comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 21 minutes ago
You're missing the point of course.
If Nketiah's foul was accidental/unintentional (which it clearly was) then it never warranted a red card for serious foul play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that’s just plain wrong and if you read the serious foul play law, you’ll understand why.
Whoa, that's awful. Could've caused Mustafi a serious facial injury there.
How was that not reviewed, and the guy sent off?!
Vardy clearly has a look, lifts his leg and swings it at Mustafi. There is no way his leg should come up like that in a natural movement.
And look where his studs land on Mustafi's face. LAter in the game you could see the stud marks on his face. The vile cant missed Mustafis eye by maybe an inch. I dread to think what the outcome could have been if he put a stud in Mustafi's eye with that force.
https://twitter.com/afcstuff/status/1280659408171806720
Not too annoyed with Nketiah decision, he was unlucky as it’s sort of thing most players would do in that situation. He’s chasing ball down and trying to control it, but he was endangering the opponent, so it’s an understandable red.
Everyone agreed Nketiah one was accidental but it was still a red and still reviewed for ages. So I don’t know why Vardys wasn’t at least reviewed. Everyone after was saying he didn’t mean it it’s accidental Not a red and didn’t need reviewing. maybe it was accidental , but everyone also said that about Nketiah but agree it’s a red. It’s the inconsistencies of it all that’s frustrating
A Catalyst For Change (U7080)
It's not inconsistent with regards to intent - Nketiah was sent off for serious foul play, but Vardy's challenge would need to be reviewed for violent conduct.
I don't understand why people keep comparing the two.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 21 minutes ago
You're missing the point of course.
If Nketiah's foul was accidental/unintentional (which it clearly was) then it never warranted a red card for serious foul play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that’s just plain wrong and if you read the serious foul play law, you’ll understand why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know the serious foul play law, perhaps you should read up on it yourself:
"A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play."
Nketiah's challenge did not use excessive force or brutality, hence it was not serious foul play.
comment by A Catalyst For Change (U7080)
posted 4 minutes ago
Not too annoyed with Nketiah decision, he was unlucky as it’s sort of thing most players would do in that situation. He’s chasing ball down and trying to control it, but he was endangering the opponent, so it’s an understandable red.
Everyone agreed Nketiah one was accidental but it was still a red and still reviewed for ages. So I don’t know why Vardys wasn’t at least reviewed. Everyone after was saying he didn’t mean it it’s accidental Not a red and didn’t need reviewing. maybe it was accidental , but everyone also said that about Nketiah but agree it’s a red. It’s the inconsistencies of it all that’s frustrating
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nketiah went into to the challenge with his leg high and risking his opponent with the intention of winning the ball. He made the decision to do so.
You can’t honestly believe Vardy after tumbling to the ground with his opponent had a choice on both where he and his opponents bodies would end up and have the time to “swing” a stiff leg into the face of Mustafi?
The 2 scenarios are completely incomparable
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 21 minutes ago
You're missing the point of course.
If Nketiah's foul was accidental/unintentional (which it clearly was) then it never warranted a red card for serious foul play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that’s just plain wrong and if you read the serious foul play law, you’ll understand why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know the serious foul play law, perhaps you should read up on it yourself:
"A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play."
Nketiah's challenge did not use excessive force or brutality, hence it was not serious foul play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You obviously don't know it because otherwise you wouldn't keep referencing intent. Intent is irrelevant.
It's your opinion that it didn't meet the criteria - but that's not a fact and the referee disagreed with you.
I actually didn't think it was a red. But it's subjective and if you can't understand that then that is a problem when it comes to discussing refereeing decisions.
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 9 minutes ago
https://twitter.com/afcstuff/status/1280659408171806720
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disgusting. This whole thing is still making me sick to my stomach. The morons on here trying to defend the decision were anticipated tbh. Can't fix stupid
Quite clear to me. The Vardy incident is accidental; the Nketiah incident is reckless. The right decisions were made.
