Sunny Vanilla wrote:
lol. Court threats, think my work here is done
You've admitted to deliberately breaking my leg. I'd need to recuperate my income somehow. However, the vision of you running round the 6 yard box randomly kicking would make an amusing sight.
So if I did all this without advertising it on here before, it would have been ok? Who is randomly kicking? I have my eyes on the ball when you are also challenging for the same ball. Yellow card.
Yes, but how will you know it's me and if I'm even challenging for it.
Advertising it has certainly ruined your defence that you were going for the ball and it was accidental.
If it was exactly the same as the liverpool one then I'd say yellow card, but as I said above - you're risking the refs interpretation. PLUS, when I sue you, you've admitted you are intending to do it. I'd move your house into someone else's name before you did it if I was you.
If it was exactly the same as the liverpool one then I'd say yellow card, but as I said above - you're risking the refs interpretation. PLUS, when I sue you, you've admitted you are intending to do it. I'd move your house into someone else's name before you did it if I was you.
You can sue me and that's all good, you can have my house. Is my eye on the ball mistimed tackle on you that snaps your leg, a red or yellow card?
These users thanked the author Sunny Vanilla for the post:
Old Master, johndedes, theorakle, ozzie owl, suzie, thewabster, Za Dom Spremni
If it was exactly the same as the liverpool one then I'd say yellow card, but as I said above - you're risking the refs interpretation. PLUS, when I sue you, you've admitted you are intending to do it. I'd move your house into someone else's name before you did it if I was you.
You can sue me and that's all good, you can have my house. Is my eye on the ball mistimed tackle on you that snaps your leg, a red or yellow card?
From your description - I'd say yellow but would have to see it to make that decision.
"The game is about glory, doing things in style and with a flourish, going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom."
Danny Blanchflower
The damage done doesn't change the decision. Are you saying that I can take someone out at the knee but if they get up it's a yellow. Mistime a tackle by a fraction of a second but the bloke breaks his leg, it's a red.
Have to watch it again but doesn't the keeper also duck his head down into it? I'm not saying it wasn't "dangerous", but most tackles are. It's not netball.
The damage done doesn't change the decision. Are you saying that I can take someone out at the knee but if they get up it's a yellow. Mistime a tackle by a fraction of a second but the bloke breaks his leg, it's a red.
Have to watch it again but doesn't the keeper also duck his head down into it? I'm not saying it wasn't "dangerous", but most tackles are. It's not netball.
Most tackles don't end with a boot in the face
These users thanked the author Sunny Vanilla for the post:
Old Master, johndedes, theorakle, ozzie owl, suzie, thewabster, Za Dom Spremni
Chris Sutton wrote:Any professional footballer, or former footballer who says he thinks Sadio Mane deserved a red card is a liar.
I know Graham Poll and his referee mates will talk about the letter of the law and dangerous play, but any centre forward or goalscorer HAS to go for that ball.
If Mane beats the goalkeeper to the ball, if he nicks it past the keeper, it’s a goal. That is the ultimate reward and that is why he has to go for it.
Can you imagine the Liverpool fans if he shied away from that? Any fan would question his commitment — they would want the shirt off his back.
I can understand why the referee, Jon Moss, gave the decision. But it’s the law and the climate that is flawed. It was an accidental collision, not excessive force.
The referees will say it is dangerous and there was danger, but there is a danger in every challenge you make. The fault is with the pressure on referees.
It is understandable why Jon Moss gave the decision but the laws of the game are flawed
It is understandable why Jon Moss gave the decision but the laws of the game are flawed
Commitment, courage, blood and guts are ways we describe great teams, great players. Arsenal were smashed for showing a lack of that at Liverpool two weeks ago, but now the game penalises a player for showing all those traits.
I strongly object to Mane getting a three-game ban, the same as Marko Arnautovic and Aleksandar Mitrovic for blatant elbows. How can that be right?
I just hope that it is rescinded, but I’m not holding my breath.
Chris Sutton wrote:Any professional footballer, or former footballer who says he thinks Sadio Mane deserved a red card is a liar.
I know Graham Poll and his referee mates will talk about the letter of the law and dangerous play, but any centre forward or goalscorer HAS to go for that ball.
If Mane beats the goalkeeper to the ball, if he nicks it past the keeper, it’s a goal. That is the ultimate reward and that is why he has to go for it.
Can you imagine the Liverpool fans if he shied away from that? Any fan would question his commitment — they would want the shirt off his back.
I can understand why the referee, Jon Moss, gave the decision. But it’s the law and the climate that is flawed. It was an accidental collision, not excessive force.
The referees will say it is dangerous and there was danger, but there is a danger in every challenge you make. The fault is with the pressure on referees.
It is understandable why Jon Moss gave the decision but the laws of the game are flawed
It is understandable why Jon Moss gave the decision but the laws of the game are flawed
Commitment, courage, blood and guts are ways we describe great teams, great players. Arsenal were smashed for showing a lack of that at Liverpool two weeks ago, but now the game penalises a player for showing all those traits.
I strongly object to Mane getting a three-game ban, the same as Marko Arnautovic and Aleksandar Mitrovic for blatant elbows. How can that be right?
I just hope that it is rescinded, but I’m not holding my breath.
Chris Sutton wrote:Any professional footballer, or former footballer who says he thinks Sadio Mane deserved a red card is a liar.
