Backing into a defender used to be an offence picked up on quite often, I don't recall seeing it given a lot these days.
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
-
Players from back in the day love to recall how the likes of Hunter, Smith, Harris etc were "hard but fair", I seem to remember plenty of terrible tackles and flying elbows etc back then and i don't know the stats but I can't remember many bad injuries.
Today's football is less of a contact sport compared to then but the injuries seem to have increased, I dread to think how Sturridge would have fared back then.
Today's football is less of a contact sport compared to then but the injuries seem to have increased, I dread to think how Sturridge would have fared back then.
Not sure about that myself. Firstly, the ref is normally miles away (maybe a better view for Linesman), then you have the likes of the big defender on the small defender barging each other about.
Dunno about for liverpool but i'm pretty sure most of the time its Cahill trying to win a ball and always tries to go over the striker and both parties are sort of at fault.
Unfortunately I think that, as with Cech and keeper injuries, it will take someone being seriously injured before they impose any genuine rules against tipping.
Then look forward to another wave of ex-pros rambling on about how it has destroyed the game and they tipped people all the time so no one should actually be punished for it...
Players from back in the day love to recall how the likes of Hunter, Smith, Harris etc were "hard but fair", I seem to remember plenty of terrible tackles and flying elbows etc back then and i don't know the stats but I can't remember many bad injuries.
Today's football is less of a contact sport compared to then but the injuries seem to have increased, I dread to think how Sturridge would have fared back then.
I think some of that was down to changes in equipment. Rounded studs like they used to have wouldn't do as much damage to a player's face as modern bladed studs for example.
Similarly with foot injuries, I remember Rooney's metatarsal injury back in 2006 which was the direct result of a bladed stud impacting across the bone, when a rounded one wouldn't have broken it. Bladed studs are also more likely to get caught in the pitch so pinning a tackled player's leg and increasing the impact.
That said, there are still many reports of serious injuries from back in the day - Hunter ended at least one player's career. Tho those players tended to be more controlled in the way they dealt out pain, they rarely went in off the floor or two footed, it was more the way they would tackle late and with deliberate intent to hurt. After all, it's much easier to get away without seriously injuring someone if you plan to give them a nice controlled kick, rather than an out of control lunge or unintentional flying boot.
Nowadays you might not get sent off for that, but you'd be done by the FA on the video replay, so players don't do it.
On a side note, I think it's funny when you read about the disputes over making the first sets of rules for Association Football in the late 19thC. The outlawing of bringing down players by hacking their shins caused arguments and the split between association and rugby football. We've come a long way in some senses.
I am not saying it's the keepers fault at all tbh I just think it was unfortunate. It closer to 50/50 just bad luck
No way was it intentional.
Those saying it defo a red card are wrong imho - simple as because evidence suggests that other refs would not / do not give a red for the same incident. (The daft issue is the same ref ignored the same incident earlier)
Someone has mentioned not wanting a goalie to change their perspective on coming out
Would you want your forward to not go for that ball if in same position again
It's a mans game at the end of the day and that incident was an example of two people who thought they could get the ball first and unfortunately mane was second
Mane himself has only just returned from a far more dangerous tackle on him that injured him but was deemed legal
Ok so.... where was the ref standing.
1. it not the same angle as TV. Initially i thought he shouldered the keeper.
2. The angle from the refs view looked to me like he could see the contact and the keepers jaw move fruther than a mike tyson right hook... so IMO IF and i say IF with this ref he saw it it was a red no question.
3. There was blodd involved. I think the ref looked at the player too. So...
when you add all this up it doesn't matter a bollox what happened in another match. I think 99% of prem refs would have given a red standing in the same place.
As for going in? we he should have been going in with his head frankly not a high boot. its that simple if it had been two guys leaping for ball and mane elbowed him there's a possibility it might have some case but he stick a boot with studs up and chinned a GK.. thats out of order period. man's game or not.
- May 22, 2011
- 73,301
- 25,360
- 113
Jesus, imagine going to the game and being sat near him, if hand my ticket back and go watch in a pub
name and shame imo... only way to make further changes now. theres lads like that at every club. the last hold outs as it were.
QUOTE="moreinjuredthanowen, post: 10949298, member: 1010745"]Ok so.... where was the ref standing.