The boot marks on Mustafi's face are irrelevant/an improvement. Listen to Winston.
comment by Aster Ricks* (U22339)
posted 38 seconds ago
comment by A Catalyst For Change (U7080)
posted 4 minutes ago
Not too annoyed with Nketiah decision, he was unlucky as it’s sort of thing most players would do in that situation. He’s chasing ball down and trying to control it, but he was endangering the opponent, so it’s an understandable red.
Everyone agreed Nketiah one was accidental but it was still a red and still reviewed for ages. So I don’t know why Vardys wasn’t at least reviewed. Everyone after was saying he didn’t mean it it’s accidental Not a red and didn’t need reviewing. maybe it was accidental , but everyone also said that about Nketiah but agree it’s a red. It’s the inconsistencies of it all that’s frustrating
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nketiah went into to the challenge with his leg high and risking his opponent with the intention of winning the ball. He made the decision to do so.
You can’t honestly believe Vardy after tumbling to the ground with his opponent had a choice on both where he and his opponents bodies would end up and have the time to “swing” a stiff leg into the face of Mustafi?
The 2 scenarios are completely incomparable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you a complete idiot. How stupid do you have to be to not realise he meant it 100%?
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 29 seconds ago
Quite clear to me. The Vardy incident is accidental; the Nketiah incident is reckless. The right decisions were made.
The boot marks on Mustafi's face are irrelevant/an improvement. Listen to Winston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you fall on your front and then twist round and keep your leg outstretched. The momentum was generated by him spinning which he instigated on purpose to get force for the kick. Are you actually wumming?
Vardy is falling quite slowly to the ground but then flciks his right leg whilst spinning quite quickly. I worry for anyone's genuine well being if they thought it was an accident
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 21 minutes ago
You're missing the point of course.
If Nketiah's foul was accidental/unintentional (which it clearly was) then it never warranted a red card for serious foul play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that’s just plain wrong and if you read the serious foul play law, you’ll understand why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know the serious foul play law, perhaps you should read up on it yourself:
"A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play."
Nketiah's challenge did not use excessive force or brutality, hence it was not serious foul play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You obviously don't know it because otherwise you wouldn't keep referencing intent. Intent is irrelevant.
It's your opinion that it didn't meet the criteria - but that's not a fact and the referee disagreed with you.
I actually didn't think it was a red. But it's subjective and if you can't understand that then that is a problem when it comes to discussing refereeing decisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Determining intent is extremely relevant in determining whether it's serious foul play or not AND I didn't mention it in my last message so I'm not sure why you are getting your knickers in a twist about that.
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 21 minutes ago
You're missing the point of course.
If Nketiah's foul was accidental/unintentional (which it clearly was) then it never warranted a red card for serious foul play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that’s just plain wrong and if you read the serious foul play law, you’ll understand why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know the serious foul play law, perhaps you should read up on it yourself:
"A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play."
Nketiah's challenge did not use excessive force or brutality, hence it was not serious foul play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You obviously don't know it because otherwise you wouldn't keep referencing intent. Intent is irrelevant.
It's your opinion that it didn't meet the criteria - but that's not a fact and the referee disagreed with you.
I actually didn't think it was a red. But it's subjective and if you can't understand that then that is a problem when it comes to discussing refereeing decisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Determining intent is extremely relevant in determining whether it's serious foul play or not AND I didn't mention it in my last message so I'm not sure why you are getting your knickers in a twist about that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not getting my knickers in a twist and no, it isn't at all.
You can argue all you like - the laws of the game are not a matter of opinion and are there for everyone to read.
I've seen players given a yellow or no yellow at all hundreds of times for a late challenge just like Nketiah's, no intent to harm the opponent and even trying to retract the leg at the last moment when the player realises he's about to make contact like Nketiah did but of course when one of our players does it, it's serious foul play and a straight red following VAR.
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 1 minute ago
I've seen players given a yellow or no yellow at all hundreds of times for a late challenge just like Nketiah's, no intent to harm the opponent and even trying to retract the leg at the last moment when the player realises he's about to make contact like Nketiah did but of course when one of our players does it, it's serious foul play and a straight red following VAR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, must be biased against Arsenal I guess.
