Fabricio Coloccini (now retired)

[Aphrodite]

Intent means nothing really tbh, it's all about whether the tackle is dangerous or made with excessive force.

[Varadi]

Pardew says Colo says there was no intent but due to the way it looks on replay there's no point appealing.

 

Ridiculous red for me, clearly wanted to make sure if he missed the ball the player didn't get away from him but to suggest he's gone in to do him is nonsense IMO.

 

Ironic it's clearly the linesmans reaction that has made it a red, while from an almost identical position against the mackems the lino didn't even flag for a foul but the red  for Tiote came out anyway - we're getting shafted on all fronts at the moment.

[Wilson]

It was a definite red card for me. It was disappointing to see him lunge in like that, sure there was hardly any contact and there was no intent but you can't be doing things like that, it forces the referee's hand more often than not.

 

Hardly any contact and no intent equals definite red card?

 

a studs up dangerous challenge does

 

But that basically means intent is now completely unimportant.  An accident is a definite red if it could possibly hurt someone?  I haven't watched the incident enough to decide if I believe there was intent by the way, I'm just referring to the post above which said he believed there was no intent but still a definite red card.

 

there was no intent imo, but it was dangerous and worthy of a red card

[Teasy]

You're effectively saying that if a player accidentally hurts another player he deserves a red card.

[Aphrodite]

That makes absolutely no sense, sorry.  But how can intent ever mean nothing?  You're effectively saying that if a player accidentally hurts another player he deserves a red card.

 

There's no mention of intent in the laws. Very few tackles are intended to hurt someone (with the exception of ones like Keane v Haaland), doesn't mean they can't be dangerous or cause injury.

[Teasy]

It was a definite red card for me. It was disappointing to see him lunge in like that, sure there was hardly any contact and there was no intent but you can't be doing things like that, it forces the referee's hand more often than not.

 

Hardly any contact and no intent equals definite red card?

 

a studs up dangerous challenge does

 

But that basically means intent is now completely unimportant.  An accident is a definite red if it could possibly hurt someone?  I haven't watched the incident enough to decide if I believe there was intent by the way, I'm just referring to the post above which said he believed there was no intent but still a definite red card.

 

there was no intent imo, but it was dangerous and worthy of a red card

 

Ok, but could you answer my question.  You're view is that if you accidentally put another player in danger of getting seriously injured you believe that's a definite red card?

[Wilson]

if he goes in studs up like colo did he runs the risk of a red, regardless of whether he was trying to snap his leg or not.

[Aphrodite]

It was a definite red card for me. It was disappointing to see him lunge in like that, sure there was hardly any contact and there was no intent but you can't be doing things like that, it forces the referee's hand more often than not.

 

Hardly any contact and no intent equals definite red card?

 

a studs up dangerous challenge does

 

But that basically means intent is now completely unimportant.  An accident is a definite red if it could possibly hurt someone?  I haven't watched the incident enough to decide if I believe there was intent by the way, I'm just referring to the post above which said he believed there was no intent but still a definite red card.

 

there was no intent imo, but it was dangerous and worthy of a red card

 

Ok, but could you answer my question.  You're view is that if you accidentally put another player in danger of getting seriously injured you believe that's a definite red card?

 

Yes- that is exactly what the law says. If you 'seriously endanger the safety of an opponent' you get a red card.

[midds]

He, like Tiote the other week, gave the ref a decision to make. Completely needless to leave his leg dangling like that when the ball was nowhere near and can understand why he got binned. Had his studs made contact it would probably have injured the cheating little cunt.

 

More annoyed at Coloccini himself rather than the ref/lino for giving it. Needless.   

[Dr.Spaceman]

Worst thing is it gives the red shits and the racist another chance to play the victim. Utter bellends.

[Teasy]

if he goes in studs up like colo did he runs the risk of a red, regardless of whether he was trying to snap his leg or not.

 

I agree it risks a red card, but what I'm asking is do you believe that accidentally putting another player in danger of getting seriously injured is a definite red card.

[David28]

Dunno what Pards has said post-match but him and JC didn't look happy when they spoke to the ref at FT and I hope we appeal it. It was a foul, nothing more and never a red card in a million years.

 

Sick to death of getting shit decisions like this, they're stopping our best players all featuring together and costing us points and that.

 

All very well having a 'Respect' campaign, but I couldn't respect any of the PL refs one iota seeing as they give such shit decisions. I really do hate how referees are exempt from criticism because they do a hard job; any other hard job you'd be sacked for doing such a constantly crap job.

