.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
Oh and by the way TOOR, you're wrong - because violent conduct still requires an attempt at using excessive force or brutality - hence the degree of force in the challenge is relevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you sure about that? If you aim a punch at somebody and miss?
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
No worries - it could be worded better for sure.
The law talks about excessive force and brutality, which are of course linked to force.
And of course, to endanger the safety of an opponent you need to challenge with a certain amount of force. That's just common sense, surely?
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
Oh and by the way TOOR, you're wrong - because violent conduct still requires an attempt at using excessive force or brutality - hence the degree of force in the challenge is relevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you sure about that? If you aim a punch at somebody and miss?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeh, if you throw a punch then you've attempted to use brutality, so a bit different but same sort of thing.
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 14 seconds ago
“My point is that you wouldn't be calling for this to be looked at if it didn't impact you.”
In other news, bear shiites in woods.
You don’t think this is the same of every fan of every club?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is, his point is actually irrelevant to what we are talking about.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 50 seconds ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
No worries - it could be worded better for sure.
The law talks about excessive force and brutality, which are of course linked to force.
And of course, to endanger the safety of an opponent you need to challenge with a certain amount of force. That's just common sense, surely?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd say kicking the player in the chest/ribs area is endangering the opponent, force and brutality comes after the word 'or' and therefore they don't also have to be satisfied. I think the force was enough to endanger the opponent, not excessive force or brutal but enough to endanger the safety of the opponent.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
Oh and by the way TOOR, you're wrong - because violent conduct still requires an attempt at using excessive force or brutality - hence the degree of force in the challenge is relevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you sure about that? If you aim a punch at somebody and miss?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeh, if you throw a punch then you've attempted to use brutality, so a bit different but same sort of thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm. Yeah...you've also attempted to endanger the opponents safety?
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Fair enough, I don't.
I don't think he endangered his safety. The worst he'd get from that would be a red mark on his skin.
Re: violent conduct, I don't think endangering the safety of an opponent is relevant for that - it's off the ball and all about brutality / excessive force. Might be wrong but fairly sure that's the case.
Just to add, a reckless challenge is a yellow card offence.
So clearly there has to be something different between being reckless and endangering a player's safety.
Admittedly, it's open to interpretation, but I think the latter needs to be considerably more serious i.e. real danger of causing a serious injury.
Out of interest. If Silva has done the same tackle but it was lower down the body, catching the leg, would those saying it wasn’t a red still say the same?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 52 seconds ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Fair enough, I don't.
I don't think he endangered his safety. The worst he'd get from that would be a red mark on his skin.
Re: violent conduct, I don't think endangering the safety of an opponent is relevant for that - it's off the ball and all about brutality / excessive force. Might be wrong but fairly sure that's the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think violent conduct would be unlikely but there was a particular angle that looked like at the last second he kicked out. I wouldn't have been surprised if a red card was given at the time. There was also a challenge from Lingard that was borderline. This produced a funny moment in which Neville sounded like he wanted Lingard sent off for the follow through but Carragher said it was perfectly normal to follow through in that way.
I don't know whether they were playing on it for the cameras and comedic value but it didn't see like Neville wanted United to lose and Carragher wanted them to win.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
Just to add, a reckless challenge is a yellow card offence.
So clearly there has to be something different between being reckless and endangering a player's safety.
Admittedly, it's open to interpretation, but I think the latter needs to be considerably more serious i.e. real danger of causing a serious injury.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I read that and it seems stupid to me. Surely a reckless challenge is endangering the safety of an opponent?
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
Out of interest. If Silva has done the same tackle but it was lower down the body, catching the leg, would those saying it wasn’t a red still say the same?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is a strange scenario to think about as surely it's more dangerous the higher up the body you hit and yet if this had been on his leg, it would have likely produced a red card.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
I do see what you mean - my first thought though was that he'd gone in like that to protect himself, as goalkeepers do sometimes. Definitely subjective though.
And yeh, reckless vs endangering the safety... hard for the average person to distinguish between the two and I would assume the referees are given guidance.
My interpretation has always been that the latter has a real chance of causing serious injury.
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
Out of interest. If Silva has done the same tackle but it was lower down the body, catching the leg, would those saying it wasn’t a red still say the same?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitely.
How desperate are the Dippers? 😂
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
How desperate are the Dippers? 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boris
Think it was a red or not?
