|
|
On September 18 2017 03:12 Mafe wrote:
Ok we might have our first case of a serious video ref screwup (if a saw/understood/interpreted everything correctly):
In the Dormund-Köln game, shortly before halftime, the Köln goalkeeper drops the ball after a Dortmund corner (colliding with his own player it appears), and a Dortmund player kicks the ball into the net. However, the referee had blown for a foul on the Köln keeper before the ball crossed the line (no player was in a position to stop the ball from going into the net at the point of the whistle). Then the video ref interevened, saying there was no foul and a goal was awarded. However, the ball never legitimately crossed the line during play.
It's worth noting th Dortmund went on win 5-0 with that "goal" being the 2-0. In postmatch interview a Köln official argued that being 2-0 down forced Köln to pay more openly, and that they would not have conceded 3 more goals otherwise.
video: https://imgtc.com/w/f9I1XGT
Well if you follow the rules strictly they have a point, that cannot be called a goal. Interesting what will come of it/how much Köln will want to make waves about it (think appealing to the national/international sport courts).
e: also sidenote, no idea how the VAR overturns that foul in the first place. Sokratis and Köln player may both be holding each other but that shove is quite blatant.
|
On September 18 2017 03:12 Mafe wrote:
Ok we might have our first case of a serious video ref screwup (if a saw/understood/interpreted everything correctly):
In the Dormund-Köln game, shortly before halftime, the Köln goalkeeper drops the ball after a Dortmund corner (colliding with his own player it appears), and a Dortmund player kicks the ball into the net. However, the referee had blown for a foul on the Köln keeper before the ball crossed the line (no player was in a position to stop the ball from going into the net at the point of the whistle). Then the video ref interevened, saying there was no foul and a goal was awarded. However, the ball never legitimately crossed the line during play.
It's worth noting th Dortmund went on win 5-0 with that "goal" being the 2-0. In postmatch interview a Köln official argued that being 2-0 down forced Köln to pay more openly, and that they would not have conceded 3 more goals otherwise.
Yeah. I think it's very unlikely Köln would've made much better effort in threatening Dortmund's lead, but it's still a very awkward decision by the ref.
The basic idea should remain that play goes until the ref's whistle and everything after that is out of play. There should never be a reason to second guess a whistle. It's one of the basic things that provide the ref the necessary authority and also part of the basic player safety.
The ideal way to handle the situatiton would have been to allow the play to continue and check afterwards whether the foul on the goalie was serious enough to disallow the goal. Meanwhile, you can't allow a goal that never happened during the active play.
|
ok so i just saw the chelsea game and david luiz does an overhead kick where he hits koscielny at head hight and theres no red card.
im not even a liverpool fan but when mane does it everyones crying about how its a definite red and when luiz does it theres silence?
|
Luiz = Studs facing away from your opponents face
Mane = Full speed kick with studs first
Luiz's play was definitely dangerous but you can't really compare it with getting kicked with studs on the face.
|
doesnt matter where the studs are facing.
high boot in a 50/50 situation is considered dangerous according to the rules and needs to be booked.
if mane is given red because you want to be strict with the rules, luiz's high foot falls under the same category.
the extent of injury doesnt mean shit when youre going by the letter of the law.
you either make all decisions based on the exact official rulings and thereby remove all acrobatics from the game, or you let refs make calls at their own discretion and allow people to dispute those decisions as was the case with mane's. you cant have it both ways like some people seem to want here.
i wouldnt have issue with mane's case so much if people could produce another argument for the red card other than the fact that the official rules state it to be a red card offense, when they dont apply that exact same logic to probably a hundred different cases over the course of a season because no one actually got their face ripped off or because they are a fan of the perpetrators team or some bullshit
|
On September 18 2017 15:54 evilfatsh1t wrote:
doesnt matter where the studs are facing.
high boot in a 50/50 situation is considered dangerous according to the rules and needs to be booked.
if mane is given red because you want to be strict with the rules, luiz's high foot falls under the same category.
the extent of injury doesnt mean shit when youre going by the letter of the law.
you either make all decisions based on the exact official rulings and thereby remove all acrobatics from the game, or you let refs make calls at their own discretion and allow people to dispute those decisions as was the case with mane's. you cant have it both ways like some people seem to want here.
i wouldnt have issue with mane's case so much if people could produce another argument for the red card other than the fact that the official rules state it to be a red card offense, when they dont apply that exact same logic to probably a hundred different cases over the course of a season because no one actually got their face ripped off or because they are a fan of the perpetrators team or some bullshit
Didn't watch the match and can't be assed to find a replay of this incident, but assuming it's exactly as you described: are you really surprised that refereeing is inconsistent and sometimes outright wrong?
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51490 Posts
Yeah you can't compare the two as Mane is going in studs first into a face and Luiz is doing a bicycle kick. Yes bicycle kick you can consider will always be "dangerous" to an extent but if you now going to book / red card for that then the Bicycle kick is about to go extinct....
