Match Day Thread Vs Man City (A)
- Thread starter Zanjinho
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Well there very clearly is. Accidents can occur completely by chance, or when one of more of the parties to the accident are behaving in a way which makes the incident more likely to occur.
How else would you describe it when a speeding driver kills someone? Was it a total accident or are they a first degree murderer?
I'm saying the goalie protects himself [and Mané] by not rushing well out of his area at an attacker going full pelt. It's not the heading of the ball that's reckless it's the decision to go to the lengths he did to head it. What actually happened proves me right in this btw. Reckless decision ends in injury.
That's a bollocks argument and you know it. The keeper has every right to challenge for a 50:50 ball anywhere on the field. You can't say that a goalkeeper choosing to leave their area is recklessly putting themselves at risk of injury.
He knew he would probably get caught a bit, but no way can he make a decision based on the fact he might be kicked in the head.
I'm saying the goalie protects himself [and Mané] by not rushing well out of his area at an attacker going full pelt. It's not the heading of the ball that's reckless it's the decision to go to the lengths he did to head it. What actually happened proves me right in this btw. Reckless decision ends in injury.
I see, that explains why Minger and Karius are glued to their lines....
Not a very good comparison tbh, music too loud, earphones in, texting, drunk, drugged, on the phone etc could also play a part in a speeding car death.
We're talking about two players challenging for a loose ball, the attacker has as much right as the keeper to go for it, in this case the attackers choice of challenge caused a serious injury and he was red carded based on the recklessness of that challenge according the the referee.
There's nothing more to it than that but Diego(for whatever reason)was like a dog with a bone and wouldn't let it go.
Great this is still going on
When Gerrard got sent off for lunging in for dangerous play despite missing his target and getting the ball people condemned his challenge.
Contact, apparently makes no difference where dangerous play is concerned.
Whether I believe it is a red card or not is irrelevant.
Over this weekend alone there have been four challenges which under the current guidelines are deemed as dangerous.
Only one resulted in a red. Two were ignored and one resulted in a yellow. If we are taking circumstance in account mane should have been given benefit of doubt as it was clear it was not intentional. (Which is why I think it was a yellow but as already stated I understand why the ref issued red just don't agree)
As previously stated by many and myself it is the inconsistency that is the issue.
When Gerrard got sent off for lunging in for dangerous play despite missing his target and getting the ball people condemned his challenge.
Contact, apparently makes no difference where dangerous play is concerned.
Whether I believe it is a red card or not is irrelevant.
Over this weekend alone there have been four challenges which under the current guidelines are deemed as dangerous.
Only one resulted in a red. Two were ignored and one resulted in a yellow. If we are taking circumstance in account mane should have been given benefit of doubt as it was clear it was not intentional. (Which is why I think it was a yellow but as already stated I understand why the ref issued red just don't agree)
As previously stated by many and myself it is the inconsistency that is the issue.
Absolutely agree with you there. Which is why it wasn't a total accident - Mane's choice of challenge directly contributed to the injury.
Had he kept his foot down, they still collided and his hip ended up fracturing Ederson's ribs, for example, it would have been a total accident - you can't expect that to happen. But raising a foot towards a head like that increases the risk. Doesn't make it intentional, but as you say it does make Mane culpable for the injury, ergo red card.
He will from now on.
Which is half the problem. If you blame the keeper for coming out and say it's partly his fault he was injured, you restrict the way all keepers will behave in future.
I don't think players should be forced to change the way they make decisions in the game for fear of being injured.
Great this is still going on
When Gerrard got sent off for lunging in for dangerous play despite missing his target and getting the ball people condemned his challenge.
Contact, apparently makes no difference where dangerous play is concerned.
Whether I believe it is a red card or not is irrelevant.
Over this weekend alone there have been four challenges which under the current guidelines are deemed as dangerous.
Only one resulted in a red. Two were ignored and one resulted in a yellow. If we are taking circumstance in account mane should have been given benefit of doubt as it was clear it was not intentional. (Which is why I think it was a yellow but as already stated I understand why the ref issued red just don't agree)
As previously stated by many and myself it is the inconsistency that is the issue.
I think its stopped, the only thing we are arguing about is JBs insistence then Ederson is to blame for his injury for recklessly coming out of his box. Where do you stand on this?
I can and I do
Goalie was reckless. Didn't deserve what he got but put himself up for it.
If he had jumped up vertically to try to head the ball using standard technique I could see your point.
The is a real fine line here between where 'head height' occurs
Personally taking all things into account I would say it was chest high
The keeper definitely bent and stopped his head,
Had Keith houchen got kicked in the head in 87 what would have been said ?
Had the keeper gone with his feet there would not have been a discussion as I said before it was unfortunate.
You're wrong. I clearly said both players take 50/50 responsibility, which they do. At the end of the day I don't like seeing injuries on the field of play. BOTH players will maybe review what they do following this. I'd rather have a red card than potentially no eye so if I'm the goalie I think very, very hard about how far [literally] I'm prepared to go in the interests of saving a goal versus saving my own health.I think its stopped, the only thing we are arguing about is JBs insistence then Ederson is to blame for his injury for recklessly coming out of his box. Where do you stand on this?
how much did the stooping cause him to lose? a few inches? the mans 6 foot 2 and the ball would be what, 5 foot 11? The fact that Mane had to jump up with his leg that high is an indictment of how high the ball is. It's natural to head the ball there.
I guess we will all have no qualms when keepers do a schumacher to protect themselves in the future.
It's this defending saying its the keepers fault which really shows to light which fans have their glasses on and who doesn't....
Consistency absolutely, its annoying and it should be dealt with properly and i can see people arguing against this
Thats like blaming anyone who ever challenges to head the ball from Felleini should expect to get an elbow to the face as thats what he does and if they hadn't taken then into consideration then its on them. They should understand the risks against jumping against him.
Likewise don't ever go into a 50/50 with Jonjo Shelvey as if you get injured, you should know that hes likely to go through and stud you up
Pretty sure the analysis of the replay showed it was 5'9" off the ground. Which is the same height as Mane, so his foot was at least as high as his head, if he'd been standing. Ederson 6'2", but it was still at the height of his head. I'm 6'1" and 5'9" is around my nose, so even if Ederson had been upright he'd probably still have been caught in the mouth.
I think the Houchen one would depend on who kicked him. If a defender swung a boot towards the same ball and caught him it would probably have been ignored. However I think even in the 80s when 'men were men' etc if the keeper had run towards him and kicked him full in the face with the underside of his boot he'd have seen red.
Like I said above, I do think refs make some allowance for how a kick to the head happens. If it's a glancing blow from the side, or done with the laces, there is much less risk of injury than a head on collision with the studs raised. Same as a good slide tackle versus a two footed lunge.
Had Ederson gone with his feet, same as Mane, it could have been Mane in hospital with broken ribs, given the size and weight difference between the two. Shades of Schumacher on Battison.
If only shared this sage advice with Alf-Inge Haaland. He wasn't even saving a goal...
Difference is we're talking about a facial injury that actually occurred and are picking the bones out of this situation. I think the goalie was reckless, you don't hey, ho
Difference is we're talking about a facial injury that actually occurred and are picking the bones out of this situation. I think the goalie was reckless, you don't hey, ho
Yes i know we'll disagree
. I just wanted to stretch the point to any situation whereby there's danger. No harm done but agreed we're going round in circles. I will however bring this point up should you ever buy a goalie who will exit his area and get injured