I think the Brighton one is a pen because although he touched the ball he didn't really alter its direction and Jesus would have still got round him but for the challenge.
The annoyance for me on a personal level however is we were told Doku booting Mac in the chest wasn't a penalty because he got a touch on the ball.
It's just more lovely inconsistency by the refs.
comment by burghandy (U10383)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 1 minute ago
What about the Wolves goal being chalked off? The player was interfering but was the keeper ever saving it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah good point!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one cares because it didn't involve a big team - evidenced by the fact it doesn't even make the originl post despite having far more merit than the decisions doscussed in the original post.
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 3 minutes ago
I think the Brighton one is a pen because although he touched the ball he didn't really alter its direction and Jesus would have still got round him but for the challenge.
The annoyance for me on a personal level however is we were told Doku booting Mac in the chest wasn't a penalty because he got a touch on the ball.
It's just more lovely inconsistency by the refs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yep definitely inconsistent, I feel though that if a defender gets a touch to the ball then it can't be a foul unless it is dangerous to his opponent
an example is when Romero won the ball in the chelsea match but followed through and got sent off. That was dangerous and he new what he was doing and that is one of the few times I would say that is a foul.
Lamptey stuck his leg out but got a touch of the ball.
At what level are we going to get to where players make a tackle in the box but the follow through takes out the opponent meaning it is a foul
The Lamptey one is just ridiculous.
He got contact on the ball so it's a tackle. It wasn't from behind, it wasnt player then ball, it wasnt over the ball and high or an aggressive OTT follow-through.
I am not sure where in the rules it says that you have to make a full contact with the ball. If that was cleared into row z with the same contact on the player then how is that any more or any less of a foul.
When penalties are given "contact" is often enough to
deem it as a foul, even when such contact is minimal or really not causing the player to tumble. That contact on the ball should have been viewed as enough for it to be deemed as a legit tackle.
Elliot - Yes he bought that one but a silly silly dive in by the defender who was asking for it. Never going to be over-ruled and will probably be given by the ref 9 times out of 10.
Maddison. Lucky boy! Yates is a detestable hacker of a player and most would like to stick one on him, but that was a clear punch from Madders and should have seen As they said on MOTD, if that's Romero that's a red.
Speaking of which there was another tackle in that game on Johnson where the high follow through caught him on the knee and led to him hobbling off. Again, if that's a Romero tackle or someone else with a reputation then that's a
Seems like VAR has 'raised the bar' again with VAR not intervening so much, so we are back to poor inconsistent decisions by refs.
What is also obvious to me is that preconception and reputation carry a lot of weight in referees decision making. Not just individuals but teams. As a result, similar/identical incidents involving different teams and individuals will get different outcomes and this what annoys me most about referees.
comment by Zein Mayassi (U21076)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by burghandy (U10383)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 1 minute ago
What about the Wolves goal being chalked off? The player was interfering but was the keeper ever saving it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah good point!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one cares because it didn't involve a big team - evidenced by the fact it doesn't even make the originl post despite having far more merit than the decisions doscussed in the original post.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't add the wolves one, not because they arent a big club but the rules are not as simplistic for that incident compared to the ones I chose.
I didn't agree with the decision but I can see why it wasn't given due to the rules
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 minutes ago
The Lamptey one is just ridiculous.
He got contact on the ball so it's a tackle. It wasn't from behind, it wasnt player then ball, it wasnt over the ball and high or an aggressive OTT follow-through.
I am not sure where in the rules it says that you have to make a full contact with the ball. If that was cleared into row z with the same contact on the player then how is that any more or any less of a foul.
When penalties are given "contact" is often enough to
deem it as a foul, even when such contact is minimal or really not causing the player to tumble. That contact on the ball should have been viewed as enough for it to be deemed as a legit tackle.
Elliot - Yes he bought that one but a silly silly dive in by the defender who was asking for it. Never going to be over-ruled and will probably be given by the ref 9 times out of 10.
Maddison. Lucky boy! Yates is a detestable hacker of a player and most would like to stick one on him, but that was a clear punch from Madders and should have seenAs they said on MOTD, if that's Romero that's a red.
Speaking of which there was another tackle in that game on Johnson where the high follow through caught him on the knee and led to him hobbling off. Again, if that's a Romero tackle or someone else with a reputation then that's a
Seems like VAR has 'raised the bar' again with VAR not intervening so much, so we are back to poor inconsistent decisions by refs.
What is also obvious to me is that preconception and reputation carry a lot of weight in referees decision making. Not just individuals but teams. As a result, similar/identical incidents involving different teams and individuals will get different outcomes and this what annoys me most about referees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Slight disagree, I think Maddison stays on because it’s Yates - who the refs know is a complete priiick
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
The Lamptey one is just ridiculous.
