Match Day Thread Vs Man City (A)

umm and another player gets kicked in the head tonight & this time it's not even a foul !. The lack of consistency is where the problem lies.

 

The goalkeeper has his area which players expect him to keep to [more or less, free kicks excepted] so why would an outfield player running at great speed expect a goalie to be that far out, he wouldn't. He took a risk.

btw I'm not saying it wasn't a red card.

 

Where the **** do you watch football, keepers do and have always come out of their area to win/clear balls. This was not a once in a lifetime event

 

So any player who challenges for a header is reckless and must accept they might get kicked in the head? Feet can go above shoulder height, but if the head goes below shoulder height it's fair game for a jumping kick?!

 

Because the ball was played through and if Ederson didn't come out to clear it then he would almost certainly concede? It's not reckless to make a legitimate challenge for a ball which won't endanger an opponent, no matter who the player is and where they are on the pitch. And like Diego says, keepers act as the last man all the time, particularly the mad batards Guardiola seems to love.

 

Yep, and Mane had no idea that big green thing in front of him was a keeper



No idea he was there at all

 

That'd be me.

please log in to view this image

At least I'm not a troll.

 

Believe me, you are not alone. You have been quoted

 

Quoted as saying what?

 

I asked where I said it was intentional and another poster said "saint showed you"

 

Yes, I did. And you chose to ignore it. But we're all judged on what we prove ourselves to be, not what we claim to be, and no amount of back-tracking or logic twisting will change what I and a few others read.

 

I still cannot believe that there is so much debate about whether it was a red or not. I still cannot believe that after the match Klopp said he wouldn't appeal yet now we decided to appeal.

IMO It is all about whether the opposite player was exposed to serious danger not whether it was premeditated, malicious or even accidental.That is the player (Mane) had exercised due caution in not putting the other player in danger of harm. I can understand why such rules exist. If every player went for everything in the hope of a 'chance' of a kick at goal or an advantage, there would injuries left right and centre. Players had to hold back if there was a chance of an injury.

With Mane the ref didn't have any doubt about the lack of restraint and care (how could he when ederson's face was full of cuts!) in the case of Ritchie the player was touched in the arm, and the referee could not decide about the danger that the player had been exposed to. Yes, a red would have been consistent but there was enough doubt in the ref's mind.

When ederson came rushing out and headed the ball, he had the reasonable expectation that the player seeing him come out to head theball will not try to kick the ball. It would be far too dangerous even if the possible reward like Neville said was high. So. Next time, I hope Mane is advised that he shouldn't get attracted to the type of dangerous tackle. A goal is important but a suspension for 3 matches for dangerous play is more serious.

 

Please prove it again, I must have missed it

 

No thanks. I can't be arsed. Anyone who was on at the time will remember.
I don't want to do this any longer, tbh. As far as I'm concerned you were completely out of order and I have no intention of trying to prove something to you when you wouldn't concede it anyway.

It was a deserved red card for dangerous play, but it wasn't intentional. Can't we all just leave it at that and give it a ****ing rest?

 

I totally agree, and always have, that it was unintentional.
I would obviously have to concede if you proved I said otherwise.

 

Again, It isn't his responsibility to protect himself, it is his responsibility to make sure he doesn't injure Mane. The Keeper fulfilled his obligation, Mane did not fulfill his obligation.

Because of the rules of the game, I think the keeper had a fairly reasonable expectation that he was safe, and that Mane would not go flying in studs first at head height, as he was obliged to do.

I'm not saying it was intentional at all, and to that extent Mane is unlucky, but if you are going to fly in at a ball at head-height studs first, you should be certain that you are not going to connect with someone's head.

 

From that pic Mane has eyes on the ball the keeper has his eyes on Manes foot, this may be an intentional decision by the keeper to try and injure Mane. Ederson should get a ban, you can't go around heading players feet like that.

 

The DMD method of debate.

1) Dont do something but say you did
2) When called up on it, say you already did it, even though you didn't and that you will NOT do it again, because everyone knows that every time you cut and paste a quote, it takes a month off your overall life expectancy

Saint if you did it, just quote the ****ing thing again and end the debate, it's that simple.
As far as I can see there is only one reason why a person wouldn't quote it....and that's because said quote doesn't exist.

 

Well you'd be wrong, and you're not in a position to speak for me and my motives. Diego comes on here to stir the **** because it amuses him. He's not here for debate, so the rules of debate go out of the window. Most of the time it's tedious, but just banter, but there was a darker element to his attempt to make out the Mané situation was worse than it was, and I didn't like it. Besides, it wasn't simply one quotable post, it was the whole string of conversation and I don't feel it necessary to go back over them to satisfy someone else's idea of how I should make my point. I have neither the time or the inclination.
Anyone who read it can choose how they interpret it, anyone who didn't is not in a position to judge.

 

actually the DMD debating method is Diego down to a tee including the fact that he has probably posted more on this one LFC thread than he has on the ManU board in the whole of the last year.