Jump to content

Football - City Bid the Wrong Type of Sterling


Philokles

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ljkeane said:

ETA: Heh, Matt Richie's just done pretty much the same thing Mane did yesterday but because the defender isn't hurt he gets a yellow. Shouldn't the penalty be based on the actions of the penalised player rather than the outcome?

Not that I'm bitter or anything.

Should have been a red. Just like Mane, that was serious foul play endangering the opponent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ljkeane said:

ETA: Heh, Matt Richie's just done pretty much the same thing Mane did yesterday but because the defender isn't hurt he gets a yellow. Shouldn't the penalty be based on the actions of the penalised player rather than the outcome?

Not that I'm bitter or anything.

I go back on what I said about Mane's being 'horrific'. I didn't look at Ritchie's as 'horrific', despite it being just as dangerous, purely because it didn't end up injuring the player. If Mane's was a red, that should have been a red for Ritchie, too.

I'd be interested to hear the views of former refs or the official letter of the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JordanJH1993 said:

I'd be interested to hear the views of former refs or the official letter of the law.

I'd say that both these challenges fall under serious foul play. The law defines that as:

"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 and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play. Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play unless there is a clear subsequent opportunity to score a goal. The referee shall send off the player guilty of serious foul play when the ball is next out of play."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Consigliere said:

I'd say that both these challenges fall under serious foul play. The law defines that as:

"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 and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play. Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play unless there is a clear subsequent opportunity to score a goal. The referee shall send off the player guilty of serious foul play when the ball is next out of play."

In that case, Ritchie was very lucky not to be sent off.

I suppose it's a bit like Britos' lunge on Knockaert a few weeks ago. It didn't injure Knockaert but the tackle was seriously dangerous play and he was deservedly red carded even though Knockaert was fine. On the other hand, we have seen plenty of innocuous challenges injure players badly without even being yellow card worthy, in terms of dangerous play.

The only difference in Ritchie and Mane was that Mane injured a player, but both players, without any sort of malice, were guilty of seriously endangering their opponent and deserved a red card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, JordanJH1993 said:

I go back on what I said about Mane's being 'horrific'. I didn't look at Ritchie's as 'horrific', despite it being just as dangerous, purely because it didn't end up injuring the player. If Mane's was a red, that should have been a red for Ritchie, too.

They were very similar challenges and should receive the same penalty but in terms of the actions of the penalised player Richie's are actually slightly worse for me. Mane's trying to play a ball coming over his shoulder, so he's probably not entirely sure where Ederson is, and it's a 50-50 while Richie's coming onto a cross field ball and he's never likely to get it. Of course Mane catches Ederson in the face and because they are running straight at each other there's more force involved.

Look, I can see why it's a red card. The authorities want to protect the safety of the players and people getting kicked in the face and knocked out isn't a good look for the game. I just don't think genuine attempts to play a ball that you could reasonably expect to win should be straight reds. It's a contact sport sometimes injuries happen. For example I don't see why knocking someone out with your foot trying to control a ball is any worse than steaming in for a header or keepers punching a cross and knocking someone out but one of those things'll apparently get you a red card and the other 2 won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

Look, I can see why it's a red card. The authorities want to protect the safety of the players and people getting kicked in the face and knocked out isn't a good look for the game. I just don't think genuine attempts to play a ball that you could reasonably expect to win should be straight reds. It's a contact sport sometimes injuries happen. For example I don't see why knocking someone out with your foot trying to control a ball is any worse than steaming in for a header or keepers punching a cross and knocking someone out but one of those things'll apparently get you a red card and the other 2 won't.

Bit like Cahill's header on Mason last season. It's injured Mason to the point that he might never play again, yet very few people other than people with a problem with Cahill or Chelsea thought of it as worthy of a red card or even a foul, yet all in all, it was a lot more dangerous than Mane yesterday. I think the rules blur on these kind of situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ljkeane said:

They were very similar challenges and should receive the same penalty but in terms of the actions of the penalised player Richie's are actually slightly worse for me. Mane's trying to play a ball coming over his shoulder, so he's probably not entirely sure where Ederson is, and it's a 50-50 while Richie's coming onto a cross field ball and he's never likely to get it. Of course Mane catches Ederson in the face and because they are running straight at each other there's more force involved.

Look, I can see why it's a red card. The authorities want to protect the safety of the players and people getting kicked in the face and knocked out isn't a good look for the game. I just don't think genuine attempts to play a ball that you could reasonably expect to win should be straight reds. It's a contact sport sometimes injuries happen. For example I don't see why knocking someone out with your foot trying to control a ball is any worse than steaming in for a header or keepers punching a cross and knocking someone out but one of those things'll apparently get you a red card and the other 2 won't.

