EPT2017 - 2018 Football Thread - Page 59
| Forum Index > Sports |
Liquid`Drone
Norway28736 Posts
| ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Oh were you discussing mane and not the metz one? xD | ||
|
sneirac
Germany3464 Posts
On September 11 2017 16:34 evilfatsh1t wrote: ok then for comparisons sake nanis red card vs real when he hit arbeloa was very controversial at the time. im also of the opinion that nani should have been given a yellow max for that incident. does everyone else in this thread think that was also a definite red? seems ludicrous to me; that having your foot in the air for trying to control a ball should warrant a red card should there be any contact at all with an opponent regardless of whether it was intentional or not. i think mane's case was harsh but ill accept that a red could be given because he was watching the ball all the way and had every right to attempt to control it but its hard to believe that he had no idea ederson was running in his direction. nani's case however was arbeloa running at him from slightly behind and nani had no idea until the ball was pretty much inches from his foot. arbeloa however had full vision of nani and decided to run at him, get hit by nanis foot (yes. allow nani's foot to make contact) and then cry for a foul. by everyones logic even in this scenario, nani is definitely the one to take the red, as was the case, despite arbeloa being the player who had more control of the situation and could have avoided collision (which is the other point i was making about how it still takes 2 players to collide) + Show Spoiler [Nani v Arbeloa red card @33s] + I assume you mean this one, Nani is looking at the ball until the last second instead of where he is going but has his foot up and hits Arbeloa in the chest with his studs up. You are once again blaming the victim, just because one player is already going for the ball doesn't mean that the other player now has to dodge an illegal attempt. In this specific case Nani just has two options a) going blindly for the ball within legal means with his feet down b) having his leg up and being able to react when an opponent comes near him. He just fucked up and recklessly endangered his opponent, yellow card, and because he hit him it becomes serious foul play, red card. | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
High foot is term used when two players are in for a 50-50 ball and one of them raises his leg above waist. The real rule states "Playing in dangerous manner", which means any kind of swinging of leg which maybe seen or considered threatening will be given a foul. So on that manner, its always going to be a foul so you should never be putting your foot up on a 50-50 aka when the ball is in the air and another player is coming to you. It would solve all these issues if they just clarified that publicly the referee association or whatever. For me i would give a red card to any attempt at ball in a 50-50 (aka 2 players going for same ball) where the boot is above the waist line regardless of contact. Then a yellow card if contact is made but the boot is below waist line. Then of course play on if the foot is below waist line and no contact. | ||
|
Dante08
Singapore4139 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28736 Posts
On September 11 2017 17:22 Pandemona wrote: But isn't this one a perfectly timed tackle? He gets the ball and not much of the guy etc? I know it can be dangerous as he jumping in i get that argument, but even if he miss times that i would have only expected a yellow. Doesn't seem aggressive enough to me, maybe im wrong though xD If a perfectly timed tackle results in the other guy being subbed off with an injury and a bloodied face then it was too reckless. If he gets 0 of the guy, I agree it's nothing, even if it's really close. I'm saying you need to know for sure that you'll get 0 of the guy before you engage in this type of tackle, if you're not sure, don't engage, because it's really likely you're gonna injure the other guy and get a deserved red card. Studs up is basically the reason why it's a red btw. If he somehow managed to bend his foot so he'd have the wrist facing ederson it'd be pretty much totally fine. But you can't go into 50/50 duels with studs out. | ||
|
sneirac
Germany3464 Posts
- Get 0 percent of the opponent, or hit him slightly, because you got lucky you missed -> foul and or yellow card - flat out hit the opponent because you were reckless and stupid -> red card | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On September 11 2017 17:46 Liquid`Drone wrote: If a perfectly timed tackle results in the other guy being subbed off with an injury and a bloodied face then it was too reckless. If he gets 0 of the guy, I agree it's nothing, even if it's really close. I'm saying you need to know for sure that you'll get 0 of the guy before you engage in this type of tackle, if you're not sure, don't engage, because it's really likely you're gonna injure the other guy and get a deserved red card. Studs up is basically the reason why it's a red btw. If he somehow managed to bend his foot so he'd have the wrist facing ederson it'd be pretty much totally fine. But you can't go into 50/50 duels with studs out. Sorry i was talking a different foul, i was on about the Metz red card i linked against PSG! Ignore this one :D | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28736 Posts