He got contact on the ball so it's a tackle. It wasn't from behind, it wasnt player then ball, it wasnt over the ball and high or an aggressive OTT follow-through.
I am not sure where in the rules it says that you have to make a full contact with the ball. If that was cleared into row z with the same contact on the player then how is that any more or any less of a foul.
When penalties are given "contact" is often enough to
deem it as a foul, even when such contact is minimal or really not causing the player to tumble. That contact on the ball should have been viewed as enough for it to be deemed as a legit tackle.
Elliot - Yes he bought that one but a silly silly dive in by the defender who was asking for it. Never going to be over-ruled and will probably be given by the ref 9 times out of 10.
Maddison. Lucky boy! Yates is a detestable hacker of a player and most would like to stick one on him, but that was a clear punch from Madders and should have seenAs they said on MOTD, if that's Romero that's a red.
Speaking of which there was another tackle in that game on Johnson where the high follow through caught him on the knee and led to him hobbling off. Again, if that's a Romero tackle or someone else with a reputation then that's a
Seems like VAR has 'raised the bar' again with VAR not intervening so much, so we are back to poor inconsistent decisions by refs.
What is also obvious to me is that preconception and reputation carry a lot of weight in referees decision making. Not just individuals but teams. As a result, similar/identical incidents involving different teams and individuals will get different outcomes and this what annoys me most about referees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree Devon, for me that Lamptey one is the most shocking decision, clearly won the ball, I can't believe it wasn't overturned.
Agree about Wan-Bissaka diving in, that was stupid to do that but still the replays show that Harvey dived so again I think that should have been overturned.
comment by burghandy (U10383)
posted 59 minutes ago
As soon as Lamptey gets a touch, Jesus is no longer in control of the ball
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course Jesus would of still been in control of the ball if he would of been able to hurdle the defender he would of still had the ball the attempt at the tackle did not change the path of the ball at all. Blatant penalty getting the slightest touch on the ball is not enough.
Probably say that the Sheffield Utd player who clattered Palmer from behind should have seen red rather than yellow. COULD have had impact on the result.
Agree about Wan-Bissaka diving in, that was stupid to do that but still the replays show that Harvey dived so again I think that should have been overturned
———————
You’re contradicting yourself though. You’ve acknowledged that he dived in, once he does that in the penalty area then it’s a penalty almost every time.
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 48 seconds ago
Agree about Wan-Bissaka diving in, that was stupid to do that but still the replays show that Harvey dived so again I think that should have been overturned
———————
You’re contradicting yourself though. You’ve acknowledged that he dived in, once he does that in the penalty area then it’s a penalty almost every time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
not contradicting myself, i'm saying the defender should have stayed on his feet but by diving in he gave a decision to the ref to make. But it doesn't take away that Harvey still dived though
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 12 minutes ago
Probably say that the Sheffield Utd player who clattered Palmer from behind should have seen red rather than yellow. COULD have had impact on the result.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, that was another one. The sort of tackle they have tried to outlaw with tough punishment. Diving in, from behind, late, caught the player with his studs on the ankle. Same punishment as a slight pull of the shirt or clipping someone while running. The rules & the refs are a mess.
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 15 minutes ago
Agree about Wan-Bissaka diving in, that was stupid to do that but still the replays show that Harvey dived so again I think that should have been overturned
———————
You’re contradicting yourself though. You’ve acknowledged that he dived in, once he does that in the penalty area then it’s a penalty almost every time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We have seen that where player initiate the contact then the foul does not always follow, which is right. I think Elliot did it well enough for it to be seen as a foul not a clear dive, although we all know the player dragged his foot in an unnatural way to make sure there was contact. He just disguised it well enough to get the pen and once given was never being over turned.
When was it that contact does not need to be made for there to be a penalty?
AWB leg does not come into contact with Elliot. Elliot is clearly diving. A quick VAR check should be overruling that penalty decision
comment by House (U17162)
posted 6 minutes ago
When was it that contact does not need to be made for there to be a penalty?
AWB leg does not come into contact with Elliot. Elliot is clearly diving. A quick VAR check should be overruling that penalty decision
----------------------------------------------------------------------
totally agree
Wan-Bissaka did not touch Harvey Elliot so the penalty has to be overturned.
=====
Was very soft IMO, but Bissaka never touched the ball either. Did he impede Elliot?
Lest we forget...........
https://www.tiktok.com/@everythingfooty111/video/7321871947028040993
The Lamptey one is just ridiculous.