 

I've not heard it but apparently he's said it was a red which I completely disagree with. I don't think Pardew does enough moaning about refs personally. Ferguson doesn't do it for the good of his health - he does it to plant a seed in the mind of referees. If they know they can give us shit decisions without the manager complaining, they're much more likely to do it.

 

 

Agree with that, we're too nice to the refs at times.

 

Saying that, No-one has an impact as huge as Ferguson's. Pardew could say what he wants he'd never get those 6 minutes of Pardew-time if needed - and rightly so because nobody should be favoured by the refs.

[Aphrodite]

if he goes in studs up like colo did he runs the risk of a red, regardless of whether he was trying to snap his leg or not.

 

I agree it risks a red card, but what I'm asking is do you believe that accidentally putting another player in danger of getting seriously injured is a definite red card.

 

See answer I gave above ^^ Otherwise the only time anyone would be sent off would be if they lamped someone or deliberately snapped them in half

[WarrenBartonCentrePartin]

I blame Pardew for this red, we were being ran ragged due to his awful negative tactis and game plan.

 

You're f***ing boring.

 

Yet upon reading my views, you feel the need to comment...

 

because it's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on here.  Have a word with yourself.

[Teasy]

It was a definite red card for me. It was disappointing to see him lunge in like that, sure there was hardly any contact and there was no intent but you can't be doing things like that, it forces the referee's hand more often than not.

 

Hardly any contact and no intent equals definite red card?

 

a studs up dangerous challenge does

 

But that basically means intent is now completely unimportant.  An accident is a definite red if it could possibly hurt someone?  I haven't watched the incident enough to decide if I believe there was intent by the way, I'm just referring to the post above which said he believed there was no intent but still a definite red card.

 

there was no intent imo, but it was dangerous and worthy of a red card

 

Ok, but could you answer my question.  You're view is that if you accidentally put another player in danger of getting seriously injured you believe that's a definite red card?

 

Yes- that is exactly what the law says. If you 'seriously endanger the safety of an opponent' you get a red card.

 

Strange then that everyone and their mothers (including referees) often mention intent.  If the rules consider an accident to be no less punishable than an intended foul then that's quite amazing to me.  Though it seems that if that's the case most people in Football don't realise and plenty of referees don't apply it.  As plenty of players accidentally endanger and in fact seriously injure opponents without being punished, with the only possible reason for the lack of punishment being that it was an accident.

[themanupstairs]

Is there a difference between intent to hurt someone, and intent to foul them? Did Colo intend to hurt Suarez or did he intend to stop him continuing his run? If it's the latter, it's no more than a yellow card, especially as it was near the touchline surrounded by other players. Which it was imo.

[Teasy]

if he goes in studs up like colo did he runs the risk of a red, regardless of whether he was trying to snap his leg or not.

 

I agree it risks a red card, but what I'm asking is do you believe that accidentally putting another player in danger of getting seriously injured is a definite red card.

 

See answer I gave above ^^ Otherwise the only time anyone would be sent off would be if they lamped someone or deliberately snapped them in half

 

I already know your view, I'm asking someone else about theirs.  Also no requiring intent would not mean someone would need to punch another to be sent off, that makes no sense.  It would however require the referee to believe the player meant the foul.

[Aphrodite]

It was a definite red card for me. It was disappointing to see him lunge in like that, sure there was hardly any contact and there was no intent but you can't be doing things like that, it forces the referee's hand more often than not.

 

Hardly any contact and no intent equals definite red card?

 

a studs up dangerous challenge does

 

But that basically means intent is now completely unimportant.  An accident is a definite red if it could possibly hurt someone?  I haven't watched the incident enough to decide if I believe there was intent by the way, I'm just referring to the post above which said he believed there was no intent but still a definite red card.

 

there was no intent imo, but it was dangerous and worthy of a red card

 

Ok, but could you answer my question.  You're view is that if you accidentally put another player in danger of getting seriously injured you believe that's a definite red card?

 

Yes- that is exactly what the law says. If you 'seriously endanger the safety of an opponent' you get a red card.

 

Strange then that everyone and their mothers (including referees) often mention intent.  If the rules consider an accident to be no less punishable than an intended foul then that's quite amazing to me.  Though it seems that if that's the case most people in Football don't realise and plenty of referees don't apply it.  As plenty of players accidentally endanger and in fact seriously injure opponents without being punished, with the only possible reason for the lack of punishment being that it was an accident.

