comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 second ago
Could he not just have been trying to get a foot on the ball to try and stop the clearance and keep the ball up their end?
….
That is exactly what he was trying to do. It was bloody obvious if you watch the replay. And that is quite clearly what VAR determined.
No idea what RR is on about to be honest. You don’t have to be a professional footballer to know how to foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This wouldn't be what VAR determined at all, as intent is not in the law. The referee has to consider whether the challenge endangered the safety of the opponent and therefore is serious foul play. In my view this was the case.
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 second ago
Could he not just have been trying to get a foot on the ball to try and stop the clearance and keep the ball up their end?
….
That is exactly what he was trying to do. It was bloody obvious if you watch the replay. And that is quite clearly what VAR determined.
No idea what RR is on about to be honest. You don’t have to be a professional footballer to know how to foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This wouldn't be what VAR determined at all, as intent is not in the law. The referee has to consider whether the challenge endangered the safety of the opponent and therefore is serious foul play. In my view this was the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In their view it wasn’t. Case closed
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 48 seconds ago
Could he not just have been trying to get a foot on the ball to try and stop the clearance and keep the ball up their end?
….
That is exactly what he was trying to do. It was bloody obvious if you watch the replay. And that is quite clearly what VAR determined.
No idea what RR is on about to be honest. You don’t have to be a professional footballer to know how to foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I realised after I wrote that response that RR was (I think) paraphrasing Souness sarcastically. His next post says he doesn't think there was evidence of intent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t ever listen to Souness so would have no idea. If that is the case then fair enough RR.
Funnily enough the former dip pundit that I had commentating the game, Jim Beglin was of the same opinion and wouldn’t shut up about it. It was like they don’t understand what they are seeing in these replays.
This is very common with Beglin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Beglin is a clown. Glad he's no longer on Irish tv.
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 30 minutes ago
If you had played professional football, Winston, you'd know: if he's side on, he's meant it. End of.
Personally, I thought it could have gone either way. There wasn't much force, but the trajectory of the challenge meant it wouldn't require much more to have resulted in a nasty injury.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Could he not just have been trying to get a foot on the ball to try and stop the clearance and keep the ball up their end?
I agree it could have caused injury as Faes had his foot planted, and it definitely could have been a red, but I still think it was more of a waved leg than anything deliberate or violent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it matters what you tried to do, just what you did. What he did was catch the player high up the leg, with a straight leg, studs first. To me that's a red card.
Think Nani, when he tried to control the ball in the CL, or Mane when he tried to control the ball but Ederson came charging in face first and Mane caught Ederson's face. Both reds.
Although as I said before, it's a subjective one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't think it matters what you tried to do, just what you did."
It matters if you're talking about intent, which I was. As I said, it could conceivably have been a red given what actually happened but I think a yellow might have been enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does it? Intent is not something which is considered in the law. Otherwise Nani wouldn't have been sent off, nether Mane, despite endangering the safety of their opponent as they simply intended to control the ball.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 48 seconds ago
Could he not just have been trying to get a foot on the ball to try and stop the clearance and keep the ball up their end?
….
That is exactly what he was trying to do. It was bloody obvious if you watch the replay. And that is quite clearly what VAR determined.
No idea what RR is on about to be honest. You don’t have to be a professional footballer to know how to foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I realised after I wrote that response that RR was (I think) paraphrasing Souness sarcastically. His next post says he doesn't think there was evidence of intent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t ever listen to Souness so would have no idea. If that is the case then fair enough RR.
Funnily enough the former dip pundit that I had commentating the game, Jim Beglin was of the same opinion and wouldn’t shut up about it. It was like they don’t understand what they are seeing in these replays.
This is very common with Beglin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I like Souness but he is completely biased when it comes to United. He always sees the negative where he would see the positive if it was a different player at a different club. It's hilarious, well for me anyway. I'm sure it's annoying for United fans.
I like Souness
———
This comes as a shock to absolutely nobody.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 second ago
Could he not just have been trying to get a foot on the ball to try and stop the clearance and keep the ball up their end?
….
That is exactly what he was trying to do. It was bloody obvious if you watch the replay. And that is quite clearly what VAR determined.
No idea what RR is on about to be honest. You don’t have to be a professional footballer to know how to foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This wouldn't be what VAR determined at all, as intent is not in the law. The referee has to consider whether the challenge endangered the safety of the opponent and therefore is serious foul play. In my view this was the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In their view it wasn’t. Case closed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes the case is closed. That doesn't mean the debate about it is closed. I saw RR stating 20% of referees may have given a red, I think it would be closer to 50%. Due to it being subjective, VAR was not going to get involved there so saying 'their' unless you think the referee is non-binary, doesn't really give the full picture.