Have a nice day.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 21 minutes ago
You're missing the point of course.
If Nketiah's foul was accidental/unintentional (which it clearly was) then it never warranted a red card for serious foul play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that’s just plain wrong and if you read the serious foul play law, you’ll understand why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know the serious foul play law, perhaps you should read up on it yourself:
"A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play."
Nketiah's challenge did not use excessive force or brutality, hence it was not serious foul play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You obviously don't know it because otherwise you wouldn't keep referencing intent. Intent is irrelevant.
It's your opinion that it didn't meet the criteria - but that's not a fact and the referee disagreed with you.
I actually didn't think it was a red. But it's subjective and if you can't understand that then that is a problem when it comes to discussing refereeing decisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Determining intent is extremely relevant in determining whether it's serious foul play or not AND I didn't mention it in my last message so I'm not sure why you are getting your knickers in a twist about that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not getting my knickers in a twist and no, it isn't at all.
You can argue all you like - the laws of the game are not a matter of opinion and are there for everyone to read.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All written laws are open to some degree of interpretation be they football or not and particularly in this case.
http://proreferees.com/2017/10/25/play-of-the-week-33-serious-foul-play/
Serious Foul Play
“A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
“Any player who lunges at an opponent for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or two legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.”
At last week’s PRO referees camp, we discussed many tackles and challenges; some were serious foul play and others were not. One of our main responsibilities is to protect players from unfair play.
Referees have to be able to judge the difference between those challenges that are fair from those that are not and to consider when an unfair challenge is committed with excessive force. Brutal actions involving excessive force (violence, endangering the safety of an opponent) must always result in a red card!
It is always important to go through these considerations when deciding if a challenge is deemed Serious Foul Play.
Fouls: careless, reckless, using excessive force/Violent conduct
Does the player show a lack of attention or consideration when making his challenge?
Does the player act without precaution when making the challenge?
Does the player act with complete disregard of the danger to his opponent?
Does the player have a chance of playing the ball in a fair manner?
Does the player far exceed the necessary use of force when making the challenge? What degree of speed and/or intensity is the player using when making the challenge?
Does the player show clear malice when making the challenge?
Does the player lunge at an opponent?
Is the challenge clearly endangering the safety of the opponent?
So funny when someone is so sure they are right but are just talking s|-|it.
FYI, Intent is relevant in almost all refereeing decisions
So how many points have refs and VAR costed us this season? I'd make that at least 10.
Yesterday game of course.
Crystal Palace away- January 2020- VAR sends Auba off yet a Palace player later did A similar challenge and got away with it. Final score was 1-1
Sheffield United home- January 2020- Pepe clearly fouled and it should have been a pen. VAR looks at it but somehow doesn't give the pen. The commentators all expected it to be given. Final score was 1-1
Southampton home- November 2019- Southampton first goal the ball moved 5 yards forwards when quick free-kick was taken which led to the opening goal. This should have been disallowed. Final score 2-2
Crystal Palace home- October 2019- Palace get a pen given from VAR which is marginal. Arsenal then denied a winning goal by VAR despite the fact Chambers if anything was the man fouled. Final score 2-2
Sheffield United away- October 2019- Sokratis was clearly fouled and we should have been given a pen but yet somehow VAR doesn't look at it. Final score 1-0 win for Sheffield United.
Watford away September 2019- First goal Watford scored one of there players was slightly in our box when we had a goalkick. They score 5 seconds later due to mistake by Leno and Sokratis but goal should have been disallowed due to player initially being in our box when goalkick was taken. Final score- 2-2 draw
Clear red for Vardy. He kicks out just before touching Mustafi. Robbed
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
Quite clear to me. The Vardy incident is accidental; the Nketiah incident is reckless. The right decisions were made.
The boot marks on Mustafi's face are irrelevant/an improvement. Listen to Winston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://images.app.goo.gl/FcFs2VmLrzHKtjbQ9
Clearly show Vardy reaching for contact.
