so debate that challenge form the point of view of the rules then. its just as subjective A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force: A) 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. B) Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned. C) 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 Was it careless? Was it reckless? Was that excessive force? I would contend it is a and b but not c. Again: PLAYING IN A DANGEROUS MANNER Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury. A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that it is not dangerous to an opponent. SERIOUS FOUL PLAY A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play. Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play. VIOLENT CONDUCT Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made. In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible. Again is it excessive force? I would against say the guy has tucked his leg in and its his knee contacting the ankle as he goes for ball in combination with elliotts foot being firmly planted. Its down to a subjective interpretation of excessive force. I would contend jack grealish would be in the air already fouling there and would have picked himself up after rolling about for 10 mins seeking to get the opponent sent off.
Wishing Harvey a speedy recovery. Not sure what I think about the red card. The referee clearly wasn't going to give a card of any colour. He'd already waved play on and it wasn't us in possession, had we retained possession, he could quite well have waved play on and gone back to the offender with a card but that isn't what happened. VAR made his mind up for him. Thiago and Fabinho were something else as were Virgil and Matip. Sorry to say Oxlade Chamberlain looks like he's given up on football.
yup. I want to hear his VAR chat cos imo he was advised to red card and then he said to be heard he was always going to.
You highlighted the relevant passage and it's important that it starts with "or" as it removes the need for "excessive force" to be considered foul play: "or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play. Its a red card.
No. I know intent is not in the rules, and spent the best part of a monthon the Prem board after the Prickford assault copying and pasting them the rules (especially PJ) and reminding them of that. And while I thought the tackle was worse than the one Fab got booked for - b ut shouldn't have, imo - I just don't think it would have been a red card had Elliot's ankle not been dislocated. I am getting a bit pissed off with this 'Keep the game flowing ' malarkey, in that the influenced refs seem to be letting the home sides get away with murder, but the away side, apart from Wimburnleydon at Anfield, get yellow cards for the first tackle they commit.
With Elliott out for a while, he has one last chance to start making an impression and be that player of early 2018 who was ripping up trees at home and abroad, before the injury against Roma.
that's the point though. The fact his ankle was dislocated means its a red card. He was endangered. That's how i read it.
So, if say Matip recklessly and wildly threw himself in for header at a corner for us and pushes the goalie over, is it a red card?
I know it is the Daily Fail,but still of interest and good news? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/s...on-six-months-horror-injury-says-surgeon.html
What's the latest word on Harvey, anyway? Is it a break/dislocation. and is there any tissue damage? Any timsecales?
the wording of the rules are there because We don’t want to see injuries what the main causes injuries? Tackles what’s more likely to cause a major injury in a tackle? a high tackle… a 2 footed tackle… leaving the ground… tackle from behind. If they are most likely to cause serious injuries those kind of tackles need to be stopped. what’s best way to stop those tackles? Red card… If you therefor lunge in from behind, you’re getting sent off. Pretty simple one. yes you may win the ball occasionally and yes we don’t want the game to become non contact. But the rules state a tackle from behind that endangers the opponent is a red card. Knowing that, why would you risk it?
he’ll only be having scans today/tomorrow won’t he? Although I break would be diagnosed straight away. Anyway, I really feel for the lad, imagine being in the cusp of your first champions league game at anfield and this happening.
That's why I'm unsure about the red card. If you take out the players involved and look at it objectively it should be easier to come to a decision. Ultimately it's hard to see the resulting injury and not think a punishment should be handed out.
I actually think it’s a red card with no ban - so card gets rescinded Just like the another one but can’t remember who No way should he have not been punished It was reckless and it has injured the other player however there was no intent so no further ban
I think a card is rescinded only on appeal isn't it, so depends on what Bielsa does. He's the only decent thing about Leeds so he may not want to appeal.
In the end all of the above are perfectly fine views but it provides the point that it is subjective in terms of what is excessive force. On the other side of the pitch and absolutely identical challenges get was done to mane, no card at all. The whole point of reffing is to set the level through consistency such that players know where the line is. Imo hes gone red after seeing the injury and only after then as jb is right. He wasnt even going to give a free.