1. it not the same angle as TV. Initially i thought he shouldered the keeper.
2. The angle from the refs view looked to me like he could see the contact and the keepers jaw move fruther than a mike tyson right hook... so IMO IF and i say IF with this ref he saw it it was a red no question.
3. There was blodd involved. I think the ref looked at the player too. So...
when you add all this up it doesn't matter a bollox what happened in another match. I think 99% of prem refs would have given a red standing in the same place.
This is completely unprovable, I think 40% prob give red 30 % yellow and 30% probably don t even see it
Which is actually the thing that bugs me
To say it doesn't matter what happens in other games is bollox is - well bollox
In order to be fair the standards need to be set and consistent.
In the same game the same ref didn't deal with stones kicking mane in the head.
In slow mo the stones one looks bad.
I can only keep saying I understand how the red was given. we don't have to agree on whether it was a red or not to me the only important thing is that the standards are same for all.
I am fairly consistent in calling for consistency in refereeing standards.
You lost all credibility when you said you thought he went in with his shoulder - that's pretty ****ed up dude - I knew first view what had happened[/QUOTE]
1. it not the same angle as TV. Initially i thought he shouldered the keeper.
2. The angle from the refs view looked to me like he could see the contact and the keepers jaw move fruther than a mike tyson right hook... so IMO IF and i say IF with this ref he saw it it was a red no question.
3. There was blodd involved. I think the ref looked at the player too. So...
when you add all this up it doesn't matter a bollox what happened in another match. I think 99% of prem refs would have given a red standing in the same place.
This is completely unprovable, I think 40% prob give red 30 % yellow and 30% probably don t even see it
Which is actually the thing that bugs me
To say it doesn't matter what happens in other games is bollox is - well bollox
In order to be fair the standards need to be set and consistent.
In the same game the same ref didn't deal with stones kicking mane in the head.
In slow mo the stones one looks bad.
I can only keep saying I understand how the red was given. we don't have to agree on whether it was a red or not to me the only important thing is that the standards are same for all.
I am fairly consistent in calling for consistency in refereeing standards.
You lost all credibility when you said you thought he went in with his shoulder - that's pretty ****ed up dude - I knew first view what had happened
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]QUOTE="moreinjuredthanowen, post: 10949298, member: 1010745"]Ok so.... where was the ref standing.
1. it not the same angle as TV. Initially i thought he shouldered the keeper.
2. The angle from the refs view looked to me like he could see the contact and the keepers jaw move fruther than a mike tyson right hook... so IMO IF and i say IF with this ref he saw it it was a red no question.
3. There was blodd involved. I think the ref looked at the player too. So...
when you add all this up it doesn't matter a bollox what happened in another match. I think 99% of prem refs would have given a red standing in the same place.
This is completely unprovable, I think 40% prob give red 30 % yellow and 30% probably don t even see it
Which is actually the thing that bugs me
To say it doesn't matter what happens in other games is bollox is - well bollox
In order to be fair the standards need to be set and consistent.
In the same game the same ref didn't deal with stones kicking mane in the head.
In slow mo the stones one looks bad.
I can only keep saying I understand how the red was given. we don't have to agree on whether it was a red or not to me the only important thing is that the standards are same for all.
I am fairly consistent in calling for consistency in refereeing standards.
You lost all credibility when you said you thought he went in with his shoulder - that's pretty ****ed up dude - I knew first view what had happened
So youve blown it then. You saw him kick a guy in the face and didn't think kicking a guy in the face was a red... ok then.
As for same standards for all... get robot refs then. There never has been nor never will be consistency. You play the ref you get on the day.
So going in with a high boot on a keeper is thick... end of.
So youve blown it then. You saw him kick a guy in the face and didn't think kicking a guy in the face was a red... ok then.
As for same standards for all... get robot refs then. There never has been nor never will be consistency. You play the ref you get on the day.
So going in with a high boot on a keeper is thick... end of.[/QUOTE]
I agree it's thick but would you want him to not go for a 50/50 ball like that again?