If you seriously believe it was accidental, then, quite frankly, you are an idiot.
comment by Arsenal_49 (U10665)
posted 55 minutes ago
So how many points have refs and VAR costed us this season? I'd make that at least 10.
Yesterday game of course.
Crystal Palace away- January 2020- VAR sends Auba off yet a Palace player later did A similar challenge and got away with it. Final score was 1-1
Sheffield United home- January 2020- Pepe clearly fouled and it should have been a pen. VAR looks at it but somehow doesn't give the pen. The commentators all expected it to be given. Final score was 1-1
Southampton home- November 2019- Southampton first goal the ball moved 5 yards forwards when quick free-kick was taken which led to the opening goal. This should have been disallowed. Final score 2-2
Crystal Palace home- October 2019- Palace get a pen given from VAR which is marginal. Arsenal then denied a winning goal by VAR despite the fact Chambers if anything was the man fouled. Final score 2-2
Sheffield United away- October 2019- Sokratis was clearly fouled and we should have been given a pen but yet somehow VAR doesn't look at it. Final score 1-0 win for Sheffield United.
Watford away September 2019- First goal Watford scored one of there players was slightly in our box when we had a goalkick. They score 5 seconds later due to mistake by Leno and Sokratis but goal should have been disallowed due to player initially being in our box when goalkick was taken. Final score- 2-2 draw
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice work, forgot some of these
Isn't it funny we thought var would stop the cheating against us but it's actually made it worse. So disheartening. If I was a player I'd seriously consider not joining as you will never get the rub of the green.
Sign in if you want to comment
For anyone who missed it.
Page 6 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 8/7/20
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 21 minutes ago
You're missing the point of course.
If Nketiah's foul was accidental/unintentional (which it clearly was) then it never warranted a red card for serious foul play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that’s just plain wrong and if you read the serious foul play law, you’ll understand why.
posted on 8/7/20
Whoa, that's awful. Could've caused Mustafi a serious facial injury there.
How was that not reviewed, and the guy sent off?!
posted on 8/7/20
Vardy clearly has a look, lifts his leg and swings it at Mustafi. There is no way his leg should come up like that in a natural movement.
And look where his studs land on Mustafi's face. LAter in the game you could see the stud marks on his face. The vile cant missed Mustafis eye by maybe an inch. I dread to think what the outcome could have been if he put a stud in Mustafi's eye with that force.
posted on 8/7/20
https://twitter.com/afcstuff/status/1280659408171806720
posted on 8/7/20
Not too annoyed with Nketiah decision, he was unlucky as it’s sort of thing most players would do in that situation. He’s chasing ball down and trying to control it, but he was endangering the opponent, so it’s an understandable red.
Everyone agreed Nketiah one was accidental but it was still a red and still reviewed for ages. So I don’t know why Vardys wasn’t at least reviewed. Everyone after was saying he didn’t mean it it’s accidental Not a red and didn’t need reviewing. maybe it was accidental , but everyone also said that about Nketiah but agree it’s a red. It’s the inconsistencies of it all that’s frustrating
posted on 8/7/20
A Catalyst For Change (U7080)
It's not inconsistent with regards to intent - Nketiah was sent off for serious foul play, but Vardy's challenge would need to be reviewed for violent conduct.
I don't understand why people keep comparing the two.
posted on 8/7/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 21 minutes ago
You're missing the point of course.
If Nketiah's foul was accidental/unintentional (which it clearly was) then it never warranted a red card for serious foul play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that’s just plain wrong and if you read the serious foul play law, you’ll understand why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know the serious foul play law, perhaps you should read up on it yourself:
"A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play."
Nketiah's challenge did not use excessive force or brutality, hence it was not serious foul play.
posted on 8/7/20
comment by A Catalyst For Change (U7080)
posted 4 minutes ago
Not too annoyed with Nketiah decision, he was unlucky as it’s sort of thing most players would do in that situation. He’s chasing ball down and trying to control it, but he was endangering the opponent, so it’s an understandable red.
