And, not to criticise you, but to show it's a matter of opinion, you have said in successive posts that it is 'reckless' (which is a yellow card) and then a 'blatant red card'.
Top of the list of their apologists this morning is one, Chris Sutton who used to play for ........ Errrrr Chelsea! A mouthy twat at the best of times, but surpassing himself this time.
<Garth Crooks> Meanwhile, the Foxes strike me as a team who have dispensed with *** the basic 'defend for our lives and then hit them on the break' *** attitude for a more sophisticated approach. The quicker Leicester get back to what they know, the better. Shouldn't the bit between the ***s read : their renowned most attackingest game in the world ??
That's not right. Reckless is defined in the Laws to be a yellow card offence. Excessive force is a different category: Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed  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 endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off I don't think I'm being pedantic - we can't possibly have a discussion about whether the Laws are applied correctly unless we use the same definitions of the words. I thought the challenge was reckless but it wasn't excessive force
I thought his whole action was reckless and endangered another player, who could have been seriously injured. To me, that's a red card as just about every pundit and journalist thinks too. I started this as a point about refereeing inconsistency and it now seems to have turned into some pedantic squabble about what's reckless endangerment, and what's not.
Who cares. It was only Rooney and by the time the incident occurred he should have been having an early shower for several instances where he could and should have been shown a yellow card
But that is my whole point. The Laws of the Game REQUIRE the ref to distinguish recklessness from excessive force. Its near enough impossible - you think they are the same thing and most pundits do too. I think it was reckless, you think it was excessive force, Clattenburg saw the same incident and didn't even think it was a 'careless' tackle so gave no foul. We can't expect any sort of consistency while the laws are written like this. But in your first post you mentioned shirt-pulling. There is nothing to distinguish here - shirt-pulling is always a foul and there is no excuse for inconsistent punishment.
The good thing about that Revie team was that they were nearly always runners-up.So cheats do not prosper.....but,of course,when it comes to Ferguson at United.....!
Clattenburg is an idiot and has bottled key decisions before. And, I've no doubt he'll do it again. That was one of the points of my argument. Just about everybody watching saw that as a clear foul, a penalty, and a red card. If you dive in two footed, studs up, you'll more than likely get a red card. We've seen it enough times! Of course it's inconsistent when one gives it and others don't! The whole point was that it is this inconsistency that leaves players unsure of where the limit is.
As much as I enjoyed seeing Mark Hughes sent off and how much improved the game is without the all-in wrestling in the penalty area, the primary focus should always be on player safety and it isn't. Bravo's challenge was reckless and dangerous. If the officials can't see or comprehend that, they need to be looking for alternative employment. It's a red card. There's a growing tendency for leniency in such things and it's wrong. I don't care if the 'spectacle' is ruined by a sending off. Reckless, dangerous challenges have to be subject to red cards and greater punishment than they are currently. Maybe Citeh's punishment is that Bravo is free to play in the next 3 games?
I agree about the outcomes being inconsistent, but if 'two footed studs up challenges' are worth a red card then the Laws could easily say so. Its the fact that the Laws leave the referee too much discretion that allows some of them to bottle it. Actually they all bottle it on occasions, i don't think Clattenberg is any worse than the others
Exactly. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Rooney fan and he's done the same thing to others enough times. But, the challenge Bravo made was reckless, out of control and could easily have broken Rooney's leg. If that ain't a red card, what do you need to get one from Twattenburg? A ****ing gun?...
Fellaini and Costa and Adam do things every ten minutes that are more likely to injure their opponents than Bravo's challenge on Rooney, I agree with your general sentiment, though. Retrospective punishment should be allowed for such things. That might actually make the refs more likely to act.
It makes you wonder,when you whatch defenders holding their opponents before corners,how the likes of Bobby Smith v John Higgins (Bolton) managed.I don't remember them having a romance but I did see some sly fisticuffs between the two. Anyway,holding = penalty and sending off for defenders and sending off for attackers.Perhaps even an introduction of a penalty box as in rugby......off the field for 20 minutes. Something has to be done.It's ridiculous.If a players holds another OUTSIDE the penalty area it's a free kick or a yellow card.Weird!
Pape Souare has been airlifted to hospital, following a car crash on the M4. He has injuries to his leg and jaw but they're not life threatening, according to the media. Hope it's not as bad as it sounds and he makes a quick and full recovery.
Think it was the 2-car accident near Hayes that screwed the traffic for miles around and put me in a jam for 45 minutes. Bloody inconsiderate! (Seriously though, hope he's ok. First reports last evening suggested no serious injuries)
