I can. He kicks him in the face with his studs. It's at Jota's own head height. It's clearly and obviously dangerous. Even Dermot Gallagher can't defend it and that's basically what he's there for: He's looking straight at him all the way, leads with his studs and kicks him near the temple. It's a horrific challenge. If that's not a red, then nothing is.
I don't understand why there is any doubt and room for different views. That would have been a red in the 1960's when hard tackling was allowed. It's not about intent if it was then he should be locked up never mind carded. It's just dangerous play. I have seen many reds given when the player receiving the red was unlucky because it was just mistimed but that was discounted as an excuse. Why is it now?
I suppose all you can do is remind the media and the authorities every time they come up with the opposite to this decision. Make it a bench mark and judge them on it.
Because, because, because, because becaaaaaaause, because of the wonderful noise of the Kop, falalalalala.
Now that we also know that refs get paid more for the 'big' games it throws the light of potential pressure on the decisions made. It's a really stupid decision to pay refs more for some clubs games than they do for others. Once again just like the Spurs board the FA board probably has too many financial types and not enough footballer types.
They don't and won't care. This doesn't happen often either, thankfully. Studs up kicks to an opponent's face are a rarity. Probably because it's a stonewall red card.
I saw the takeover of boards by financial people in the 1960's & 70's that laid the ground for Thatcher in the 80's. Example I worked for an engineering company. Decisions re strategy were made by the Chief Engineer and the Sales Director. Then came the 3 day week and the Company Secretary (Accountant) became the most important board member. That position was never given up and lasts until this day. So now we have people that know about money and how to look after it but know very little about the product their company or club produce. So China and the USA take over the world.
please log in to view this image Van Dickhead having his shirt pulled by the invisible man, apparently!
What, didn't you know all Pool players are rigged up to harnesses and strings that help them get airborne at the slightest touch from an opposition player? The stunt man controlling VVD's harness got clumsy by the looks of this picture. They say the guy who controls Salah's harness used to work with Tom Cruise on his biggest stunts.
I don’t disagree with any of that. It is dangerous. But is unclear to me whether dangerous play requires intent or whether it is irrelevant if it is committed recklessly or intentionally. My comment was in response to CK’s. The ref saw it in real time. Two players challenging for a 50/50 ball. The contact to the face was accidental because Skipp leaned in (or so the ref must have thought). Without that contact, it would still be high, but not look anywhere near as bad. Jota’s culpable because his foot is high. He wasn’t late when challenging for the ball. He was punished on the basis that he acted recklessly. I suppose he could be both reckless and dangerous. Or does dangerous play have to be intentional rather than reckless? The ref must have thought it was reckless but not intentionally dangerous and VAR felt unable to overturn that subjective view? If Jota was looking straight at Skipp, then that suggests it was intentional, in which case there is no doubt that it was a red. But can VAR intervene if the ref doesn’t make that finding?
I'd also like to refute the argument that Skipp stooped into the header. The ball was dropping. There was no way he was waiting for it to drop any further before going for the clearance. Jota should/could see that and again would/should have known that Skipp was going to head it. Jota knew that raising his foot was a dangerous act .
The relevant Laws don't require intent. If you endanger the safety of an opponent you must be sent off. So if that isn't a red card kicking someone in the head doesn't endanger their safety. ...and it wasn't a 50:50 because one player could head it lawfully whereas the other couldn't kick it lawfully.