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 30 minutes ago
If you had played professional football, Winston, you'd know: if he's side on, he's meant it. End of.
Personally, I thought it could have gone either way. There wasn't much force, but the trajectory of the challenge meant it wouldn't require much more to have resulted in a nasty injury.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Could he not just have been trying to get a foot on the ball to try and stop the clearance and keep the ball up their end?
I agree it could have caused injury as Faes had his foot planted, and it definitely could have been a red, but I still think it was more of a waved leg than anything deliberate or violent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it matters what you tried to do, just what you did. What he did was catch the player high up the leg, with a straight leg, studs first. To me that's a red card.
Think Nani, when he tried to control the ball in the CL, or Mane when he tried to control the ball but Ederson came charging in face first and Mane caught Ederson's face. Both reds.
Although as I said before, it's a subjective one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't think it matters what you tried to do, just what you did."
It matters if you're talking about intent, which I was. As I said, it could conceivably have been a red given what actually happened but I think a yellow might have been enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does it? Intent is not something which is considered in the law. Otherwise Nani wouldn't have been sent off, nether Mane, despite endangering the safety of their opponent as they simply intended to control the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was responding specifically to the point above, which references Souness's assertion that he meant it. Regardless of how much that matters overall, I was simply saying it didn't look like he meant it.
Souness just comes across as an arrogant kn0b.
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 30 minutes ago
If you had played professional football, Winston, you'd know: if he's side on, he's meant it. End of.
Personally, I thought it could have gone either way. There wasn't much force, but the trajectory of the challenge meant it wouldn't require much more to have resulted in a nasty injury.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Could he not just have been trying to get a foot on the ball to try and stop the clearance and keep the ball up their end?
I agree it could have caused injury as Faes had his foot planted, and it definitely could have been a red, but I still think it was more of a waved leg than anything deliberate or violent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it matters what you tried to do, just what you did. What he did was catch the player high up the leg, with a straight leg, studs first. To me that's a red card.
Think Nani, when he tried to control the ball in the CL, or Mane when he tried to control the ball but Ederson came charging in face first and Mane caught Ederson's face. Both reds.
Although as I said before, it's a subjective one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't think it matters what you tried to do, just what you did."
It matters if you're talking about intent, which I was. As I said, it could conceivably have been a red given what actually happened but I think a yellow might have been enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does it? Intent is not something which is considered in the law. Otherwise Nani wouldn't have been sent off, nether Mane, despite endangering the safety of their opponent as they simply intended to control the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was responding specifically to the point above, which references Souness's assertion that he meant it. Regardless of how much that matters overall, I was simply saying it didn't look like he meant it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah! Difficult to say if he meant it but he does bring his leg higher up, just before contact, which doesn't seem natural, after the ball has already gone. This may be slow motion making it look worse but I struggle to see how he doesn't mean it looking at the replays.
Dermot Gallagher - "Extremely lucky, I think it’s a red card, if you put your studs into somebody’s knee that high. I think it’s dangerous."
"What I would say is the one thing it can’t be free kick only, it’s just not possible. So I think the referee should punish on the field, l think red card."
"Whether there is enough for the VAR because he thinks he has come from a short distance, maybe he doesn’t think there’s the impact.
"But it’s all about the referee’s decision. If the referee gives a red card on the field for that and it gets thrown to VAR it will never get overturned."
It's ridiculous that some people think it's not a red card according to the laws, no debate to be had. It's certainly a subjective one that absolutely could have been a red card and in my view should have been. In fact it's worse than Fabinho's one that people went crazy about the other week.
Red for everyone else not even a ticking off for United players. It's Sabitzer's fault Nick Pope can't play.
In fact it's worse than Fabinho's one that people went crazy about the other week
----------
No way. If we're talking about likelihood of injury, I'd rather be on the receiving end of Sabitzer's than Fabinho's any day of the week.
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 7 minutes ago
Dermot Gallagher - "Extremely lucky, I think it’s a red card, if you put your studs into somebody’s knee that high. I think it’s dangerous."
"What I would say is the one thing it can’t be free kick only, it’s just not possible. So I think the referee should punish on the field, l think red card."
"Whether there is enough for the VAR because he thinks he has come from a short distance, maybe he doesn’t think there’s the impact.
"But it’s all about the referee’s decision. If the referee gives a red card on the field for that and it gets thrown to VAR it will never get overturned."