But I think there are mitigating circumstances
There are times in the same game where players were kicked in the head did not receive a red
So playing the ref has been nullified
I was clearly saying tongue in cheek about the shoulder but you seem to be getting a bit stressed
If you think it was that simple on Sat you clearly not played the game enough
In case you have not noticed we are not the only ones who disagree
Gary Neville
Gary lineker
Rio Ferdinand
All agree with me
I can repeat I understand why it was given
I have spent way too long on this and don't ever want to get into serious banter with anyone
Could I ask what your thoughts were on the challenge on mane from stones
Do you think that was a red?
I agree it's thick but would you want him to not go for a 50/50 ball like that again?
But I think there are mitigating circumstances
There are times in the same game where players were kicked in the head did not receive a red
So playing the ref has been nullified
I was clearly saying tongue in cheek about the shoulder but you seem to be getting a bit stressed
If you think it was that simple on Sat you clearly not played the game enough
In case you have not noticed we are not the only ones who disagree
Gary Neville
Gary lineker
Rio Ferdinand
All agree with me
I can repeat I understand why it was given
I have spent way too long on this and don't ever want to get into serious banter with anyone
Could I ask what your thoughts were on the challenge on mane from stones
Do you think that was a red?[/QUOTE]
If you wanna be in a camp with neville.and rio fine....
All I'm saying is the live play angle showed him with a high boot but contact is not at all clear. You can see mane meet him shoulder on.
It's only the reverse angle that shows the keepers jaw half way across his face.
No one's saying mane shouldnt go for a 50/50. Just that if you do you better make sure you get there first and not end up going through an opposition player. If you don't make it, you run the risk of getting a red. Its the same with all 50/50s dive in late and uncontrolled where you are both facing head in, into a player and only getting the man is a red card everyday
Last edited:
If you wanna be in a camp with neville.and rio fine....
All I'm saying is the live play angle showed him with a high boot but contact is not at all clear. You can see mane meet him shoulder on.
It's only the reverse angle that shows the keepers jaw half way across his face.[/QUOTE]
With the Utd fans in my world I may as well be in carrington lmao
Anyways how we gonna get on tonight ? Time to move threads for me
The bloke took a boot to the face, it's 100% a red card
Just because other incidents happened this weekend doesn't stop the fact the ref made the correct decision.
I always think about the Terry situation where he got booted in the face when he was more or less leg level. The bloke almost swallowed his own tongue but because his head wasn't where it was meant to be it was unpunished.
Accidents happen all the time in football but if they harm the other player then punishment should happen.
Just because other incidents happened this weekend doesn't stop the fact the ref made the correct decision.
I always think about the Terry situation where he got booted in the face when he was more or less leg level. The bloke almost swallowed his own tongue but because his head wasn't where it was meant to be it was unpunished.
Accidents happen all the time in football but if they harm the other player then punishment should happen.
It's always got to be a judgement call by ref despite rules.
If it's purely about logic being carried to the letter then silliness happens.
So if it's purely about stopping injuries why is a tackle from behind allowed by a defender in the box as long as he gets the ball but nowhere else on the pitch? The rule was brought it for player safety yet refs don't seem it unsafe once you enter the box?
What about 2 players going in for a header; ones a split second late, doesn't get the ball but smashes forehead into opponents nose and cheek...breaking both with lots of blood. Technically player was late, didn't get the ball and badly injured opponent but i doubt would get carded unless the ref deemed it deliberate.
I expect Mane to challenge but probably because he was out sized considerably he took the cowardly option and went with foot. A big strong CF might have gone with head and ironically could have missed the ball, smashed the keepers face and walked away with nothing.
If it's purely about logic being carried to the letter then silliness happens.
So if it's purely about stopping injuries why is a tackle from behind allowed by a defender in the box as long as he gets the ball but nowhere else on the pitch? The rule was brought it for player safety yet refs don't seem it unsafe once you enter the box?
What about 2 players going in for a header; ones a split second late, doesn't get the ball but smashes forehead into opponents nose and cheek...breaking both with lots of blood. Technically player was late, didn't get the ball and badly injured opponent but i doubt would get carded unless the ref deemed it deliberate.
I expect Mane to challenge but probably because he was out sized considerably he took the cowardly option and went with foot. A big strong CF might have gone with head and ironically could have missed the ball, smashed the keepers face and walked away with nothing.