comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BelfastSpur (U15068)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 26 seconds ago
He was clearly trying to play the ball.
I think any other interpretation of that incident is bizarre.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We will agree to disagree
That angle of studs with that amount of force anywhere near the knee and it’s a straight red. Why should the head be any different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case Skipp should have been sent off for nearly breaking Diaz's ankle. Straight red as you said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference being I thought Skipp played the ball first. Granted I didn’t rewind back to rewatch. So I could be wrong but at the time I thought a yellow seemed fair.
Belfast, sorry mate but I don’t agree with any of that.
But appreciate the debate, have a nice evening.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 seconds ago
Belfast, sorry mate but I don’t agree with any of that.
But appreciate the debate, have a nice evening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes Winston have a nice evening!
comment by Sheriff John Brown - Arteta IN!!! (U7482)
posted 36 minutes ago
Most high boots are considered genuine, instinctive attempts to get the ball. Almost never see reds for them except particularly egregious lunges (like Mane's a few years ago) which Jota's attempt wasn't. Surprised by how many are saying should have been sent off for that.
Was distracted many times in the game, so didn't see the penalty incident with Richarlison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So studs up tackles constitute a red, but a studs up boot in the face doesn't.
If you endanger the safety of an opponent, either accidentally or intentionally, you deserve to be sent off. That`s what Jota did, it was a red card tackle there is no debate. Because he plays for Varpool he was let off with it, it is that simple.
I don't think either challenge was a red but as has-been mentioned it is opinion based to how each of us perceives it?
I asked earlier and I genuinely would someone with a better memory to update me if I'm wrong but I couldn't recall a red card for foot high incident? It would obvs include any intent but whilst Jota clearly whacked him I'm not sure he had any intent?
The one I'd be annoyed at was the foul on Richy in the box, that was a pen imo
Should Jota have been sent off for a high boot on Skipp? Yes
Should Skipp have already been sent off himself by that point for a foul on Diaz? Difficult one. Could have went either way for me. I'd lean towards red.
Should we have had a penalty for a foul on Richarlison? Yes. Pulled back in the box.
Any others? Salah fouled but Spurs player got a freekick instead, which Spurs scored from.
He's just a poor referee. VAR should have fixed the Jota one. The others VAR wasn't likely to get involved in as too subjective.
Referee wqa absolute w@nk.
1. Jota should be off
2. Skipp should be off
3. Was a 50-50, I would be angry if thay went against us
Here’s TOOR to reinforce my points, unknowingly.
Disagree with the ref?
No problem. Just call him a poor referee.
No need to consider that there might be a justifiable conclusion that differs to your view. That would be ludicrously mature.
comment by Insufferable-Piffle, just in case, I'm sorry! (U4388)
posted 7 minutes ago
I don't think either challenge was a red but as has-been mentioned it is opinion based to how each of us perceives it?
I asked earlier and I genuinely would someone with a better memory to update me if I'm wrong but I couldn't recall a red card for foot high incident? It would obvs include any intent but whilst Jota clearly whacked him I'm not sure he had any intent?
The one I'd be annoyed at was the foul on Richy in the box, that was a pen imo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think mane versus Emerson in am away game at City.
comment by ●Billy The Spur● 20*21*22* ENIC OUT! (U3924)
posted 9 minutes ago
If you endanger the safety of an opponent, either accidentally or intentionally, you deserve to be sent off. That`s what Jota did, it was a red card tackle there is no debate. Because he plays for Varpool he was let off with it, it is that simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s the most misused explanation I see on here.
You could argue that any high boot endangers the safety of an opponent.
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
Should Jota have been sent off for a high boot on Skipp? Yes
Should Skipp have already been sent off himself by that point for a foul on Diaz? Difficult one. Could have went either way for me. I'd lean towards red.
Should we have had a penalty for a foul on Richarlison? Yes. Pulled back in the box.
Any others? Salah fouled but Spurs player got a freekick instead, which Spurs scored from.
He's just a poor referee. VAR should have fixed the Jota one. The others VAR wasn't likely to get involved in as too subjective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think one sentence here nails it, Tierney is a poor referee, gets far too much wrong.