He got contact on the ball so it's a tackle.
------
This is just madness. Imagine thinking any contact on the ball is enough to allow you to take your opponent out when he is clearly getting to the ball.
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 56 minutes ago
Agree about Wan-Bissaka diving in, that was stupid to do that but still the replays show that Harvey dived so again I think that should have been overturned
———————
You’re contradicting yourself though. You’ve acknowledged that he dived in, once he does that in the penalty area then it’s a penalty almost every time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No wonder there are arguments on this forum, when you get brain dead contributions like this.
Stick to the actual laws of the game to justify your opinion or don’t bother.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 46 seconds ago
The Lamptey one is just ridiculous.
He got contact on the ball so it's a tackle.
------
This is just madness. Imagine thinking any contact on the ball is enough to allow you to take your opponent out when he is clearly getting to the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So any contact made on the player after you've won the ball is a foul That would outlaw most forms of tackling
Any contact? I said taking out the opponent not a slight touch.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
Any contact? I said taking out the opponent not a slight touch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most slide tackles will take the player out as a consequence, so long as you get the ball first then its fair.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
Any contact? I said taking out the opponent not a slight touch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most slide tackles will take the player out as a consequence, so long as you get the ball first then its fair.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not if the slide tackle doesn't alter the direction or pace of the ball and the player being tackled is getting the ball easily if he wasnt impeded. That is a foul all day long.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
Any contact? I said taking out the opponent not a slight touch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most slide tackles will take the player out as a consequence, so long as you get the ball first then its fair.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not if the slide tackle doesn't alter the direction or pace of the ball and the player being tackled is getting the ball easily if he wasnt impeded. That is a foul all day long.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hilarious
Like i say, contact on teh ball first is a tackle. As long as it is not excessive force and all that then if the player is taken out as a consequence then so be it. It's a contact sport and you will see multiple times a game tackles that get the ball but also take the man. How much you get the ball is not in the rules and never has been.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 40 minutes ago
Wan-Bissaka did not touch Harvey Elliot so the penalty has to be overturned.
=====
Was very soft IMO, but Bissaka never touched the ball either. Did he impede Elliot?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes
Sign in if you want to comment
Weekend Decisions
Page 2 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 8/4/24
I think the Brighton one is a pen because although he touched the ball he didn't really alter its direction and Jesus would have still got round him but for the challenge.
The annoyance for me on a personal level however is we were told Doku booting Mac in the chest wasn't a penalty because he got a touch on the ball.
It's just more lovely inconsistency by the refs.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by burghandy (U10383)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 1 minute ago
What about the Wolves goal being chalked off? The player was interfering but was the keeper ever saving it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah good point!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one cares because it didn't involve a big team - evidenced by the fact it doesn't even make the originl post despite having far more merit than the decisions doscussed in the original post.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 3 minutes ago
I think the Brighton one is a pen because although he touched the ball he didn't really alter its direction and Jesus would have still got round him but for the challenge.
The annoyance for me on a personal level however is we were told Doku booting Mac in the chest wasn't a penalty because he got a touch on the ball.
It's just more lovely inconsistency by the refs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yep definitely inconsistent, I feel though that if a defender gets a touch to the ball then it can't be a foul unless it is dangerous to his opponent
an example is when Romero won the ball in the chelsea match but followed through and got sent off. That was dangerous and he new what he was doing and that is one of the few times I would say that is a foul.
Lamptey stuck his leg out but got a touch of the ball.
At what level are we going to get to where players make a tackle in the box but the follow through takes out the opponent meaning it is a foul
posted on 8/4/24
The Lamptey one is just ridiculous.
He got contact on the ball so it's a tackle. It wasn't from behind, it wasnt player then ball, it wasnt over the ball and high or an aggressive OTT follow-through.
I am not sure where in the rules it says that you have to make a full contact with the ball. If that was cleared into row z with the same contact on the player then how is that any more or any less of a foul.
When penalties are given "contact" is often enough to
deem it as a foul, even when such contact is minimal or really not causing the player to tumble. That contact on the ball should have been viewed as enough for it to be deemed as a legit tackle.
Elliot - Yes he bought that one but a silly silly dive in by the defender who was asking for it. Never going to be over-ruled and will probably be given by the ref 9 times out of 10.
Maddison. Lucky boy! Yates is a detestable hacker of a player and most would like to stick one on him, but that was a clear punch from Madders and should have seen As they said on MOTD, if that's Romero that's a red.
Speaking of which there was another tackle in that game on Johnson where the high follow through caught him on the knee and led to him hobbling off. Again, if that's a Romero tackle or someone else with a reputation then that's a
Seems like VAR has 'raised the bar' again with VAR not intervening so much, so we are back to poor inconsistent decisions by refs.
