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

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'

i believe the referee is asked and can admit they think it was a mistake. Don't quote me on that though

was that tackle bad because it was faster than usual? or that it was at a funny angle?

It was so fast that Suarez wasn't there until it was all over. He only just had time to kick Rodwell's knee and fall over.

That red card stat's wrong actually, took it from somewhere I presumed would be reliable. Just checked and it's 12 in the last 16. Carry on.

surely all that really matters is that, after the fiasco of saturday, darragh has been vindicated? (until next time)

rah

I know Suarez's rep is probably deserved but I think his awkward dive was a product of anticipating Rodwell's leading-leg lunge just in time to get out of its way. You can say that the leading leg was nowhere near the opponent, and that makes the tackle less dangerous, but I think all it shows is good self-preservation skills. Would it be Suarez's own fault if he'd left his leg in and had it broken?

He couldn't really "leave his leg in" if it wasn't there in the first place. Rodwell's first to it by miles, Suarez is so late he barely manages to get himself fouled. The only way he gets injured is if he thinks "I'm getting nowhere near that ball but I can maybe just about break my leg if I can get it into the path of those studs!"

Rodwell's lunge would imo have counted as reckless and dangerous if it was at anything other than a ball and the air surrounding it - as it is it's a bit of a showy bit of exuberance that was never going to hurt anyone.

That all said, Everton should still have been reduced to nine men - all this moaning about the red card changing the result conveniently overlooks some frankly shocking behaviour that went unpunished. Very nasty team when it isn't going well, and sometimes when it is.

i dunno is it good enough to say 'after the guy's jumped headlong through the air legfirst, the other guy was a full five inches away from a legbreak! How can that be reckless?'

How far away does an opponent have to be in order for it to be acceptable for someone to maliciously tackle a football without endangering another player? No matter how many times I watch it I can't see Suarez in any danger whatsoever, except for maybe earning himself a boot in the baws for the theatrics.

yeah it's bollocks. he was already stationary by the time suarez got there.

that's not even remotely accurate!

if rodwell's intention was to go for suarez's leg then yeah you can say that

'intention' is not quite irrelevant, but there's a good reason that the wording used is 'reckless' and not 'clearly malicious'

oh i was just trying to work "not remotely accurate" into the retort somehow.

it would be harsh to judge that as being reckless though.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/kenjuggle3/nowherenear.jpg

apart from reckless disregard to suarez's ability to dive.