It's ridiculous that some people think it's not a red card according to the laws, no debate to be had. It's certainly a subjective one that absolutely could have been a red card and in my view should have been. In fact it's worse than Fabinho's one that people went crazy about the other week.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Come on, Garth. Be reasonable.
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 2 minutes ago
In fact it's worse than Fabinho's one that people went crazy about the other week
----------
No way. If we're talking about likelihood of injury, I'd rather be on the receiving end of Sabitzer's than Fabinho's any day of the week.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This. The worst Sabitzer's one could have done is hurt slightly unless you're made of absolute weetabix.
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 26 minutes ago
Problem is that Shaw’s probably been a more useful back up to Martinez because ETH likes a left footer at cb. So considering that, we could do with signing one. That makes Lindelof redundant because he’s not good enough to back up Varane on the right side. A back up left footer and a guy that can challenge Varane are needed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I definitely don't see Varane as one of the problem areas of the first XI that urgently need addressing, but I do think there's an opportunity to recruit a back-up RCB who is superior to him in some aspects (press resistance, passing) while providing adequate cover for the defensive aspects of his game.
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 2 minutes ago
In fact it's worse than Fabinho's one that people went crazy about the other week
----------
No way. If we're talking about likelihood of injury, I'd rather be on the receiving end of Sabitzer's than Fabinho's any day of the week.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This. The worst Sabitzer's one could have done is hurt slightly unless you're made of absolute weetabix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wout is short for Woutabix though.
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 7 minutes ago
In fact it's worse than Fabinho's one that people went crazy about the other week
----------
No way. If we're talking about likelihood of injury, I'd rather be on the receiving end of Sabitzer's than Fabinho's any day of the week.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? Not for me.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 48 seconds ago
Could he not just have been trying to get a foot on the ball to try and stop the clearance and keep the ball up their end?
….
That is exactly what he was trying to do. It was bloody obvious if you watch the replay. And that is quite clearly what VAR determined.
No idea what RR is on about to be honest. You don’t have to be a professional footballer to know how to foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I realised after I wrote that response that RR was (I think) paraphrasing Souness sarcastically. His next post says he doesn't think there was evidence of intent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t ever listen to Souness so would have no idea. If that is the case then fair enough RR.
Funnily enough the former dip pundit that I had commentating the game, Jim Beglin was of the same opinion and wouldn’t shut up about it. It was like they don’t understand what they are seeing in these replays.
This is very common with Beglin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Souness was hilarious. As I've made clear above, I can see an argument for a red card - would have been soft but I wouldn't have been flabbergasted. It was the eruption of emotion as he asserted that his insight as professional footballer trumped that of a professional referee, and that Sabitzer's side-on stance was the smoking gun.
The Fabinho one would be extremely painful but never likely to cause a lasting injury. The Sabitzer one was high up the leg and could have resulted in the player being out for the rest of the season.
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 7 minutes ago
In fact it's worse than Fabinho's one that people went crazy about the other week
----------
No way. If we're talking about likelihood of injury, I'd rather be on the receiving end of Sabitzer's than Fabinho's any day of the week.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? Not for me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The lad Fabinho chopped down was out for about 2 weeks
Faes finished the game yesterday
comment by Roy's Keane (U11635)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 7 minutes ago
In fact it's worse than Fabinho's one that people went crazy about the other week
----------
No way. If we're talking about likelihood of injury, I'd rather be on the receiving end of Sabitzer's than Fabinho's any day of the week.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? Not for me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The lad Fabinho chopped down was out for about 2 weeks
Faes finished the game yesterday
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was just about to say the same.
To be fair to TOOR, he said 'could have'. What he meant was it could have resulted in the player being out for the rest of the season had Sabitzer had chainsaws attached to his legs.
Fabinho could have ended Ferguson's career. Sabitzer could have squashed a fly that had landed on Faes' leg. Both equally dangerous imho.
comment by Jalisco Red - Total Hagball (U4195)
posted 32 seconds ago
Fabinho could have ended Ferguson's career. Sabitzer could have squashed a fly that had landed on Faes' leg. Both equally dangerous imho.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sign in if you want to comment
Sabitzer
Page 5 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 20/2/23
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 second ago
Could he not just have been trying to get a foot on the ball to try and stop the clearance and keep the ball up their end?
….
That is exactly what he was trying to do. It was bloody obvious if you watch the replay. And that is quite clearly what VAR determined.