What is also obvious to me is that preconception and reputation carry a lot of weight in referees decision making. Not just individuals but teams. As a result, similar/identical incidents involving different teams and individuals will get different outcomes and this what annoys me most about referees.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Zein Mayassi (U21076)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by burghandy (U10383)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 1 minute ago
What about the Wolves goal being chalked off? The player was interfering but was the keeper ever saving it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah good point!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one cares because it didn't involve a big team - evidenced by the fact it doesn't even make the originl post despite having far more merit than the decisions doscussed in the original post.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't add the wolves one, not because they arent a big club but the rules are not as simplistic for that incident compared to the ones I chose.
I didn't agree with the decision but I can see why it wasn't given due to the rules
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 minutes ago
The Lamptey one is just ridiculous.
He got contact on the ball so it's a tackle. It wasn't from behind, it wasnt player then ball, it wasnt over the ball and high or an aggressive OTT follow-through.
I am not sure where in the rules it says that you have to make a full contact with the ball. If that was cleared into row z with the same contact on the player then how is that any more or any less of a foul.
When penalties are given "contact" is often enough to
deem it as a foul, even when such contact is minimal or really not causing the player to tumble. That contact on the ball should have been viewed as enough for it to be deemed as a legit tackle.
Elliot - Yes he bought that one but a silly silly dive in by the defender who was asking for it. Never going to be over-ruled and will probably be given by the ref 9 times out of 10.
Maddison. Lucky boy! Yates is a detestable hacker of a player and most would like to stick one on him, but that was a clear punch from Madders and should have seenAs they said on MOTD, if that's Romero that's a red.
Speaking of which there was another tackle in that game on Johnson where the high follow through caught him on the knee and led to him hobbling off. Again, if that's a Romero tackle or someone else with a reputation then that's a
Seems like VAR has 'raised the bar' again with VAR not intervening so much, so we are back to poor inconsistent decisions by refs.
What is also obvious to me is that preconception and reputation carry a lot of weight in referees decision making. Not just individuals but teams. As a result, similar/identical incidents involving different teams and individuals will get different outcomes and this what annoys me most about referees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Slight disagree, I think Maddison stays on because it’s Yates - who the refs know is a complete priiick
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
The Lamptey one is just ridiculous.
He got contact on the ball so it's a tackle. It wasn't from behind, it wasnt player then ball, it wasnt over the ball and high or an aggressive OTT follow-through.
I am not sure where in the rules it says that you have to make a full contact with the ball. If that was cleared into row z with the same contact on the player then how is that any more or any less of a foul.
When penalties are given "contact" is often enough to
deem it as a foul, even when such contact is minimal or really not causing the player to tumble. That contact on the ball should have been viewed as enough for it to be deemed as a legit tackle.
Elliot - Yes he bought that one but a silly silly dive in by the defender who was asking for it. Never going to be over-ruled and will probably be given by the ref 9 times out of 10.
Maddison. Lucky boy! Yates is a detestable hacker of a player and most would like to stick one on him, but that was a clear punch from Madders and should have seenAs they said on MOTD, if that's Romero that's a red.
Speaking of which there was another tackle in that game on Johnson where the high follow through caught him on the knee and led to him hobbling off. Again, if that's a Romero tackle or someone else with a reputation then that's a
Seems like VAR has 'raised the bar' again with VAR not intervening so much, so we are back to poor inconsistent decisions by refs.
What is also obvious to me is that preconception and reputation carry a lot of weight in referees decision making. Not just individuals but teams. As a result, similar/identical incidents involving different teams and individuals will get different outcomes and this what annoys me most about referees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree Devon, for me that Lamptey one is the most shocking decision, clearly won the ball, I can't believe it wasn't overturned.
Agree about Wan-Bissaka diving in, that was stupid to do that but still the replays show that Harvey dived so again I think that should have been overturned.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by burghandy (U10383)
posted 59 minutes ago
As soon as Lamptey gets a touch, Jesus is no longer in control of the ball
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course Jesus would of still been in control of the ball if he would of been able to hurdle the defender he would of still had the ball the attempt at the tackle did not change the path of the ball at all. Blatant penalty getting the slightest touch on the ball is not enough.
posted on 8/4/24
Probably say that the Sheffield Utd player who clattered Palmer from behind should have seen red rather than yellow. COULD have had impact on the result.