 

The only offence which requires intent is handball- maybe that's what you are thinking of.

 

General guideline.

Careless = foul

Reckless = yellow card

Endangers safety/excessive force= red card

[Aphrodite]

if he goes in studs up like colo did he runs the risk of a red, regardless of whether he was trying to snap his leg or not.

 

I agree it risks a red card, but what I'm asking is do you believe that accidentally putting another player in danger of getting seriously injured is a definite red card.

 

See answer I gave above ^^ Otherwise the only time anyone would be sent off would be if they lamped someone or deliberately snapped them in half

 

I already know your view, I'm asking someone else about theirs.  Also no requiring intent would not mean someone would need to punch another to be sent off, that makes absolutely no sense.  It would however require the referee to believe the player meant the foul.

 

How would a referee have any idea of what a player means to do though?

[ExiledGeordie]

 

Stupid thing to do which contributed to full on pressure/madness towards the end.

[DubblyDubblyDubbly]

It was the c***ing linesman saying "RED RED RED". The ref was in no position to overrule him.

[Teasy]

if he goes in studs up like colo did he runs the risk of a red, regardless of whether he was trying to snap his leg or not.

 

I agree it risks a red card, but what I'm asking is do you believe that accidentally putting another player in danger of getting seriously injured is a definite red card.

 

See answer I gave above ^^ Otherwise the only time anyone would be sent off would be if they lamped someone or deliberately snapped them in half

 

I already know your view, I'm asking someone else about theirs.  Also no requiring intent would not mean someone would need to punch another to be sent off, that makes absolutely no sense.  It would however require the referee to believe the player meant the foul.

 

How would a referee have any idea of what a player means to do though?

 

In the same way they have an idea if someone has hand balled intentionally, body language and their opinion of the situation.

 

Are we definitely talking about the same thing here?  Are you talking about the intent to commit a foul or the intent to injure?  I can accept that there's nothing directly in the rules regarding either if you say so as I don't have a rule book.  But it does seem like players often don't get sent off in a situation where they absolutely have to if the intent to commit a foul isn't considered of any relevance by referees.

 

For instance going up for a header, because players usually stick their arms out players can often get an elbow in the face and sometimes its quite serious (being knocked unconscious).  Yet players certainly aren't always sent off for that, despite it being a dangerous thing to do and causing injury.  Surely the reason for that is because the referee decided it was an accident in that particular case?

[Unbelievable]

As with the Tiote sending off, it's another case of you can't really complain when it's given even though it's a 50/50 decision for the ref. What really grates though is these kind of fouls happen in most if not all matches and normally get punished with a yellow and hardly warrant a replay. Hell, sometimes players even get away with it (like Tiote v Man U, Suarez v Everton and Sterling twice today) and in these cases 99 times out of 100 there is no retrospective punishment from the FA. Whilst I can accept the decision(s) in itself and respect the difficult job referees do, it's the inconsistency in decision making from the authorities in general that is hard to take.

[Wullie]

As with the Tiote sending off, it's another case of you can't really complain when it's given even though it's a 50/50 decision for the ref. What really grates though is these kind of fouls happen in most if not all matches and normally get punished with a yellow and hardly warrant a replay. Hell, sometimes players even get away with it (like Tiote v Man U, Suarez v Everton and Sterling twice today) and in these cases 99 times out of 100 there is no retrospective punishment from the FA. Whilst I can accept the decision(s) in itself and respect the difficult job referees do, it's the inconsistency in decision making from the authorities in general that is hard to take.

 

It's more like 100 times out of 100 because they don't punish retrospectively for serious foul play.

[Teasy]

As with the Tiote sending off, it's another case of you can't really complain when it's given even though it's a 50/50 decision for the ref. What really grates though is these kind of fouls happen in most if not all matches and normally get punished with a yellow and hardly warrant a replay. Hell, sometimes players even get away with it (like Tiote v Man U, Suarez v Everton and Sterling twice today) and in these cases 99 times out of 100 there is no retrospective punishment from the FA. Whilst I can accept the decision(s) in itself and respect the difficult job referees do, it's the inconsistency in decision making from the authorities in general that is hard to take.

 

Definitely agree with this.  I wasn't surprised when Coloccini was sent off and I didn't call the ref a cunt for it.  The first thing in my mind was incidents earlier in the game were a Liverpool player could have just as easily been sent off.