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
How desperate are the Dippers? 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly as desperate as this.
https://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/399596
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
How desperate are the Dippers? 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly as desperate as this.
https://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/399596
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Checkmate.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
How desperate are the Dippers? 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly as desperate as this.
https://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/399596
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Checkmate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sign in if you want to comment
David Silva.
Page 3 of 4
posted on 25/4/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Desperate Dier (U6468)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 42 seconds ago
Lets be honest, you'd have no interest in this if it didn't potentially impact your season
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, so you actually don't care that there was a foul committed that wasn't punished.
Your only interest is because it could help Liverpool.
So why should people from outside of Liverpool care about it if you wouldn't under a different scenario?
There lies the real problem
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody is asking anybody to care. Only that the FA review the challenge and apply the rules accordingly. The referee missed it, is there enough there to charge the player? It looked to me that he meant to catch the player with his foot and that it was dangerous. The United player certainly thought so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Draft that petition mate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would I draft a petition? The FA look at challenges themselves, they don't need petitions. Were you dropped on your head recently? Perhaps during the school holidays?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They won't look at it. You need to draft the petition so the rest of us can laugh at your desperation you sheite faced clown
posted on 25/4/19
Dangerous play and endangers the safety of an opponent are two different things within the laws.
"Violent conduct and endangering the safety of an opponent doesnt require any kind of force. You can be sent off for not even making contact."
Yes, but there was contact in this challenge, so taking into account the extent of the force is absolutely relevant.
I'm afraid this is another example of you not understanding the laws of the game, reading them online and thinking you do.
posted on 25/4/19
“My point is that you wouldn't be calling for this to be looked at if it didn't impact you.”
In other news, bear shiites in woods.
You don’t think this is the same of every fan of every club?
posted on 25/4/19
Oh and by the way TOOR, you're wrong - because violent conduct still requires an attempt at using excessive force or brutality - hence the degree of force in the challenge is relevant.
posted on 25/4/19
comment by Desperate Dier (U6468)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Desperate Dier (U6468)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 42 seconds ago
Lets be honest, you'd have no interest in this if it didn't potentially impact your season
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, so you actually don't care that there was a foul committed that wasn't punished.
Your only interest is because it could help Liverpool.
So why should people from outside of Liverpool care about it if you wouldn't under a different scenario?
There lies the real problem
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody is asking anybody to care. Only that the FA review the challenge and apply the rules accordingly. The referee missed it, is there enough there to charge the player? It looked to me that he meant to catch the player with his foot and that it was dangerous. The United player certainly thought so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Draft that petition mate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would I draft a petition? The FA look at challenges themselves, they don't need petitions. Were you dropped on your head recently? Perhaps during the school holidays?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They won't look at it. You need to draft the petition so the rest of us can laugh at your desperation you sheite faced clown
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why won't they look at it? That's the whole point of the roles, to look at challenges the referees miss. They may not punish the player but I see no reason why they won't look at it.
posted on 25/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
Dangerous play and endangers the safety of an opponent are two different things within the laws.
"Violent conduct and endangering the safety of an opponent doesnt require any kind of force. You can be sent off for not even making contact."
Yes, but there was contact in this challenge, so taking into account the extent of the force is absolutely relevant.
I'm afraid this is another example of you not understanding the laws of the game, reading them online and thinking you do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK. I thought dangerous play was the same as endangering the opponent. Struggling to see why it's different but anyhow, I therefore meant endangering an opponent.
The law doesn't say anything about force. It just says endangering the safety of an opponent which I'd say a kick to the chest/ribs area is doing. You'll notice the word 'or' and not 'and' in the law.
posted on 25/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
Oh and by the way TOOR, you're wrong - because violent conduct still requires an attempt at using excessive force or brutality - hence the degree of force in the challenge is relevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you sure about that? If you aim a punch at somebody and miss?
posted on 25/4/19
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
No worries - it could be worded better for sure.
The law talks about excessive force and brutality, which are of course linked to force.
And of course, to endanger the safety of an opponent you need to challenge with a certain amount of force. That's just common sense, surely?
posted on 25/4/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
Oh and by the way TOOR, you're wrong - because violent conduct still requires an attempt at using excessive force or brutality - hence the degree of force in the challenge is relevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you sure about that? If you aim a punch at somebody and miss?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeh, if you throw a punch then you've attempted to use brutality, so a bit different but same sort of thing.
posted on 25/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 14 seconds ago
“My point is that you wouldn't be calling for this to be looked at if it didn't impact you.”