posted on 8/4/24
Agree about Wan-Bissaka diving in, that was stupid to do that but still the replays show that Harvey dived so again I think that should have been overturned
———————
You’re contradicting yourself though. You’ve acknowledged that he dived in, once he does that in the penalty area then it’s a penalty almost every time.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 48 seconds ago
Agree about Wan-Bissaka diving in, that was stupid to do that but still the replays show that Harvey dived so again I think that should have been overturned
———————
You’re contradicting yourself though. You’ve acknowledged that he dived in, once he does that in the penalty area then it’s a penalty almost every time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
not contradicting myself, i'm saying the defender should have stayed on his feet but by diving in he gave a decision to the ref to make. But it doesn't take away that Harvey still dived though
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 12 minutes ago
Probably say that the Sheffield Utd player who clattered Palmer from behind should have seen red rather than yellow. COULD have had impact on the result.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, that was another one. The sort of tackle they have tried to outlaw with tough punishment. Diving in, from behind, late, caught the player with his studs on the ankle. Same punishment as a slight pull of the shirt or clipping someone while running. The rules & the refs are a mess.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 15 minutes ago
Agree about Wan-Bissaka diving in, that was stupid to do that but still the replays show that Harvey dived so again I think that should have been overturned
———————
You’re contradicting yourself though. You’ve acknowledged that he dived in, once he does that in the penalty area then it’s a penalty almost every time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We have seen that where player initiate the contact then the foul does not always follow, which is right. I think Elliot did it well enough for it to be seen as a foul not a clear dive, although we all know the player dragged his foot in an unnatural way to make sure there was contact. He just disguised it well enough to get the pen and once given was never being over turned.
posted on 8/4/24
When was it that contact does not need to be made for there to be a penalty?
AWB leg does not come into contact with Elliot. Elliot is clearly diving. A quick VAR check should be overruling that penalty decision
posted on 8/4/24
comment by House (U17162)
posted 6 minutes ago
When was it that contact does not need to be made for there to be a penalty?
AWB leg does not come into contact with Elliot. Elliot is clearly diving. A quick VAR check should be overruling that penalty decision
----------------------------------------------------------------------
totally agree
posted on 8/4/24
Wan-Bissaka did not touch Harvey Elliot so the penalty has to be overturned.
=====
Was very soft IMO, but Bissaka never touched the ball either. Did he impede Elliot?
posted on 8/4/24
Lest we forget...........
https://www.tiktok.com/@everythingfooty111/video/7321871947028040993
posted on 8/4/24
The Lamptey one is just ridiculous.
He got contact on the ball so it's a tackle.
------
This is just madness. Imagine thinking any contact on the ball is enough to allow you to take your opponent out when he is clearly getting to the ball.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 56 minutes ago
Agree about Wan-Bissaka diving in, that was stupid to do that but still the replays show that Harvey dived so again I think that should have been overturned
———————
You’re contradicting yourself though. You’ve acknowledged that he dived in, once he does that in the penalty area then it’s a penalty almost every time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No wonder there are arguments on this forum, when you get brain dead contributions like this.
Stick to the actual laws of the game to justify your opinion or don’t bother.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 46 seconds ago
The Lamptey one is just ridiculous.
He got contact on the ball so it's a tackle.
------
This is just madness. Imagine thinking any contact on the ball is enough to allow you to take your opponent out when he is clearly getting to the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So any contact made on the player after you've won the ball is a foul That would outlaw most forms of tackling
posted on 8/4/24
Any contact? I said taking out the opponent not a slight touch.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
Any contact? I said taking out the opponent not a slight touch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most slide tackles will take the player out as a consequence, so long as you get the ball first then its fair.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
Any contact? I said taking out the opponent not a slight touch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most slide tackles will take the player out as a consequence, so long as you get the ball first then its fair.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not if the slide tackle doesn't alter the direction or pace of the ball and the player being tackled is getting the ball easily if he wasnt impeded. That is a foul all day long.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
Any contact? I said taking out the opponent not a slight touch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most slide tackles will take the player out as a consequence, so long as you get the ball first then its fair.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not if the slide tackle doesn't alter the direction or pace of the ball and the player being tackled is getting the ball easily if he wasnt impeded. That is a foul all day long.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hilarious
Like i say, contact on teh ball first is a tackle. As long as it is not excessive force and all that then if the player is taken out as a consequence then so be it. It's a contact sport and you will see multiple times a game tackles that get the ball but also take the man. How much you get the ball is not in the rules and never has been.
posted on 8/4/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 40 minutes ago
Wan-Bissaka did not touch Harvey Elliot so the penalty has to be overturned.
=====
Was very soft IMO, but Bissaka never touched the ball either. Did he impede Elliot?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes
Page 2 of 8
6 | 7 | 8