Jump to content

The Other 19


madras

Recommended Posts

Just now, Erikse said:

"Intense foul with a lot of force that occurs away from the ball"?? Pretty sure point nr 2 is an extension of nr 1.

 

One says "occurs away from the ball", the other says "does not involve trying to play the ball." They read separate to me. Either way, you're suggesting that if the force is neglible, they shouldn't be sent off? So if you throw a punch and miss, it's OK?

 

I do think Schar's was soft by the way. I'm just saying that they're never, ever going to overturn those, because he did still lean his head in, and Diaz's reaction is irrelevant.

 

3 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Absolutely not, I would be calling Schar a diver. 

 

Of course, but you can also dive while being on the receiving end of violent conduct.

 

Like Stephens deserved a red against Garnacho, but Garnacho definitely dived as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gdm said:

We’d take the team going down to 10 but no one would seriously suggest it was a red card 

 

Come on man. :lol: You had plenty on here suggesting it was a red card for Fernandes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

Come on man. :lol: You had plenty on here suggesting it was a red card for Fernandes.

I’m talking about the Schar incident if it was other way round. If Schar had dived and Diaz got sent off think we’d all be like great they are down to 10 while saying it was never a red.

 

When you slow it right down Diaz puts his head forward then dives back. It should have been rescinded on that alone 

 

 

Edited by gdm

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

One says "occurs away from the ball", the other says "does not involve trying to play the ball." They read separate to me. Either way, you're suggesting that if the force is neglible, they shouldn't be sent off? So if you throw a punch and miss, it's OK?

 

I do think Schar's was soft by the way. I'm just saying that they're never, ever going to overturn those, because he did still lean his head in, and Diaz's reaction is irrelevant.

 

 

Of course, but you can also dive while being on the receiving end of violent conduct.

 

Like Stephens deserved a red against Garnacho, but Garnacho definitely dived as well. 


Here is the definition of violent conduct on IFABs pages:

3d982364a8090092a66d4fdc62928b65.thumb.png.1c151c37900ad1421075019b396a8713.png

 

The rules written on FA.com (which are the same rules made by IFAB) also makes no specific exceptions to headbutts or the things mentioned (which they would), and as stated this is what they said:

 

Quote

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.

 

So it clearly states that if you strike someone in the face with the hand or arm, if it's neglibigle force it will not qualify for a red. I'm not the one saying this, it's IFAB who are saying this. And yet you object to that.

 

 

Edited by Erikse

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of fuss being made over that Fernandes red considering it literally had no impact on the game at all, if anything Spurs actually played worse against ten men than when they were ripping Man United to shreds before the sending off .

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Geogaddi said:

A lot of fuss being made over that Fernandes red considering it literally had no impact on the game at all, if anything Spurs actually played worse against ten men than when they were ripping Man United to shreds before the sending off .

 

It had zero effect on the game. I think people are just discussing the consistency of the decisions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was pretty sure Fernandez one was a red at the time. Looking again though, I think it was just reckless and clumsy and more of a yellow. So, fair enough to overturn it.

 

Schar wasn't a red either, but was also reckless in that it gave the ref an excuse/reason to send him off and may have looked like a headbutt from the ref's point of view. But that wasn't overturned on appeal. I don't know why the bar is different between the two 

 

Sometimes a frivolous appeal gets an additional penalty, doesn't it? So that one was presumably not thought to be frivolous, which suggests they had something to think about.

 

Why I would have liked it overturned though, was because if so it would demonstrate that it was Brereton Diaz who was initiating contact and / or playacting. Those are the things fans actually hate and that you want stamped out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Froggy said:

Either way, you're suggesting that if the force is neglible, they shouldn't be sent off? So if you throw a punch and miss, it's OK?

 

And to address this point, even though IFAB already stated in the rules that neglibigle force is not a red. A missed punch also has different levels of force. I'd expect the force of the action, and not necessarily just the force of contact, to be decisive. You can use excessive force while missing the punch for instance.

 

 

Edited by Erikse

Link to post
Share on other sites

(I love that they hate us btw.  They were bitter in the mid-90s when we nudged them out of one of the ‘big club’ slots.  They’re still jealous that we tend to get more coverage than them in the national press, even during the Ashley era)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Quote

Bournemouth

have entered a co-operation agreement with Japanese club Kyoto Sanga The 2 clubs will collaborate in various ways for footballing operations, such as youth development and coaching and also combining their respective scouting networks.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

Sir Alex Ferguson should be able to do anything he wants at the club until the day he dies Such a lack of respect. It's totally scandalous. Sir Alex Ferguson will be my boss forever. And I throw them all in a big bag of sh*t

Eric Cantona 

Link to post
Share on other sites

An Arsenal fan has been found guilty of headbutting football pundit Roy Keane following a Premier League match.

Scott Law, 43, was convicted at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ of his charge of common assault despite pleading not guilty to attacking the former midfield icon at The Gunners’ Emirates Stadium on September 3 last year.

 

 

Edited by Choppy Chop Chop

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Not something I’d pay for but with PSR  it’ll be a necessary evil for us to get in punters who will pay for a more premium experience. 
 

New stadium with more private boxes opening into an exclusive lounge, get the Saudi charter flights in, private luxury transfers to the ground, kerching.

 

Depending on location get a hotel added on, even better to keep it all in house.

 

 

Edited by SAK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...