Its a free kick. Always has been. The same challenge happens several times in every game of football. Defender goes through the attacker to win the ball. Usually because the attacker is small and Weak compared with the defenders, a free kick is awarded. Yellow cards are not. Nothing malicious about it. Reporys claiming Jones injured the fanny are a piss take too. Its all bollocks and nobody is falling for it. Liverpool lost so now you blame everyone and anything. Its sad really.
Hahaha - funny thing is that I'm quite objective and accept that Man United deserved the win. But you clearly don't think that Jones went in far too hard is just plain bias. You've embarrassed yourself now. For the record, I don't think too much of the Rooney/Migs incident either.
He went in hard. I agree it was a free kick. I disagree that it was a card worthy foul. Some reports are calling it a horror challenge. Did they miss the two actual horror challenges in the game? Claiming Jones injured him. Hes got a groin injury ffs. Nothing to do with Jones.
Agree it wasn't a horror injury but was still reckless and could have done a lot of damage. The intent was clearly there, hence why it was a booking.
Of course it was a booking Jimmy but UIR never criticises anybody connected to united no matter how big or small the issue is even when like in this case nailed on
If it was reckless with intent then it was a red. But it wasn't, it was a mistimed challenge that was a yellow all day long, but never a red. This one aside. One of the things that pisses me off in the modern game is the clamour for cards after every foul. Any slightly mistimed tackle when there's some decent speed involved (which makes the mistiming more likely) is going to result in what looks like a dramatic foul due to the speed at impact, which nearly always results in yellow cards, a lot of which are just plain daft. You know when someone's made no real attempt to get the ball and it's just a lunge intended to stop the opponent, but it appears most of our refs can't tell the difference.
Still disagree it was a yellow but spot on with the rest tobes. Its amplified when certain sides lose and cant take it. They then start claiming everything is a foul and a red card.
Yep, but there doesn't need to be intent to receive a yellow, players are shown yellows for clumsy non intentional fouls every week, its about them being consistent.
The thing that puzzles me about Atkinson's line on this is how the hell can he claim he didn't see Skrtel's stamp when he claims he did see Rooney's kick and decided not to punish it? The angle that Poll took in the Mail was that Atkinson was wise to let the game just finish without sending Skrtel off then, and risking mayhem: fair enough, so why didn't he card him in the tunnel as he's entitled to? This retrospective dealing with the stamp after the referee had CHOSEN not to deal with it at the time sets a new precedent, though. As previously stated, Skrtel deserves what's coming to him, but there's some double-standards and chicanery being played out here too.
Been saying this for a long time. The only time a card should be drawn is if its a cynical foul (then a yellow card is apt) or a potentially dangerous one (then a red card, intent or no). Just missing the ball and clipping a players heel should never be a card (yellow or red), just a foul. Like you say, it is quite easy to spot what fouls are genuine tackle attempts, which ones are cynical (ie to stop the player) and which ones are just ******ly reckless (like that Burnley douche on Matic the other week). Even the reckless ones, I dont think the player goes in thinking "Im gonna break this guys leg", its just a rush of blood in the heat of the moment. Should still be a red in those cases tho.
Liverpool lost because they were beaten by a far better side on the day. Dunno who said different to that on here, because I certainly didn't, Jimmy didn't, and I haven't seen a post yet that did. Perhaps you can enlighten me with an example, or are you and Tobes going to point us to something that was said on RAWK like you did last time?
Eh? I am talking about cards for fouls. Obviously you should still get cards for violent conduct, handballing, timewasting etc.
I wasn't sure from your comment and wondered if you thought the old professional foul should go uncarded - thanks for clarifying
Whilst I agree with your general point, isn't 'reckless with intent' a bit of contradiction in terms? An oxymoron, indeed! Come to think of it, isn't Jones the definition of an oxy moron?
Maybe.....not sure tbh. I suppose you could have a reckless challenge were the player wasn't in control of his challenge, but that wasn't carrying deliberate intent to injure. Semantics though surely?
