Andre Gomes Everton

[petersaxton]

For heaven's sake why should he explain his actions to you? I expect the FA asked him the question, they overturned the red. End of.

"I got carried away"

 

[Brabs]

We’ve had this debate before. personally I think Cahill did him.
Ive never seen anyone go for a header like that.
Others disagree.

I agree.

 

[Kempton]

He may have given the red for Son's own good. They say the lad was in a state of shock.

 

[Ajbtiger]

Not sure what is meant by cahil did him but I'm sure he didn't intend to hit him with a flying headbutt. However it does highlight a problem with how challenges for headers are viewed, as unintentional as it was, it was clearly aggressive and late but unfortunately its very difficult to judge, not sure how it can be avoided. We don't want to lose heading from the game, perhaps there could be a similar rule to tackling where you cannot run in from behind like that? again though very difficult to manage.

 

[petersaxton]

Not sure what is meant by cahil did him but I'm sure he didn't intend to hit him with a flying headbutt. However it does highlight a problem with how challenges for headers are viewed, as unintentional as it was, it was clearly aggressive and late but unfortunately its very difficult to judge, not sure how it can be avoided. We don't want to lose heading from the game, perhaps there could be a similar rule to tackling where you cannot run in from behind like that? again though very difficult to manage.

I agree. I don't think Cahill meant to hit him on the side of the head. He was just reckless. Your suggestion makes sense.

 

[TwoWrights]

For heaven's sake why should he explain his actions to you? I expect the FA asked him the question, they overturned the red. End of.

The FA that like to harp on about transparency? They overturned the red after insisting it was the correct decision. I'm of the opinion that referees should be made to explain,in public, how they arrived at a particular decision and if they still stand by it. It might make them appear less aloof and more human.

The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.

 

[petersaxton]

The FA that like to harp on about transparency? They overturned the red after insisting it was the correct decision. I'm of the opinion that referees should be made to explain,in public, how they arrived at a particular decision and if they still stand by it. It might make them appear less aloof and more human.

The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.

I liked how the referees explained their decisions in the Rugby World Cup. I also liked how the players didnt argue.

 

[Asterix]

For heaven's sake why should he explain his actions to you? I expect the FA asked him the question, they overturned the red. End of.

An explanation was given on motd. Because of the subsequent injury, the initial booking offence was deemed reckless and a red.

 

[Quill]

He may have given the red for Son's own good. They say the lad was in a state of shock.

Pochettino would've definitely taken him off, he just was in no state to continue.

He took off Aurier not long after as well, I imagine for similar reasons.

 

[Plum]

The FA that like to harp on about transparency? They overturned the red after insisting it was the correct decision. I'm of the opinion that referees should be made to explain,in public, how they arrived at a particular decision and if they still stand by it. It might make them appear less aloof and more human.

The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.

Would you like them to wear sackcloth and ashes while they're doing it?

 

[TwoWrights]

Would you like them to wear sackcloth and ashes while they're doing it?

No, just reasons as to why they arrived at certain decisions and, after reviewing them, if they still stand by them. How very unreasonable of me.


The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.

 

[Charon]

that decision highlights everything that is wrong with VAR - the ref thought it was a red, VAR didn't intervene or change that decision - subsequently deemed not a red - if VAR isn't going to correct wrong decisions, what the **** is it there for

 

[PLT]

that decision highlights everything that is wrong with VAR - the ref thought it was a red, VAR didn't intervene or change that decision - subsequently deemed not a red - if VAR isn't going to correct wrong decisions, what the **** is it there for

As far as I can tell, it's to incentivise diving by creating a situation where a player who clearly dived can be shown via VAR to have successfully grazed part of the defender's leg on his way down. See Deulofeu last weekend.

 

[Quill]

I see Son played tonight against Red Star Belgrade, he even scored twice as well.

He has infinitely better mental strength than I gave him credit for. Fair play to him.

 

[Charon]

As far as I can tell, it's to incentivise diving by creating a situation where a player who clearly dived can be shown via VAR to have successfully grazed part of the defender's leg on his way down. See Deulofeu last weekend.

And the way Bravo got sent off tonight- that was a joke

 

[Quill]

And the way Bravo got sent off tonight- that was a joke

Though it did give us the sight of an outfield player in goal, which is always great.

I think it was a bit of a weird one - it's definitely a dive, but Bravo is also really reckless going in the way he did. To be honest, if the bloke didn't dive, he probably would've been pretty injured. I don't think it was a red, but I'm not really surprised the ref gave it.

 

[Evington]

I see Son played tonight against Red Star Belgrade, he even scored twice as well.

He has infinitely better mental strength than I gave him credit for. Fair play to him.

Should never underestimate South Koreans.

 

[HHH]

Just me that thought the player reaction were embarrassing.

Maybe only Tosun and Digne acting like men and giving the lad a bit of support and reassurance. Rest proper me me me showponies.

Imagine if there was a war or summat, being in the trenches with them pussies.