Everyone agreed Nketiah one was accidental but it was still a red and still reviewed for ages. So I don’t know why Vardys wasn’t at least reviewed. Everyone after was saying he didn’t mean it it’s accidental Not a red and didn’t need reviewing. maybe it was accidental , but everyone also said that about Nketiah but agree it’s a red. It’s the inconsistencies of it all that’s frustrating
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nketiah went into to the challenge with his leg high and risking his opponent with the intention of winning the ball. He made the decision to do so.
You can’t honestly believe Vardy after tumbling to the ground with his opponent had a choice on both where he and his opponents bodies would end up and have the time to “swing” a stiff leg into the face of Mustafi?
The 2 scenarios are completely incomparable
posted on 8/7/20
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 21 minutes ago
You're missing the point of course.
If Nketiah's foul was accidental/unintentional (which it clearly was) then it never warranted a red card for serious foul play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that’s just plain wrong and if you read the serious foul play law, you’ll understand why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know the serious foul play law, perhaps you should read up on it yourself:
"A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play."
Nketiah's challenge did not use excessive force or brutality, hence it was not serious foul play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You obviously don't know it because otherwise you wouldn't keep referencing intent. Intent is irrelevant.
It's your opinion that it didn't meet the criteria - but that's not a fact and the referee disagreed with you.
I actually didn't think it was a red. But it's subjective and if you can't understand that then that is a problem when it comes to discussing refereeing decisions.
posted on 8/7/20
comment by Sir Digby (U6039)
posted 9 minutes ago
https://twitter.com/afcstuff/status/1280659408171806720
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disgusting. This whole thing is still making me sick to my stomach. The morons on here trying to defend the decision were anticipated tbh. Can't fix stupid
posted on 8/7/20
Quite clear to me. The Vardy incident is accidental; the Nketiah incident is reckless. The right decisions were made.
The boot marks on Mustafi's face are irrelevant/an improvement. Listen to Winston.
posted on 8/7/20
comment by Aster Ricks* (U22339)
posted 38 seconds ago
comment by A Catalyst For Change (U7080)
posted 4 minutes ago
Not too annoyed with Nketiah decision, he was unlucky as it’s sort of thing most players would do in that situation. He’s chasing ball down and trying to control it, but he was endangering the opponent, so it’s an understandable red.
Everyone agreed Nketiah one was accidental but it was still a red and still reviewed for ages. So I don’t know why Vardys wasn’t at least reviewed. Everyone after was saying he didn’t mean it it’s accidental Not a red and didn’t need reviewing. maybe it was accidental , but everyone also said that about Nketiah but agree it’s a red. It’s the inconsistencies of it all that’s frustrating
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nketiah went into to the challenge with his leg high and risking his opponent with the intention of winning the ball. He made the decision to do so.
You can’t honestly believe Vardy after tumbling to the ground with his opponent had a choice on both where he and his opponents bodies would end up and have the time to “swing” a stiff leg into the face of Mustafi?
The 2 scenarios are completely incomparable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you a complete idiot. How stupid do you have to be to not realise he meant it 100%?
posted on 8/7/20
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 29 seconds ago
Quite clear to me. The Vardy incident is accidental; the Nketiah incident is reckless. The right decisions were made.
The boot marks on Mustafi's face are irrelevant/an improvement. Listen to Winston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would you fall on your front and then twist round and keep your leg outstretched. The momentum was generated by him spinning which he instigated on purpose to get force for the kick. Are you actually wumming?
posted on 8/7/20
Vardy is falling quite slowly to the ground but then flciks his right leg whilst spinning quite quickly. I worry for anyone's genuine well being if they thought it was an accident
posted on 8/7/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 21 minutes ago
You're missing the point of course.
If Nketiah's foul was accidental/unintentional (which it clearly was) then it never warranted a red card for serious foul play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that’s just plain wrong and if you read the serious foul play law, you’ll understand why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know the serious foul play law, perhaps you should read up on it yourself:
"A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play."