Ahum, Mane was a legit straight red card. Well, by your logic going studs up into a tackle (just being a tad late) wouldn't be a straight red card. Mane risked the health of the opposing player and literally kicked him out of the game. I know it's annoying for Liverpool having to do without Mane for a number of games, but it simply was an awful challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Notone said:

Well, by your logic going studs up into a tackle (just being a tad late) wouldn't be a straight red card. Mane risked the health of the opposing player and literally kicked him out of the game. I know it's annoying for Liverpool having to do without Mane for a number of games, but it simply was an awful challenge.

Not if you couldn't reasonably expect to win the ball.

Again, why is Mane's challenge a red and, for example, Ospina absolutely flattening Pedro nothing? I don't see why the fact that Mane's used his foot to try and play the ball makes it any worse.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

Not if you couldn't reasonably expect to win the ball.

Again, why is Mane's challenge a red and, for example, Ospina absolutely flattening Pedro nothing? I don't see why the fact that Mane's used his foot to try and play the ball makes it any worse.

 

I didn't realize punching the ball inside his own box is the same as an outfield player putting his studs through the face of another player. Learn something new every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mexal said:

I didn't realize punching the ball inside his own box is the same as an outfield player putting his studs through the face of another player. Learn something new every day.

Both of them knocked a player out. For the third time, why does it make a difference if it's with your foot or not? Both of them are 'endangering the safety' of the opposition player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ljkeane said:

Both of them knocked a player out. For the third time, why does it make a difference if it's with your foot or not? Both of them are 'endangering the safety' of the opposition player.

Because punching the ball in your own box is a legal play. If a player runs in front of you, and accidentally gets hit in the process, it's actually a penalty on him for hitting the keeper. 

Kicking high is never legal (unless no one is around you), nor is leading with your studs. Kicking high, leading with your studs and putting it through another players face is just wrong man. I can't believe you're defending it over and over like it's perfectly fine. This is one of the least questionable red cards we've seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mexal said:

Kicking high is never legal (unless no one is around you), nor is leading with your studs. 

They're not legal because officials have decided to start interpreting it as 'excessive force' because players can get injured. Playing can absolutely get injured getting flattened by keepers, Pedro getting his face smashed in being the most recent example, so why's that ok?

Injuries happen sometimes in contact sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mexal said:

I give up.

:lol: Get off your cross mate.

You think it should be a red card that's fine, I can see why people would. It's not exactly an uncommon position to think it shouldn't be though, most the pundits I've seen talk about it didn't like that it was a red card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought red was appropriate for Mane.  No malice, not like DeJong in the WC final, but still endangering an opponent.  But by the same logic Ospina should've seen red for smashing Pedro in the face -- there should be the same expectation that he be in control of that punch or else not do it.  GKs are rarely held to the same standard, going all the way back to Schumacher in the WC (82?).  And some football article (which I cannot find right now) said there was a similar high kick incident in another PL game this weekend but the player on the receiving end was less badly hurt (but very much could have been) and the perpetrator only got a yellow.  So is the red card for negligently/recklessly inflicting actual harm (which Ospina did too) or for negligently/recklessly risking serious harm (which happens a lot; like Britos in the last round of PL games, or think of every attempted bicycle kick in a crowded box)?  Consistency matters but is still very rare in football officiating.  I think that's why there's a split opinion on Mane.  Plenty of similar incidents have seen only yellow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ljkeane said:

I just don't think genuine attempts to play a ball that you could reasonably expect to win should be straight reds.

The trouble is, you just introduced two pretty subjective defences that mean this sort of standard would never really be consistent. It's much easier for refs to be consistent about a standard like the current one, which admittedly requires a distinction between 'careless' and 'recklessly endangering' but that's an easier standard than having to judge the player's intent as well as his chances of winning the ball.

(In any case, the Laws are clear that winning the ball or not is irrelevant to whether a challenge is a foul, so the latter shouldn't be a consideration.)

10 hours ago, ljkeane said:

You think it should be a red card that's fine, I can see why people would. It's not exactly an uncommon position to think it shouldn't be though, most the pundits I've seen talk about it didn't like that it was a red card.

Yeah, but those pundits also talk about 'he won the ball' as if it was a reason not to give a foul (see above). Most football pundits don't bother to read the actual rules of the game they're commenting on (and in many cases played professionally). Their views on most refereeing decisions should be treated as a comic turn, not serious insight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...