He also didn't even touch Koscielny head nor got anywhere near it. He hit the guys hand and then he hit himself in the head lol.
If Luiz got sent off for doing a bicycle kick that would have went above and beyond the classic FA Agenda Chelsea have to deal in week in week out lol.
|
Of course it matters where the studs are facing. It shows a complete and utter disregard for the safety of your opponent if you accept that you are okay with hitting him with metal studs, especially his head/face
And it isn't inconsistent or fanboyism to think that any tackle where an attacker comes flying in with full speed with his legs stretched at head level and studs showing is a red card.
Also overhead kicks rule application is consistent. Overhead kicks are allowed, however overhead kicks that endanger an opponent because there is not enough space/time and thus endanger the opponent are dangerous play, if the opponent is hit potentially a yellow card, but not serious foul play, a red card. That is well established and has been that way forever.
|
On September 18 2017 16:33 Pandemona wrote:
Yeah you can't compare the two as Mane is going in studs first into a face and Luiz is doing a bicycle kick. Yes bicycle kick you can consider will always be "dangerous" to an extent but if you now going to book / red card for that then the Bicycle kick is about to go extinct....
He also didn't even touch Koscielny head nor got anywhere near it. He hit the guys hand and then he hit himself in the head lol.
If Luiz got sent off for doing a bicycle kick that would have went above and beyond the classic FA Agenda Chelsea have to deal in week in week out lol.
the foot was definitely at koscielny's head height, it only hit his hand because koscielny was defending his own head.
this btw
+ Show Spoiler +On September 11 2017 17:38 Pandemona wrote:
This is the official ruling on high foot;
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.
is what you said regarding the mane incident. funny how your word means nothing when it comes to your own player.
On September 18 2017 16:32 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 15:54 evilfatsh1t wrote:
doesnt matter where the studs are facing.
high boot in a 50/50 situation is considered dangerous according to the rules and needs to be booked.
if mane is given red because you want to be strict with the rules, luiz's high foot falls under the same category.
the extent of injury doesnt mean shit when youre going by the letter of the law.
you either make all decisions based on the exact official rulings and thereby remove all acrobatics from the game, or you let refs make calls at their own discretion and allow people to dispute those decisions as was the case with mane's. you cant have it both ways like some people seem to want here.
i wouldnt have issue with mane's case so much if people could produce another argument for the red card other than the fact that the official rules state it to be a red card offense, when they dont apply that exact same logic to probably a hundred different cases over the course of a season because no one actually got their face ripped off or because they are a fan of the perpetrators team or some bullshit
Didn't watch the match and can't be assed to find a replay of this incident, but assuming it's exactly as you described: are you really surprised that refereeing is inconsistent and sometimes outright wrong?
im not having a go at the ref, im having a go at the spectators who are just as inconsistent. they create narratives to justify decisions made by refs because it suits their team or agenda.
On September 18 2017 16:51 sneirac wrote:
Of course it matters where the studs are facing. It shows a complete and utter disregard for the safety of your opponent if you accept that you are okay with hitting him with metal studs, especially his head/face
And it isn't inconsistent or fanboyism to think that any tackle where an attacker comes flying in with full speed with his legs stretched at head level and studs showing is a red card.
Also overhead kicks rule application is consistent. Overhead kicks are allowed, however overhead kicks that endanger an opponent because there is not enough space/time and thus endanger the opponent are dangerous play, if the opponent is hit potentially a yellow card, but not serious foul play, a red card. That is well established and has been that way forever.
and you think luiz's bicycle kick didnt endanger koscielny?
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51490 Posts
No a bicycle kick is not going for a ball with your foot into the guys head. You telling me Rooney greatest ever Yanited goal should have been him getting a red card? Or Carroll red card last season for his bicycle kick?
Come on now your being petulant !
If David Luiz was straight on, in a 50-50 with Koscielny and put his food above waist height to challenge for a ball head on then it is a red card
Luiz was back to goal, could not see anyone going for a bicycle kick, just like Rooney, just like Carroll, but he hit a guys hand instead of the ball. If he hits the ball then a guys head is it still a red card?
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/3674976/wayne-rooney-kick-goal-o.gif
Rooney goal ^^ if he misses the ball he hits (Richards?) the defenders head.
|
no, i dont.
for the record im pro high feet, whether it be bicycle kicks or just attempting to control a ball.
the only problem was literally everyone else in this thread saying that dangerous play is a definite foul, which i could accept for mane's incident, and yet luiz' actually made contact with koscielny at head height and no one says anything about how luiz got off easy. tbh i wouldnt be surprised if the straight red later on instead of a yellow was precisely because oliver let the overhead kick pass, but thats irrelevant to the decision making of the overhead kick incident.
stop trying to create a story that justifies luiz not getting a red card. you say he had his back to everything and therefore was unaware of his surroundings, well so was nani vs real madrid when he collided with arbeloa. again, im pretty sure everyone agreed that nani's incident was also a red card because according the rules it was "dangerous play" and "not knowing your surroundings" isnt a good enough defense (also the defense made for mane when everyone was saying he was clearly watching the ball).
|
On September 18 2017 17:09 evilfatsh1t wrote:
and you think luiz's bicycle kick didnt endanger koscielny?