Nketiah's challenge did not use excessive force or brutality, hence it was not serious foul play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You obviously don't know it because otherwise you wouldn't keep referencing intent. Intent is irrelevant.
It's your opinion that it didn't meet the criteria - but that's not a fact and the referee disagreed with you.
I actually didn't think it was a red. But it's subjective and if you can't understand that then that is a problem when it comes to discussing refereeing decisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Determining intent is extremely relevant in determining whether it's serious foul play or not AND I didn't mention it in my last message so I'm not sure why you are getting your knickers in a twist about that.
posted on 8/7/20
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 21 minutes ago
You're missing the point of course.
If Nketiah's foul was accidental/unintentional (which it clearly was) then it never warranted a red card for serious foul play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that’s just plain wrong and if you read the serious foul play law, you’ll understand why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know the serious foul play law, perhaps you should read up on it yourself:
"A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play."
Nketiah's challenge did not use excessive force or brutality, hence it was not serious foul play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You obviously don't know it because otherwise you wouldn't keep referencing intent. Intent is irrelevant.
It's your opinion that it didn't meet the criteria - but that's not a fact and the referee disagreed with you.
I actually didn't think it was a red. But it's subjective and if you can't understand that then that is a problem when it comes to discussing refereeing decisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Determining intent is extremely relevant in determining whether it's serious foul play or not AND I didn't mention it in my last message so I'm not sure why you are getting your knickers in a twist about that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not getting my knickers in a twist and no, it isn't at all.
You can argue all you like - the laws of the game are not a matter of opinion and are there for everyone to read.
posted on 8/7/20
I've seen players given a yellow or no yellow at all hundreds of times for a late challenge just like Nketiah's, no intent to harm the opponent and even trying to retract the leg at the last moment when the player realises he's about to make contact like Nketiah did but of course when one of our players does it, it's serious foul play and a straight red following VAR.
posted on 8/7/20
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 1 minute ago
I've seen players given a yellow or no yellow at all hundreds of times for a late challenge just like Nketiah's, no intent to harm the opponent and even trying to retract the leg at the last moment when the player realises he's about to make contact like Nketiah did but of course when one of our players does it, it's serious foul play and a straight red following VAR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, must be biased against Arsenal I guess.
Have a nice day.
posted on 8/7/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by You Can't Buy Class (U12019)
posted 21 minutes ago
You're missing the point of course.
If Nketiah's foul was accidental/unintentional (which it clearly was) then it never warranted a red card for serious foul play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that’s just plain wrong and if you read the serious foul play law, you’ll understand why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know the serious foul play law, perhaps you should read up on it yourself:
"A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play."
Nketiah's challenge did not use excessive force or brutality, hence it was not serious foul play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You obviously don't know it because otherwise you wouldn't keep referencing intent. Intent is irrelevant.
It's your opinion that it didn't meet the criteria - but that's not a fact and the referee disagreed with you.
I actually didn't think it was a red. But it's subjective and if you can't understand that then that is a problem when it comes to discussing refereeing decisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Determining intent is extremely relevant in determining whether it's serious foul play or not AND I didn't mention it in my last message so I'm not sure why you are getting your knickers in a twist about that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not getting my knickers in a twist and no, it isn't at all.
You can argue all you like - the laws of the game are not a matter of opinion and are there for everyone to read.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All written laws are open to some degree of interpretation be they football or not and particularly in this case.
http://proreferees.com/2017/10/25/play-of-the-week-33-serious-foul-play/
Serious Foul Play
“A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
“Any player who lunges at an opponent for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or two legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.”
At last week’s PRO referees camp, we discussed many tackles and challenges; some were serious foul play and others were not. One of our main responsibilities is to protect players from unfair play.
Referees have to be able to judge the difference between those challenges that are fair from those that are not and to consider when an unfair challenge is committed with excessive force. Brutal actions involving excessive force (violence, endangering the safety of an opponent) must always result in a red card!
It is always important to go through these considerations when deciding if a challenge is deemed Serious Foul Play.