In other news, bear shiites in woods.
You don’t think this is the same of every fan of every club?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is, his point is actually irrelevant to what we are talking about.
posted on 25/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 50 seconds ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
No worries - it could be worded better for sure.
The law talks about excessive force and brutality, which are of course linked to force.
And of course, to endanger the safety of an opponent you need to challenge with a certain amount of force. That's just common sense, surely?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd say kicking the player in the chest/ribs area is endangering the opponent, force and brutality comes after the word 'or' and therefore they don't also have to be satisfied. I think the force was enough to endanger the opponent, not excessive force or brutal but enough to endanger the safety of the opponent.
posted on 25/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
Oh and by the way TOOR, you're wrong - because violent conduct still requires an attempt at using excessive force or brutality - hence the degree of force in the challenge is relevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you sure about that? If you aim a punch at somebody and miss?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeh, if you throw a punch then you've attempted to use brutality, so a bit different but same sort of thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm. Yeah...you've also attempted to endanger the opponents safety?
posted on 25/4/19
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Fair enough, I don't.
I don't think he endangered his safety. The worst he'd get from that would be a red mark on his skin.
Re: violent conduct, I don't think endangering the safety of an opponent is relevant for that - it's off the ball and all about brutality / excessive force. Might be wrong but fairly sure that's the case.
posted on 25/4/19
Just to add, a reckless challenge is a yellow card offence.
So clearly there has to be something different between being reckless and endangering a player's safety.
Admittedly, it's open to interpretation, but I think the latter needs to be considerably more serious i.e. real danger of causing a serious injury.
posted on 25/4/19
Out of interest. If Silva has done the same tackle but it was lower down the body, catching the leg, would those saying it wasn’t a red still say the same?
posted on 25/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 52 seconds ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Fair enough, I don't.
I don't think he endangered his safety. The worst he'd get from that would be a red mark on his skin.
Re: violent conduct, I don't think endangering the safety of an opponent is relevant for that - it's off the ball and all about brutality / excessive force. Might be wrong but fairly sure that's the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think violent conduct would be unlikely but there was a particular angle that looked like at the last second he kicked out. I wouldn't have been surprised if a red card was given at the time. There was also a challenge from Lingard that was borderline. This produced a funny moment in which Neville sounded like he wanted Lingard sent off for the follow through but Carragher said it was perfectly normal to follow through in that way.
I don't know whether they were playing on it for the cameras and comedic value but it didn't see like Neville wanted United to lose and Carragher wanted them to win.
posted on 25/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
Just to add, a reckless challenge is a yellow card offence.
So clearly there has to be something different between being reckless and endangering a player's safety.
Admittedly, it's open to interpretation, but I think the latter needs to be considerably more serious i.e. real danger of causing a serious injury.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I read that and it seems stupid to me. Surely a reckless challenge is endangering the safety of an opponent?
posted on 25/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
Out of interest. If Silva has done the same tackle but it was lower down the body, catching the leg, would those saying it wasn’t a red still say the same?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is a strange scenario to think about as surely it's more dangerous the higher up the body you hit and yet if this had been on his leg, it would have likely produced a red card.
posted on 25/4/19
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
I do see what you mean - my first thought though was that he'd gone in like that to protect himself, as goalkeepers do sometimes. Definitely subjective though.
And yeh, reckless vs endangering the safety... hard for the average person to distinguish between the two and I would assume the referees are given guidance.
My interpretation has always been that the latter has a real chance of causing serious injury.
posted on 25/4/19
comment by FieldsofAnnieRd (U18971)
posted 3 minutes ago
Out of interest. If Silva has done the same tackle but it was lower down the body, catching the leg, would those saying it wasn’t a red still say the same?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitely.
posted on 25/4/19
How desperate are the Dippers? 😂
posted on 25/4/19
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
How desperate are the Dippers? 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boris
Think it was a red or not?
posted on 25/4/19
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
How desperate are the Dippers? 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly as desperate as this.
https://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/399596
posted on 25/4/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
How desperate are the Dippers? 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly as desperate as this.
https://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/399596
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Checkmate.
posted on 25/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky' Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
How desperate are the Dippers? 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly as desperate as this.
https://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/399596
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Checkmate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3 of 4