No idea what RR is on about to be honest. You don’t have to be a professional footballer to know how to foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This wouldn't be what VAR determined at all, as intent is not in the law. The referee has to consider whether the challenge endangered the safety of the opponent and therefore is serious foul play. In my view this was the case.
posted on 20/2/23
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 second ago
Could he not just have been trying to get a foot on the ball to try and stop the clearance and keep the ball up their end?
….
That is exactly what he was trying to do. It was bloody obvious if you watch the replay. And that is quite clearly what VAR determined.
No idea what RR is on about to be honest. You don’t have to be a professional footballer to know how to foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This wouldn't be what VAR determined at all, as intent is not in the law. The referee has to consider whether the challenge endangered the safety of the opponent and therefore is serious foul play. In my view this was the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In their view it wasn’t. Case closed
posted on 20/2/23
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 48 seconds ago
Could he not just have been trying to get a foot on the ball to try and stop the clearance and keep the ball up their end?
….
That is exactly what he was trying to do. It was bloody obvious if you watch the replay. And that is quite clearly what VAR determined.
No idea what RR is on about to be honest. You don’t have to be a professional footballer to know how to foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I realised after I wrote that response that RR was (I think) paraphrasing Souness sarcastically. His next post says he doesn't think there was evidence of intent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t ever listen to Souness so would have no idea. If that is the case then fair enough RR.
Funnily enough the former dip pundit that I had commentating the game, Jim Beglin was of the same opinion and wouldn’t shut up about it. It was like they don’t understand what they are seeing in these replays.
This is very common with Beglin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Beglin is a clown. Glad he's no longer on Irish tv.
posted on 20/2/23
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 30 minutes ago
If you had played professional football, Winston, you'd know: if he's side on, he's meant it. End of.
Personally, I thought it could have gone either way. There wasn't much force, but the trajectory of the challenge meant it wouldn't require much more to have resulted in a nasty injury.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Could he not just have been trying to get a foot on the ball to try and stop the clearance and keep the ball up their end?
I agree it could have caused injury as Faes had his foot planted, and it definitely could have been a red, but I still think it was more of a waved leg than anything deliberate or violent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it matters what you tried to do, just what you did. What he did was catch the player high up the leg, with a straight leg, studs first. To me that's a red card.
Think Nani, when he tried to control the ball in the CL, or Mane when he tried to control the ball but Ederson came charging in face first and Mane caught Ederson's face. Both reds.
Although as I said before, it's a subjective one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't think it matters what you tried to do, just what you did."
It matters if you're talking about intent, which I was. As I said, it could conceivably have been a red given what actually happened but I think a yellow might have been enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does it? Intent is not something which is considered in the law. Otherwise Nani wouldn't have been sent off, nether Mane, despite endangering the safety of their opponent as they simply intended to control the ball.
posted on 20/2/23
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 48 seconds ago
Could he not just have been trying to get a foot on the ball to try and stop the clearance and keep the ball up their end?
….
That is exactly what he was trying to do. It was bloody obvious if you watch the replay. And that is quite clearly what VAR determined.
No idea what RR is on about to be honest. You don’t have to be a professional footballer to know how to foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I realised after I wrote that response that RR was (I think) paraphrasing Souness sarcastically. His next post says he doesn't think there was evidence of intent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t ever listen to Souness so would have no idea. If that is the case then fair enough RR.
Funnily enough the former dip pundit that I had commentating the game, Jim Beglin was of the same opinion and wouldn’t shut up about it. It was like they don’t understand what they are seeing in these replays.
This is very common with Beglin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I like Souness but he is completely biased when it comes to United. He always sees the negative where he would see the positive if it was a different player at a different club. It's hilarious, well for me anyway. I'm sure it's annoying for United fans.
posted on 20/2/23
I like Souness
———
This comes as a shock to absolutely nobody.
posted on 20/2/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 second ago
Could he not just have been trying to get a foot on the ball to try and stop the clearance and keep the ball up their end?
….
That is exactly what he was trying to do. It was bloody obvious if you watch the replay. And that is quite clearly what VAR determined.
No idea what RR is on about to be honest. You don’t have to be a professional footballer to know how to foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This wouldn't be what VAR determined at all, as intent is not in the law. The referee has to consider whether the challenge endangered the safety of the opponent and therefore is serious foul play. In my view this was the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In their view it wasn’t. Case closed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes the case is closed. That doesn't mean the debate about it is closed. I saw RR stating 20% of referees may have given a red, I think it would be closer to 50%. Due to it being subjective, VAR was not going to get involved there so saying 'their' unless you think the referee is non-binary, doesn't really give the full picture.
posted on 20/2/23
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 30 minutes ago
If you had played professional football, Winston, you'd know: if he's side on, he's meant it. End of.