Fouls: careless, reckless, using excessive force/Violent conduct
Does the player show a lack of attention or consideration when making his challenge?
Does the player act without precaution when making the challenge?
Does the player act with complete disregard of the danger to his opponent?
Does the player have a chance of playing the ball in a fair manner?
Does the player far exceed the necessary use of force when making the challenge? What degree of speed and/or intensity is the player using when making the challenge?
Does the player show clear malice when making the challenge?
Does the player lunge at an opponent?
Is the challenge clearly endangering the safety of the opponent?
So funny when someone is so sure they are right but are just talking s|-|it.
posted on 8/7/20
#KnickersTwisted
posted on 8/7/20
FYI, Intent is relevant in almost all refereeing decisions
posted on 8/7/20
So how many points have refs and VAR costed us this season? I'd make that at least 10.
Yesterday game of course.
Crystal Palace away- January 2020- VAR sends Auba off yet a Palace player later did A similar challenge and got away with it. Final score was 1-1
Sheffield United home- January 2020- Pepe clearly fouled and it should have been a pen. VAR looks at it but somehow doesn't give the pen. The commentators all expected it to be given. Final score was 1-1
Southampton home- November 2019- Southampton first goal the ball moved 5 yards forwards when quick free-kick was taken which led to the opening goal. This should have been disallowed. Final score 2-2
Crystal Palace home- October 2019- Palace get a pen given from VAR which is marginal. Arsenal then denied a winning goal by VAR despite the fact Chambers if anything was the man fouled. Final score 2-2
Sheffield United away- October 2019- Sokratis was clearly fouled and we should have been given a pen but yet somehow VAR doesn't look at it. Final score 1-0 win for Sheffield United.
Watford away September 2019- First goal Watford scored one of there players was slightly in our box when we had a goalkick. They score 5 seconds later due to mistake by Leno and Sokratis but goal should have been disallowed due to player initially being in our box when goalkick was taken. Final score- 2-2 draw
posted on 8/7/20
Clear red for Vardy. He kicks out just before touching Mustafi. Robbed
posted on 8/7/20
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
Quite clear to me. The Vardy incident is accidental; the Nketiah incident is reckless. The right decisions were made.
The boot marks on Mustafi's face are irrelevant/an improvement. Listen to Winston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://images.app.goo.gl/FcFs2VmLrzHKtjbQ9
Clearly show Vardy reaching for contact.
If you seriously believe it was accidental, then, quite frankly, you are an idiot.
posted on 8/7/20
comment by Arsenal_49 (U10665)
posted 55 minutes ago
So how many points have refs and VAR costed us this season? I'd make that at least 10.
Yesterday game of course.
Crystal Palace away- January 2020- VAR sends Auba off yet a Palace player later did A similar challenge and got away with it. Final score was 1-1
Sheffield United home- January 2020- Pepe clearly fouled and it should have been a pen. VAR looks at it but somehow doesn't give the pen. The commentators all expected it to be given. Final score was 1-1
Southampton home- November 2019- Southampton first goal the ball moved 5 yards forwards when quick free-kick was taken which led to the opening goal. This should have been disallowed. Final score 2-2
Crystal Palace home- October 2019- Palace get a pen given from VAR which is marginal. Arsenal then denied a winning goal by VAR despite the fact Chambers if anything was the man fouled. Final score 2-2
Sheffield United away- October 2019- Sokratis was clearly fouled and we should have been given a pen but yet somehow VAR doesn't look at it. Final score 1-0 win for Sheffield United.
Watford away September 2019- First goal Watford scored one of there players was slightly in our box when we had a goalkick. They score 5 seconds later due to mistake by Leno and Sokratis but goal should have been disallowed due to player initially being in our box when goalkick was taken. Final score- 2-2 draw
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice work, forgot some of these
Isn't it funny we thought var would stop the cheating against us but it's actually made it worse. So disheartening. If I was a player I'd seriously consider not joining as you will never get the rub of the green.
Page 6 of 8
6 | 7 | 8