| ||
|
WillyWanker
France1915 Posts
| ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
| ||
|
WillyWanker
France1915 Posts
You can make sliding tackles, but you can also avoid taking everything and the ball. And sliding tackles are not easy to do for a reason.. | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Frank De Boer sacked as Palace manager (4 games, 4 defeats 0 goals scored) and to be replaced by Roy Hodgson! | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28736 Posts
Still a completely abysmal start of the season. But I still feel like he gets fired because they were plain unlucky in the previous match - had they won the expected 3-1, he'd prolly still be there. | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
So early on it screams they never really had faith in him or he has been not liked at the club for whatever reason. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8794 Posts
at the very least regarding the nani incident, i was definitely not alone in the opinion that a red was ridiculous for that collision. not one rm player appealed the foul and asked for a card to be issued, jose even admitted the foul could have been a yellow and plenty of people (players, ex refs, pundits etc.) voiced their disagreement with the decision. for the record im not saying any of these incidents arent a foul by the letter of the law, im arguing the rule itself is stupid and should allow for ref's discretion rather than making every incident black and white | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
The nani one is not as bad because the foot isn't that much above waist height might even be below waist height. So yes a yellow for that one of course but by the letter of the law it's; 50-50 challenge where foot over waist height = dangerous play Dangerous or Aggressive intent on a challenge = red card So that is what refs have to judge. Again it is consistency which is the problem, Mane boots Ederson in the head red card, following day Matt Ritchie just misses booting Mawson in the chest and brushes his arm = yellow card. | ||
GTR
51523 Posts
| ||
|
Greg_J
China4409 Posts
| ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On September 11 2017 12:44 aseq wrote: Rebs, you've done that a ton of times around here, and no-one except you likes that tone of voice in a discussion here. You say you have no problem expressing yourself this way, but we, the majority, do. So I guess it shouldn't be too hard to try to adapt a bit or go find a forum where everyone insults each other all day long. + Show Spoiler + You new here? You can choose to ignore it and move on with your life just like everyone else who doesnt like it. At the very least I am safe in the knowledge that I know what I am talking about when I do. I also rarely insult anyone, not personally atleast if it is its because they insulted me first + Show Spoiler + Sure I bait people into insulting me first but thats their problem. As Greg mentioned and I will pay it forward, you arent the internet police either or a mod and please dont tell me what I can and cant say or how I say it. If this kind of talk was breaking any rules I would be fine with toning it down. I dont know who this majority is that you speak of anyway. Im not going to beleaguer this point. Talk about football, this isnt the "Rebs please manner" thread.. Appreciated, thank you. On September 11 2017 22:33 Greg_J wrote: It's incredible how the Manne sending off has divided opinion. It's not just Teamliquid. Ex pro's, TV pundits, Sport's writers everyone's talking about this one decision. Well footy is for real men apologists arent going anywhere for a bit, it'll be a while before the generational shift that fixes it happens.Improvements of this nature tend to work like that I feel. On September 11 2017 20:09 Pandemona wrote: For me any 50-50 challenge where a player raises his boot above waist height no matter is a red card for me as there is no reason to do that. You either head the ball and be a man, or you back out of the challenge. Ederson was so brave running out and heading knowing he was going to get clattered, of course he probs would not have done it if he knew he would be vs a boot not a head! The nani one is not as bad because the foot isn't that much above waist height might even be below waist height. So yes a yellow for that one of course but by the letter of the law it's; 50-50 challenge where foot over waist height = dangerous play Dangerous or Aggressive intent on a challenge = red card So that is what refs have to judge. Again it is consistency which is the problem, Mane boots Ederson in the head red card, following day Matt Ritchie just misses booting Mawson in the chest and brushes his arm = yellow card. I reckon there is always plenty of room for appropriately interpreting the rules. I disagree that there needs to be consistency on high boots in general because as some apologist rightly mentioned you dont want to discourage people expressing themselves. But in a contested situation if you raise your boot and hit someone you gotta live with getting penalized. But a flying kick in the face is a flying kick in the face. There isnt much to discuss there. Thats why the rule exists and is not stupid. | ||
| ||