Personally, I thought it could have gone either way. There wasn't much force, but the trajectory of the challenge meant it wouldn't require much more to have resulted in a nasty injury.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Could he not just have been trying to get a foot on the ball to try and stop the clearance and keep the ball up their end?
I agree it could have caused injury as Faes had his foot planted, and it definitely could have been a red, but I still think it was more of a waved leg than anything deliberate or violent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it matters what you tried to do, just what you did. What he did was catch the player high up the leg, with a straight leg, studs first. To me that's a red card.
Think Nani, when he tried to control the ball in the CL, or Mane when he tried to control the ball but Ederson came charging in face first and Mane caught Ederson's face. Both reds.
Although as I said before, it's a subjective one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't think it matters what you tried to do, just what you did."
It matters if you're talking about intent, which I was. As I said, it could conceivably have been a red given what actually happened but I think a yellow might have been enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does it? Intent is not something which is considered in the law. Otherwise Nani wouldn't have been sent off, nether Mane, despite endangering the safety of their opponent as they simply intended to control the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was responding specifically to the point above, which references Souness's assertion that he meant it. Regardless of how much that matters overall, I was simply saying it didn't look like he meant it.
posted on 20/2/23
Souness just comes across as an arrogant kn0b.
posted on 20/2/23
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 30 minutes ago
If you had played professional football, Winston, you'd know: if he's side on, he's meant it. End of.
Personally, I thought it could have gone either way. There wasn't much force, but the trajectory of the challenge meant it wouldn't require much more to have resulted in a nasty injury.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Could he not just have been trying to get a foot on the ball to try and stop the clearance and keep the ball up their end?
I agree it could have caused injury as Faes had his foot planted, and it definitely could have been a red, but I still think it was more of a waved leg than anything deliberate or violent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it matters what you tried to do, just what you did. What he did was catch the player high up the leg, with a straight leg, studs first. To me that's a red card.
Think Nani, when he tried to control the ball in the CL, or Mane when he tried to control the ball but Ederson came charging in face first and Mane caught Ederson's face. Both reds.
Although as I said before, it's a subjective one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't think it matters what you tried to do, just what you did."
It matters if you're talking about intent, which I was. As I said, it could conceivably have been a red given what actually happened but I think a yellow might have been enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does it? Intent is not something which is considered in the law. Otherwise Nani wouldn't have been sent off, nether Mane, despite endangering the safety of their opponent as they simply intended to control the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was responding specifically to the point above, which references Souness's assertion that he meant it. Regardless of how much that matters overall, I was simply saying it didn't look like he meant it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah! Difficult to say if he meant it but he does bring his leg higher up, just before contact, which doesn't seem natural, after the ball has already gone. This may be slow motion making it look worse but I struggle to see how he doesn't mean it looking at the replays.
posted on 20/2/23
Dermot Gallagher - "Extremely lucky, I think it’s a red card, if you put your studs into somebody’s knee that high. I think it’s dangerous."
"What I would say is the one thing it can’t be free kick only, it’s just not possible. So I think the referee should punish on the field, l think red card."
"Whether there is enough for the VAR because he thinks he has come from a short distance, maybe he doesn’t think there’s the impact.
"But it’s all about the referee’s decision. If the referee gives a red card on the field for that and it gets thrown to VAR it will never get overturned."
It's ridiculous that some people think it's not a red card according to the laws, no debate to be had. It's certainly a subjective one that absolutely could have been a red card and in my view should have been. In fact it's worse than Fabinho's one that people went crazy about the other week.
posted on 20/2/23
Red for everyone else not even a ticking off for United players. It's Sabitzer's fault Nick Pope can't play.
posted on 20/2/23
In fact it's worse than Fabinho's one that people went crazy about the other week
----------
No way. If we're talking about likelihood of injury, I'd rather be on the receiving end of Sabitzer's than Fabinho's any day of the week.
posted on 20/2/23
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 7 minutes ago
Dermot Gallagher - "Extremely lucky, I think it’s a red card, if you put your studs into somebody’s knee that high. I think it’s dangerous."
"What I would say is the one thing it can’t be free kick only, it’s just not possible. So I think the referee should punish on the field, l think red card."
"Whether there is enough for the VAR because he thinks he has come from a short distance, maybe he doesn’t think there’s the impact.