I don’t think it was a red for Jota, or Skipp but I did think it was probably a penalty. But the third goal never should have stood anyway. Two fouls in quick succession that spurs shouldn’t have won that led up to it.
comment by The Goofy One (U16087)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Insufferable-Piffle, just in case, I'm sorry! (U4388)
posted 7 minutes ago
I don't think either challenge was a red but as has-been mentioned it is opinion based to how each of us perceives it?
I asked earlier and I genuinely would someone with a better memory to update me if I'm wrong but I couldn't recall a red card for foot high incident? It would obvs include any intent but whilst Jota clearly whacked him I'm not sure he had any intent?
The one I'd be annoyed at was the foul on Richy in the box, that was a pen imo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think mane versus Emerson in am away game at City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah fair play I remember that one cheers, don't think it was the same as today's incident but with today I think opinions will be split but thats not unusual with games like today
And then you have that mug Klopp coming out moaning about the referee, with his usual deflectionary nonsense. The bloke really is detestable, he is a bad loser, disrespectful and a giant skid mark on the underpants of the PL. He suits the Varpool fanbase perfectly.
I thought it was a pen, konate on the spurs player...but wasnt given thank fk.
Just watching the highlights here again and I stand by my original assessment. Red for Skipp, yellow for Jota, penalty for the Konate one
Osman and Shearer both said Jota should’ve seen red. And the earlier Skipp tackle was a yellow.
Glad two ex pros with no affiliation to either club agree with my comments above!
comment by BelfastSpur (U15068)
posted 2 minutes ago
Osman and Shearer both said Jota should’ve seen red. And the earlier Skipp tackle was a yellow.
Glad two ex pros with no affiliation to either club agree with my comments above!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apart from the Everton connection fella..
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by ●Billy The Spur● 20*21*22* ENIC OUT! (U3924)
posted 9 minutes ago
If you endanger the safety of an opponent, either accidentally or intentionally, you deserve to be sent off. That`s what Jota did, it was a red card tackle there is no debate. Because he plays for Varpool he was let off with it, it is that simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s the most misused explanation I see on here.
You could argue that any high boot endangers the safety of an opponent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well off you go
If you're 10 metres from an opponent and your boot is high, how does it endanger the safety of the opponent?
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by ●Billy The Spur● 20*21*22* ENIC OUT! (U3924)
posted 9 minutes ago
If you endanger the safety of an opponent, either accidentally or intentionally, you deserve to be sent off. That`s what Jota did, it was a red card tackle there is no debate. Because he plays for Varpool he was let off with it, it is that simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s the most misused explanation I see on here.
You could argue that any high boot endangers the safety of an opponent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well off you go
If you're 10 metres from an opponent and your boot is high, how does it endanger the safety of the opponent?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just when you think TopTroll can’t display any greater level of stupidity, he posts this.
Absolutely superb.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by ●Billy The Spur● 20*21*22* ENIC OUT! (U3924)
posted 9 minutes ago
If you endanger the safety of an opponent, either accidentally or intentionally, you deserve to be sent off. That`s what Jota did, it was a red card tackle there is no debate. Because he plays for Varpool he was let off with it, it is that simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s the most misused explanation I see on here.
You could argue that any high boot endangers the safety of an opponent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well off you go
If you're 10 metres from an opponent and your boot is high, how does it endanger the safety of the opponent?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just when you think TopTroll can’t display any greater level of stupidity, he posts this.
Absolutely superb.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't answer the question, as usual
You seriously needed it explained to you that I meant a high foot when it affects an opponent, as opposed to some random high foot in the middle of the pitch, when standing near no one else?
Jesus wept.
You really are a moron, and you’re really not worth any time.
What do you mean by affects an opponent? Define that.
You can be 10 yards away and your boot is high during a free kick and it affects an opponent. How does that endanger their safety?
This is your problem isn't it, you haven't thought through what you're saying so just have a go at me instead.
Skipp clear red card
Jota - one of those that can go either way, lucky not to be sent off
Pen - another that can go either way and Konate was lucky
The Skipp non red would have ended the game
Sign in if you want to comment
Questions about decisions
Page 3 of 6
6
posted on 30/4/23
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BelfastSpur (U15068)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 26 seconds ago
He was clearly trying to play the ball.