Quoting myself with relevent part bold:
Also overhead kicks rule application is consistent. Overhead kicks are allowed, however overhead kicks that endanger an opponent because there is not enough space/time and thus endanger the opponent are dangerous play, if the opponent is hit potentially a yellow card, but not serious foul play, a red card. That is well established and has been that way forever.
|
ok holy shit im pretty much convinced now people here are either blind or so blatantly biased its not worth having a discussion. koscielny literally got kicked at head height on his hand (because he raised it to cover his face) and fell to the ground.
you can actually see luiz crawling over to koscielny looking guilty because he knows hes made contact with a high boot, and yet people with slow motion replays seem to have difficulty seeing why thats not dangerous play?
fuck this rofl.
|
the way i see it is that all high kick or over head kick are fine as long as it's not resulting in another player's injury... it's a risk a player has to take in order to make a play... if that kick had knocked out koscielny then it'd have been an absolute red from me...otherwise it's fine...so to sum it up:
- High kicks when there's no one around: fine
- High kicks when there's someone around and result in injury: red
- High kicks when there's someone around and no result in injury: fine/yellow
so yea in Luiz case it could have been a red if Koscielny had acted a bit better
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51490 Posts
He just quoted what he said? You cannot ban overhead kicks, overhead kicks is not running with your boot in the air at someone head height like Mane it is completely different.
You are telling us that Bicycle should be banned unless your playing some shit division game where you will be FREE in the box with 10 yards of free space by you so you can bicycle kick without putting your foot near an opponent lol ? Come on your just moaning at everyone for something so stupid.
You could atleast be talking about the Matt Ritchie incident the following day or something that is genuinely similar to the Mane incident.
What happened; Luiz went for Bicycle kick, missed the ball, hit the player got yellow card. If he hits the ball he gets nothing.
|
i wanted rules to be enforced at ref's discretion, not to the letter. i honestly dont care that luiz wasnt fouled for the kick, in fact i welcome it.
i only brought it up because i found the double standards in this forum hilarious when everyone enforces the rule to the letter when it was for mane, yet luiz's incident falls under the EXACT same category (note. the high boot rule doesnt explicitly make exceptions for overhead kicks) and no one says a word about the injustice.
whatever, unless someone else comes along and provides a good argument theres no point discussing any further.
i quoted pande on his opinion regarding high boots and he is so disgustingly obviously going against his own word whilst trying to create a technicality, and sneirac is saying the rule was enforced correctly because it wasnt dangerous play when there was actual contact at head height. ok bros
and i havent seen the matt richie incident because i dont watch every pl game.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51490 Posts
How is it going against my own word? I just said in the quote it was if the guy is going for the ball face on in a 50-50 with his boot above waist height (STRAIGHT ON that is not when someone is back to goal) then it is reckless and a red. A bicycle kick is neither, of those. It is back to goal and not reckless. If David Luiz was in the box and lept forward kung fu style then yes reckless!
Who cares anyway in this incident the guy got sent off and gets a 3 game ban anyway lol
|
"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."
heres what you wrote buddy.
lets try some basic reading comprehension. who can find the words "face on" in the above extract? $100 for the winner.
what i do see is "another player is coming to you", which describes kos in that incident.
i also see "2 players going for the same ball" which also describes luiz and kos.
also i see "red card.....where the boot is above waist line regardless of contact". yet somehow it doesnt apply to luiz even he did make contact because hes a chelsea player.
this is exactly what ive been saying by spectators being inconsistent and creating narratives to justify decisions.
it matters because playing vs 10 men for longer than 5 mins is what might have made that small difference which allows arsenal to put a goal in your net
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51490 Posts
Yes, when a player IS COMING TO YOU, aka coming "towards" you. Not back to goal doing a bicycle kick that is absurd.
|
On September 18 2017 17:28 evilfatsh1t wrote:
ok holy shit im pretty much convinced now people here are either blind or so blatantly biased its not worth having a discussion. koscielny literally got kicked at head height on his hand (because he raised it to cover his face) and fell to the ground.
you can actually see luiz crawling over to koscielny looking guilty because he knows hes made contact with a high boot, and yet people with slow motion replays seem to have difficulty seeing why thats not dangerous play?
fuck this rofl.
It is dangerous play, but it is not serious foul play
Also highlight of Luiz overhead kick: https://streamable.com/u0yej
I dunno how to link to specific time in streamable video, it's about 2/3rds through with 51 mins on ingame clock.
e: figured it out: https://streamable.com/u0yej?t=248
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