"But it’s all about the referee’s decision. If the referee gives a red card on the field for that and it gets thrown to VAR it will never get overturned."
It's ridiculous that some people think it's not a red card according to the laws, no debate to be had. It's certainly a subjective one that absolutely could have been a red card and in my view should have been. In fact it's worse than Fabinho's one that people went crazy about the other week.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Come on, Garth. Be reasonable.
posted on 20/2/23
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 2 minutes ago
In fact it's worse than Fabinho's one that people went crazy about the other week
----------
No way. If we're talking about likelihood of injury, I'd rather be on the receiving end of Sabitzer's than Fabinho's any day of the week.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This. The worst Sabitzer's one could have done is hurt slightly unless you're made of absolute weetabix.
posted on 20/2/23
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 26 minutes ago
Problem is that Shaw’s probably been a more useful back up to Martinez because ETH likes a left footer at cb. So considering that, we could do with signing one. That makes Lindelof redundant because he’s not good enough to back up Varane on the right side. A back up left footer and a guy that can challenge Varane are needed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I definitely don't see Varane as one of the problem areas of the first XI that urgently need addressing, but I do think there's an opportunity to recruit a back-up RCB who is superior to him in some aspects (press resistance, passing) while providing adequate cover for the defensive aspects of his game.
posted on 20/2/23
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 2 minutes ago
In fact it's worse than Fabinho's one that people went crazy about the other week
----------
No way. If we're talking about likelihood of injury, I'd rather be on the receiving end of Sabitzer's than Fabinho's any day of the week.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This. The worst Sabitzer's one could have done is hurt slightly unless you're made of absolute weetabix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wout is short for Woutabix though.
posted on 20/2/23
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 7 minutes ago
In fact it's worse than Fabinho's one that people went crazy about the other week
----------
No way. If we're talking about likelihood of injury, I'd rather be on the receiving end of Sabitzer's than Fabinho's any day of the week.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? Not for me.
posted on 20/2/23
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 48 seconds ago
Could he not just have been trying to get a foot on the ball to try and stop the clearance and keep the ball up their end?
….
That is exactly what he was trying to do. It was bloody obvious if you watch the replay. And that is quite clearly what VAR determined.
No idea what RR is on about to be honest. You don’t have to be a professional footballer to know how to foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I realised after I wrote that response that RR was (I think) paraphrasing Souness sarcastically. His next post says he doesn't think there was evidence of intent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t ever listen to Souness so would have no idea. If that is the case then fair enough RR.
Funnily enough the former dip pundit that I had commentating the game, Jim Beglin was of the same opinion and wouldn’t shut up about it. It was like they don’t understand what they are seeing in these replays.
This is very common with Beglin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Souness was hilarious. As I've made clear above, I can see an argument for a red card - would have been soft but I wouldn't have been flabbergasted. It was the eruption of emotion as he asserted that his insight as professional footballer trumped that of a professional referee, and that Sabitzer's side-on stance was the smoking gun.
posted on 20/2/23
The Fabinho one would be extremely painful but never likely to cause a lasting injury. The Sabitzer one was high up the leg and could have resulted in the player being out for the rest of the season.
posted on 20/2/23
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 7 minutes ago
In fact it's worse than Fabinho's one that people went crazy about the other week
----------
No way. If we're talking about likelihood of injury, I'd rather be on the receiving end of Sabitzer's than Fabinho's any day of the week.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? Not for me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The lad Fabinho chopped down was out for about 2 weeks
Faes finished the game yesterday
posted on 20/2/23
comment by Roy's Keane (U11635)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 7 minutes ago
In fact it's worse than Fabinho's one that people went crazy about the other week
----------
No way. If we're talking about likelihood of injury, I'd rather be on the receiving end of Sabitzer's than Fabinho's any day of the week.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? Not for me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The lad Fabinho chopped down was out for about 2 weeks
Faes finished the game yesterday
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was just about to say the same.
posted on 20/2/23
To be fair to TOOR, he said 'could have'. What he meant was it could have resulted in the player being out for the rest of the season had Sabitzer had chainsaws attached to his legs.
posted on 20/2/23
Fabinho could have ended Ferguson's career. Sabitzer could have squashed a fly that had landed on Faes' leg. Both equally dangerous imho.
posted on 20/2/23
comment by Jalisco Red - Total Hagball (U4195)
posted 32 seconds ago
Fabinho could have ended Ferguson's career. Sabitzer could have squashed a fly that had landed on Faes' leg. Both equally dangerous imho.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5 of 7
6 | 7