I think any other interpretation of that incident is bizarre.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We will agree to disagree
That angle of studs with that amount of force anywhere near the knee and it’s a straight red. Why should the head be any different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case Skipp should have been sent off for nearly breaking Diaz's ankle. Straight red as you said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference being I thought Skipp played the ball first. Granted I didn’t rewind back to rewatch. So I could be wrong but at the time I thought a yellow seemed fair.
posted on 30/4/23
Belfast, sorry mate but I don’t agree with any of that.
But appreciate the debate, have a nice evening.
posted on 30/4/23
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 seconds ago
Belfast, sorry mate but I don’t agree with any of that.
But appreciate the debate, have a nice evening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes Winston have a nice evening!
posted on 30/4/23
comment by Sheriff John Brown - Arteta IN!!! (U7482)
posted 36 minutes ago
Most high boots are considered genuine, instinctive attempts to get the ball. Almost never see reds for them except particularly egregious lunges (like Mane's a few years ago) which Jota's attempt wasn't. Surprised by how many are saying should have been sent off for that.
Was distracted many times in the game, so didn't see the penalty incident with Richarlison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So studs up tackles constitute a red, but a studs up boot in the face doesn't.
posted on 30/4/23
If you endanger the safety of an opponent, either accidentally or intentionally, you deserve to be sent off. That`s what Jota did, it was a red card tackle there is no debate. Because he plays for Varpool he was let off with it, it is that simple.
posted on 30/4/23
I don't think either challenge was a red but as has-been mentioned it is opinion based to how each of us perceives it?
I asked earlier and I genuinely would someone with a better memory to update me if I'm wrong but I couldn't recall a red card for foot high incident? It would obvs include any intent but whilst Jota clearly whacked him I'm not sure he had any intent?
The one I'd be annoyed at was the foul on Richy in the box, that was a pen imo
posted on 30/4/23
Should Jota have been sent off for a high boot on Skipp? Yes
Should Skipp have already been sent off himself by that point for a foul on Diaz? Difficult one. Could have went either way for me. I'd lean towards red.
Should we have had a penalty for a foul on Richarlison? Yes. Pulled back in the box.
Any others? Salah fouled but Spurs player got a freekick instead, which Spurs scored from.
He's just a poor referee. VAR should have fixed the Jota one. The others VAR wasn't likely to get involved in as too subjective.
posted on 30/4/23
Referee wqa absolute w@nk.
1. Jota should be off
2. Skipp should be off
3. Was a 50-50, I would be angry if thay went against us
posted on 30/4/23
Here’s TOOR to reinforce my points, unknowingly.
Disagree with the ref?
No problem. Just call him a poor referee.
No need to consider that there might be a justifiable conclusion that differs to your view. That would be ludicrously mature.
posted on 30/4/23
comment by Insufferable-Piffle, just in case, I'm sorry! (U4388)
posted 7 minutes ago
I don't think either challenge was a red but as has-been mentioned it is opinion based to how each of us perceives it?
I asked earlier and I genuinely would someone with a better memory to update me if I'm wrong but I couldn't recall a red card for foot high incident? It would obvs include any intent but whilst Jota clearly whacked him I'm not sure he had any intent?
The one I'd be annoyed at was the foul on Richy in the box, that was a pen imo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think mane versus Emerson in am away game at City.
posted on 30/4/23
comment by ●Billy The Spur● 20*21*22* ENIC OUT! (U3924)
posted 9 minutes ago
If you endanger the safety of an opponent, either accidentally or intentionally, you deserve to be sent off. That`s what Jota did, it was a red card tackle there is no debate. Because he plays for Varpool he was let off with it, it is that simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s the most misused explanation I see on here.
You could argue that any high boot endangers the safety of an opponent.
posted on 30/4/23
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
Should Jota have been sent off for a high boot on Skipp? Yes
Should Skipp have already been sent off himself by that point for a foul on Diaz? Difficult one. Could have went either way for me. I'd lean towards red.
Should we have had a penalty for a foul on Richarlison? Yes. Pulled back in the box.
Any others? Salah fouled but Spurs player got a freekick instead, which Spurs scored from.
He's just a poor referee. VAR should have fixed the Jota one. The others VAR wasn't likely to get involved in as too subjective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think one sentence here nails it, Tierney is a poor referee, gets far too much wrong.