I know Graham Poll and his referee mates will talk about the letter of the law and dangerous play, but any centre forward or goalscorer HAS to go for that ball.
If Mane beats the goalkeeper to the ball, if he nicks it past the keeper, it’s a goal. That is the ultimate reward and that is why he has to go for it.
Can you imagine the Liverpool fans if he shied away from that? Any fan would question his commitment — they would want the shirt off his back.
I can understand why the referee, Jon Moss, gave the decision. But it’s the law and the climate that is flawed. It was an accidental collision, not excessive force.
The referees will say it is dangerous and there was danger, but there is a danger in every challenge you make. The fault is with the pressure on referees.
It is understandable why Jon Moss gave the decision but the laws of the game are flawed
It is understandable why Jon Moss gave the decision but the laws of the game are flawed
Commitment, courage, blood and guts are ways we describe great teams, great players. Arsenal were smashed for showing a lack of that at Liverpool two weeks ago, but now the game penalises a player for showing all those traits.
I strongly object to Mane getting a three-game ban, the same as Marko Arnautovic and Aleksandar Mitrovic for blatant elbows. How can that be right?
I just hope that it is rescinded, but I’m not holding my breath.
Comparing to all challenges
Yep, all tackles are performed studs up at head height.
These users thanked the author Sunny Vanilla for the post:
Old Master, johndedes, theorakle, ozzie owl, suzie, thewabster, Za Dom Spremni
Chris Sutton wrote:Any professional footballer, or former footballer who says he thinks Sadio Mane deserved a red card is a liar.
I know Graham Poll and his referee mates will talk about the letter of the law and dangerous play, but any centre forward or goalscorer HAS to go for that ball.
If Mane beats the goalkeeper to the ball, if he nicks it past the keeper, it’s a goal. That is the ultimate reward and that is why he has to go for it.
Can you imagine the Liverpool fans if he shied away from that? Any fan would question his commitment — they would want the shirt off his back.
I can understand why the referee, Jon Moss, gave the decision. But it’s the law and the climate that is flawed. It was an accidental collision, not excessive force.
The referees will say it is dangerous and there was danger, but there is a danger in every challenge you make. The fault is with the pressure on referees.
It is understandable why Jon Moss gave the decision but the laws of the game are flawed
It is understandable why Jon Moss gave the decision but the laws of the game are flawed
Commitment, courage, blood and guts are ways we describe great teams, great players. Arsenal were smashed for showing a lack of that at Liverpool two weeks ago, but now the game penalises a player for showing all those traits.
I strongly object to Mane getting a three-game ban, the same as Marko Arnautovic and Aleksandar Mitrovic for blatant elbows. How can that be right?
I just hope that it is rescinded, but I’m not holding my breath.
Comparing to all challenges
Yep, all tackles are performed studs up at head height.
Matt Ritchie only got a yellow
Was the tackle at head height or did the keeper duck into it?
Gary Neville's assertion that Sadio Mane's controversial sending off had opened a can of worms for referees was proved correct on Sunday afternoon as Matt Ritchie escaped a red card for an almost identical challenge.
Mane was shown a straight red after his high boot struck Ederson in the face during Liverpool's 5-0 defeat to Manchester City at the Etihad.
Gary Neville, who was commentating on the match for Sky Sports, was adamant the challenge did not warrant a red card.
"The red yesterday irrespective of which view you have will result in total confusion in the coming weeks and months on high boot challenges," he tweeted on Sunday morning.
Less than 10 hours after he made the prediction, Newcastle's Matt Ritchie collided with Alfie Mawson in an almost identical incident.
Ritchie was quick to insist he only had eyes for the ball and was given a yellow card by referee Mike Jones.
The former Manchester United defender was one of the few commentators who disagreed with Jon Moss' decision to give Mane his marching orders.
"It's a 50-50 really and Ederson just gets there first. Sometimes a stadium can tell you if it's a bad challenge and there wasn't great reaction from anybody," Neville said on Sky Sports.
"I don't think that is a red card," said Neville, as replays of the incident were shown. "His eyes are on the ball, it's ridiculous. He wins that challenge, the goal is there for him.
"It wasn't one of those where you think the goalkeeper is the favourite. He does well to get out, and his foot is high."
God is an Englishman wrote:Matt Ritchie only got a yellow
Was the tackle at head height or did the keeper duck into it?
It was at a minimum 5ft6 off the ground.
"The game is about glory, doing things in style and with a flourish, going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom."
Danny Blanchflower
God is an Englishman wrote:Matt Ritchie only got a yellow
Was the tackle at head height or did the keeper duck into it?
It was at a minimum 5ft6 off the ground.
"The game is about glory, doing things in style and with a flourish, going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom."
Danny Blanchflower
LOL at people saying he should have headed it.....how on earth can you head a ball coming over your shoulder when you're through on goal and header to whom exactly?
The Kop wrote:it was either go for the ball or leave it.
LOL at people saying he should have headed it.....how on earth can you head a ball coming over your shoulder when you're through on goal and header to whom exactly?
The Kop wrote:it was either go for the ball or leave it.
LOL at people saying he should have headed it.....how on earth can you head a ball coming over your shoulder when you're through on goal and header to whom exactly?
The ball bounced and sat head high directly in front of him, the keeper headed it. If he didn't think the keeper was that close he might have chosen to head to his own advantage. If he honestly didn't think the keeper was that close ......
