Rival watch

[PleaseNotPoll]

The Laws of the Game don't quite agree with you....

Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned.
Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off.

Of course Emerson Royal got sent off at Arsenal for a much less serious offence.

Again the issue is that the Laws are written very badly and subject to too much interpretation. The definition of using excessive force is essentially using excessive force and/or endangering but reckless is a lesser offence. That's so unclear it's not surprising it's applied inconsistently

Serious foul play. Endangers the safety of an opponent.

 

[PowerSpurs]

Serious foul play. Endangers the safety of an opponent.

I agree but then why was the Southampton player not sent off for the overhead kick into the opponents head.

 

[Diego]

Serious foul play. Endangers the safety of an opponent.

Pretty sure most people would accept that.
How is it relevant in this case?

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

I agree but then why was the Southampton player not sent off for the overhead kick into the opponents head.

There's a specific exemption for it, but it only applies if done safely, which that wasn't.
Hard to examine thoroughly though, as I didn't see any replays, as they weren't showing them.
Probably was a red though, in my opinion.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Pretty sure most people would accept that.
How is it relevant in this case?

Because it's what happened, mainly.

 

[littleDinosaurLuke]

Sabitzer should have been booked. He was late. He’s going to play a loose ball, but is second to it. He tries to adjust as the ball takes a different path, but plays the man as there was insufficient time.
He wasn’t reckless as there was initially a loose ball he was entitled to attempt to play and he didn’t use excessive force.
Unless you’re a mind reader like Souness, you can’t assume that he intended to foul an opponent either.

 

[Diego]

There's a specific exemption for it, but it only applies if done safely, which that wasn't.
Hard to examine thoroughly though, as I didn't see any replays, as they weren't showing them.
Probably was a red though, in my opinion.

How do you react to Kane making a back/tipping an opponent when they are jumping for a header?
This action could easily break arms, dislocate shoulders or even break a neck yet he gets away with it time after time.

Way back in the 60s when players were hard this action was thought of as unforgivable and players would take retribution into their own hands if the ref did nothing.

 

[Diego]

Because it's what happened, mainly.

Get new glasses or a better telly would be my best advice to you.

Oh, and ignore Souness.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

How do you react to Kane making a back/tipping an opponent when they are jumping for a header?
This action could easily break arms, dislocate shoulders or even break a neck yet he gets away with it time after time.

Way back in the 60s when players were hard this action was thought of as unforgivable and players would take retribution into their own hands if the ref did nothing.

You must log in or register to see images

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Get new glasses or a better telly would be my best advice to you.

Oh, and ignore Souness.

And Gallagher and reality.

 

[Diego]

You must log in or register to see images

Nothing of the sort.
I was just asking your opinion because i have never read anything from you on here saying it should be a red card for endagering an opponent or even seen you mention it.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Nothing of the sort.
I was just asking your opinion because i have never read anything from you on here saying it should be a red card for endagering an opponent or even seen you mention it.

What does it have to do with Sabitzer kicking Faes in the knee?

 

[Diego]

And Gallagher and reality.

Don't know who reality is but your choice of ref (who should look back at his own performances) is to pick one who gets paid to gain clicks by countering on field decisions

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Don't know who reality is but your choice of ref (who should look back at his own performances) is to pivck one who gets paid to gain clicks by countering on field decisions

 

[Diego]

What does it have to do with Sabitzer kicking Faes in the knee?

Everything if you want to bring endangering opponents into it.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Everything if you want to bring endangering opponents into it.

You must log in or register to see images

Exactly as I said.

 

[Diego]

Don't know who reality is but your choice of ref (who should look back at his own performances) is to pivck one who gets paid to gain clicks by countering on field decisions

Well spotted, edit now done

 

[Diego]

You must log in or register to see images

Exactly as I said.

Sabitzer's a midfielder

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Sabitzer's a midfielder

He has actually played the majority of his career as a right-winger, funnily enough.

 

[The Changing Man]

I think that this is just another weekend that proves that VAR hasn't particularly improved the football product. Contentious decisions continue to be part of the game because a certain amount of decisions will always be subjective and as such 2 people (as we see here) can always see a challenge, an interpretation of interfering with play on offside or a handball differently.

I actually think we all hate marginal offsides much more than we hated the odd obvious one being a wrong decision, and as for experience in the ground it is just so much worse. I know that offside is a factual decision, but the game needs to remember why offside was originally introduced and it wasn't about being an inch beyond the last man.

For what its worth I think Sabitzer was lucky, I think both united goals were ok, and that it was handball in our game.