I don’t think it was a red for Jota, or Skipp but I did think it was probably a penalty. But the third goal never should have stood anyway. Two fouls in quick succession that spurs shouldn’t have won that led up to it.
posted on 30/4/23
comment by The Goofy One (U16087)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Insufferable-Piffle, just in case, I'm sorry! (U4388)
posted 7 minutes ago
I don't think either challenge was a red but as has-been mentioned it is opinion based to how each of us perceives it?
I asked earlier and I genuinely would someone with a better memory to update me if I'm wrong but I couldn't recall a red card for foot high incident? It would obvs include any intent but whilst Jota clearly whacked him I'm not sure he had any intent?
The one I'd be annoyed at was the foul on Richy in the box, that was a pen imo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think mane versus Emerson in am away game at City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah fair play I remember that one cheers, don't think it was the same as today's incident but with today I think opinions will be split but thats not unusual with games like today
posted on 30/4/23
And then you have that mug Klopp coming out moaning about the referee, with his usual deflectionary nonsense. The bloke really is detestable, he is a bad loser, disrespectful and a giant skid mark on the underpants of the PL. He suits the Varpool fanbase perfectly.
posted on 30/4/23
I thought it was a pen, konate on the spurs player...but wasnt given thank fk.
posted on 30/4/23
Just watching the highlights here again and I stand by my original assessment. Red for Skipp, yellow for Jota, penalty for the Konate one
posted on 30/4/23
Osman and Shearer both said Jota should’ve seen red. And the earlier Skipp tackle was a yellow.
Glad two ex pros with no affiliation to either club agree with my comments above!
posted on 30/4/23
comment by BelfastSpur (U15068)
posted 2 minutes ago
Osman and Shearer both said Jota should’ve seen red. And the earlier Skipp tackle was a yellow.
Glad two ex pros with no affiliation to either club agree with my comments above!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apart from the Everton connection fella..
posted on 30/4/23
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by ●Billy The Spur● 20*21*22* ENIC OUT! (U3924)
posted 9 minutes ago
If you endanger the safety of an opponent, either accidentally or intentionally, you deserve to be sent off. That`s what Jota did, it was a red card tackle there is no debate. Because he plays for Varpool he was let off with it, it is that simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s the most misused explanation I see on here.
You could argue that any high boot endangers the safety of an opponent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well off you go
If you're 10 metres from an opponent and your boot is high, how does it endanger the safety of the opponent?
posted on 30/4/23
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by ●Billy The Spur● 20*21*22* ENIC OUT! (U3924)
posted 9 minutes ago
If you endanger the safety of an opponent, either accidentally or intentionally, you deserve to be sent off. That`s what Jota did, it was a red card tackle there is no debate. Because he plays for Varpool he was let off with it, it is that simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s the most misused explanation I see on here.
You could argue that any high boot endangers the safety of an opponent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well off you go
If you're 10 metres from an opponent and your boot is high, how does it endanger the safety of the opponent?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just when you think TopTroll can’t display any greater level of stupidity, he posts this.
Absolutely superb.
posted on 30/4/23
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by ●Billy The Spur● 20*21*22* ENIC OUT! (U3924)
posted 9 minutes ago
If you endanger the safety of an opponent, either accidentally or intentionally, you deserve to be sent off. That`s what Jota did, it was a red card tackle there is no debate. Because he plays for Varpool he was let off with it, it is that simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s the most misused explanation I see on here.
You could argue that any high boot endangers the safety of an opponent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well off you go
If you're 10 metres from an opponent and your boot is high, how does it endanger the safety of the opponent?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just when you think TopTroll can’t display any greater level of stupidity, he posts this.
Absolutely superb.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't answer the question, as usual
posted on 30/4/23
You seriously needed it explained to you that I meant a high foot when it affects an opponent, as opposed to some random high foot in the middle of the pitch, when standing near no one else?
Jesus wept.
You really are a moron, and you’re really not worth any time.
posted on 30/4/23
What do you mean by affects an opponent? Define that.
posted on 30/4/23
You can be 10 yards away and your boot is high during a free kick and it affects an opponent. How does that endanger their safety?
This is your problem isn't it, you haven't thought through what you're saying so just have a go at me instead.
posted on 1/5/23
Skipp clear red card
Jota - one of those that can go either way, lucky not to be sent off
Pen - another that can go either way and Konate was lucky
The Skipp non red would have ended the game
Page 3 of 6
6