Kenny Dalglish Won't Be Delivering the Module: English Premiership 2011-12

I thank god for qualification week so we can debate this tbh

probably not a red, looks like he was trying to stop the slide. doesn't seem malicious/violent, and suarez made a meal of it. absolutely no problem with it being a yellow though.

― caek, Tuesday, 4 October 2011 16:04 (35 seconds ago) Bookmark

otm

a player isn't responsible for his own trailing leg when he leaves the ground in a tackle?

Uhhhhhhh, what are you supposed to do with your trailing leg? Kinda hard to control is it not?

as long as we all agree that it doesn't matter whether/when he touched the ball or not, i think reasonable people can argue about whether that's a foul/yellow/red.

it's rare to get a red if you touch the ball because reds are usually given for violent conduct, and it's difficult to be sufficiently violent while also touching the ball. it's perfectly possible though. and whether you touch it doesn't matter.

where was the ref in relation to that tackle? can imagine it looking appalling from the right angle.

what's bemusing is that the FA (or UEFA or FIFA) don't appear to issue more clear cut public statements on how the laws are to be interpreted in these situations, instead of watching while pundits wank on and on about it

haven't seen a single premiership game this season btw. loving it.

how's the reffing been?

what are you supposed to do with your trailing leg?

Same thing you do with your leading leg, elbow, head, your arse. Take reasonable care that it doesn't connect with an opponent in a manner likely to cause injury.

xp

fucking terrible as per

pretty sure it was lee dixon who demonstrated he knew the rules last season. it was beautiful. i gave him an obe.

dope xp. makes for great telly. and by great i mean sub-comment-is-free.

read that as "i gave him an oboe"

reffing's been strict and good re tackles, pretty poor for wolves

not because of the strictness re: tackles

It's always Lee Dixon. 100% of incisive analysis over the past half-decade has been him.

keown and dixon are rte level pundits

Still don't see anything wrong with the rodwell tackle. Same kind of incidental contact that happens when a player wins a header and in doing so his chest connects with the back of an opponent afterwards. Oh but the player has left the ground to head the ball so should be sent off.

i will say time and again that it's stupid blaming referees for things they see once, at full speed, rather than from 30 slow mo angles. but what continues to grate is shocking inconsistency in the application of the laws, in giving cards out, and this monolithic refusal to apologise or explain in any circumstances ever, and little seeming effort to impose tighter standards from above.

consequences of going chest to chest with an opposition player vs sliding in with yr leg extended

seriously

that tackle seems far more likely to cause injury. would be a weird in air collision chest/back collision that ends up with a player breaking a bone.

xxp

What happens if Suarez reacts quicker and goes into the challenge at the same time as Rodwell?

_exactly_ the same time?

then it's whose name comes first in the alphabet

the pundits who were saying he got the ball first? were they also saying it wasn't a foul, or it wasn't a red?

Wasn't a foul, wasn't a red.

when was the last time there was a merseyside derby when someone wasn't sent off? seems to have happened every game for about 5 years now?

Moyes said that, don't know what pundits said it (xp)

thank fuck this turned into a debate, it was 'lol dmac' the past few days and i was kinda almost shook tbh

Rodwell's red made it 14 red cards in the last 11 .

The rulebook says it's a sending-off if the player uses "excessive force", can anyone really argue that Rodwell did in this case? It says this about a reckless and careless challenges.

“Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or
consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution.
• No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is judged to be careless

“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the
danger to, or consequences for, his opponent.
• A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned

xxp yeah sorry, spent the weekend at oktoberfest. you know i got your back on reffing decisions.

p.s. nv otm re: structural problems with the way reffing is managed/defended/assessed.

if you don't have a side-on (and ideally slow motion) view, i can _easily_ imagine that tackle looking not just excessive but sociopathic.

the idea that it's not a yellow seems ludicrous to me.

the idea that it's not even a foul is just smdh.

And getting the ball does matter. Yes, you can be sent off while still getting the ball, but whether you get the ball is a factor in how reckless or careless the challenge is

was it in the box btw?

see i can't imagine that tackle looking anything like excessive from any angle tbh.

like i say, most red cards for tackles come under violent conduct

in which case, if the ref is right and it is violent, the location of the ball is irrelevant.

true, the fact that you get the ball, especially if you get it first, is _consistent_ with the tackle being fair. it's far from sufficient though.

ref was kind of behind it iirc? And to the right side of rodwell? Maybe close enough that rodwell passed him in the air tbh

Caek - this gives you more of a sense of where and how it happened than that gif:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfQexiD0AoE&feature=related

Also Suarez is a diving cunt more every time I see it.

― Young Swell (Le Bateau Ivre), Tuesday, 4 October 2011 15:02 (29 minutes ago)

ikr? you can literally see his little cunty brain working out every calculation

he is a panto-level cheat though so i still quite like him

the only thing i'm certain about is that if you seriously don't think it's a foul then you don't understand the rules of football.

ref had a pretty good view. the more i watch it in non-ultra-slow-mo gif, the more i think that meets the criteria for a red. maybe not the criteria as they are consistently enforced in the premiership, but as they seek to do it elsewhere in the game, and as they should be enforced imo. "Serious foul play" is usu. shorthand for reckless + could have caused serious injury. good enough for me. it's borderline though tbf.

"criteria as they are consistently enforced" is obv the issue always and forever

yeah i don't think it's a foul. Ref has retracted the red card, whether this means he doesn't think it's a foul or doesn't think it's a red i don't know.

It means he got shook

xxp otm

retracted the red? can they even do that? thought it had to be formally appealed (via cricket owzat)?

oh actually the fa panel overturned it, don't know how much input the ref has in that tbh

i assume the ref can not contest the decision.

shook, badly shook imo. He's been 'got at'