1.) 09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 16:53:59
Very true ed25, I won’t mention names. ??.
{Ed025's Note - but i might Irish .. :)
2.) 09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 17:00:14
I'll name! Ed01 called it red. I thought it was a ridiculous decision. A belated Happy New Year Ed025. Hope you're well, mate.
{Ed025's Note - yes he was one Rome but he is head of the red tinted glasses brigade so no surprise there mate, im good my friend and hopefully you and yours have a great new year..
3.) 09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 17:41:53
I called it red, and still do. Studs up. nowhere near the ball.
Sympathy vote for Everton.
{Ed025's Note - or it could just be that you dont know your arse from your elbow Flash?..if it was not a travesty then there is no way they would rescind it mate..
4.) 09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 17:57:01
Ed025 The other day I thought lots had put their keyboards down and picked up their whistles.
I’m guessing it’s now whistles down and back to picking their keyboards up.
There’s going to be lots of hurt feelings on this one. Maybe a timeout room could be incorporated along with pronouns for users moving forward.
{Ed025's Note - just admitting they were wrong would be a start JK, or then again i could send them all a stamp so they can write down all they know about football mate.. :)
5.) 09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 19:24:27
I thought it was red, still do. But that was using the standard that Jones' and others similar were a red too.
Reverse them all or just leave them as is.
{Ed025's Note - its got to be done on merit Faith..
6.) 09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 19:48:52
It was a red and my opinion has not changed.
{Ed025's Note - and the stamp is on its way to you as we speak Oli.. :)
7.) 09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 19:50:52
Congratulations on a well earned victory Ed25.
For me that just shows that even the appeals panel don’t know their arse from their elbow. I could understand if it had been a yellow to start with simply because of a lack of serious contact even though it was dangerous. But once it was given as a red there’s no way that should be rescinded and I’m really surprised it was.
They have bowed to the pressure of the media on this I feel. We’ll all look forward to some leg breakers as long as they don’t make serious contact then. Until they do and then they’ll be up in arms about it.
Just shows once again that the officials don’t understand the game.
{Ed025's Note - they have bowed to common sense BP, if thats a red we might as well give up mate, the woke snowflakes (or maybe just bitter reds) have had their eyes wiped and today was a triumph for many reasons..
8.) 09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 20:24:13
more VAR controversy in a way, similar to Jones' red?
The red was given after VAR prompted the ref to go to the screen and review, changing his original decision. Thereafter, the red is overturned post match.
So the sequence is such
1) onfield Ref gave a correct decision
2) VAR, used to highlight a potential clear and obvious error, and have the onfield Ref review it
3) onfield ref reviews it, and changes his mind and now commits a clear and obvious error by changing his decision
4) the panel clears up the clear and obvious errors made by VAR and subsequently the onfield ref who changed his mind
so what was VAR brought in to do again? review and clear up clear and obvious errors? Or create clear and obvious errors?
If VAR isn't limiting its scope for now (red cards, penalties, offsides, mistaken identity), it really should only be used if the onfield ref request for it as he i) missed the incident, ii) didn't get a clear view and felt he needed a 2nd look or from a different angle and iii) drop the clear and obvious error caveat especially since most decisions are subjective and interpretive (e. g., how much force is a foul)
i prefer to not let the VAR official to step in and ask the onfield ref to review anything at any moment because
1) the authority and decision should rest on the on field ref
2) the VAR ref shouldn't be re-refereeing the game
and in any instance if the onfield ref decides not to review and makes a wrong decision, he together with his asst. refs are to be answerable. the independent VAR ref can always publish an immediate report post match of critical incidents they noted and were ready for the onfield ref to review but were not utilized.
the only exception to this will be mistaken identity whereby the VAR ref should quickly sound out to confirm the right person is sent off before the onfield ref embarrasses himself.
9.) 09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 20:27:42
As I said at the time, never a red. It’s a contact sport, get on with.
And I still hope DCL scores the winner now.
{Ed025's Note - most people think it was the right decision to uphold the appeal MR, those who dont have ulterior motives mate..
10.) 09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 20:40:30
Spot on, @BP. I was going to write the exact same thing or there-abouts BUT you explained it much better than I would.
@Ed25 again, the childish name-calling. Like I always say, it's a bad look cos it make you sound you know, bitter. So you are now a big fan of the PGMOL, right? Weren't you the same guy calling these same officials all types of names when you thought the Onana pen was not a pen? So when did common sense prevail, then? Was it when they did what you wanted in this case or was it when they did what you did NOT want in the Onana situation? Interesting.
But Don't worry, mate. Nobody's eyes got wiped. Bitter about Everton? Mate, Im a Liverpool fan. Stop it. For me, It was a healthy debate that I enjoyed ovrall cos that's why Im here. And if the red card was upheld, I would not have gloated the way you and some are doing now cos we all know the PGMOL are STILL full of it, relentlessly incompetent and will continue to ruin the game we love in the PL. Just the truth.
{Ed025's Note - it was a very good debate Oli..which i won :), look mate we all think we are badly done to when a big decision goes against us (see Jones v Spurs) so no im not a fan of the PGMOL, the Onana one was not a pen for me mate...too close, and the DCL sending off could well have cost us the tie so i dont get why you think im now a fan, plus i dont know why you are confusing sarcasm with name calling, we both know im bigger than that..
11.) 09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 20:53:46
sgynwa the PGMOL have some issues here: ref makes the right call, VAR reverses it, ref agrees, PGMOL disagrees. Clearly they are all reading from the same sheet of music. ?.
I'll add that other than the shocklingly terrible show of sportsmanship from B Pernandes this weekend, I haven't heard of any bad decisions or crazy amounts of added time in the VAR-less round of FA Cup matches. ?
Use the offside tech that the CL uses and bin VAR. Let's Monday morning quarterback all yellow and actual or retroactive red cards like we used to and give us our game back.
12.) 09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 21:06:44
Let him have his win Oli, as an Evertonian he doesn’t get many ;)
Seriously though Ed I think it’s a shambles. DCL went in high, over the top of the ball and halfway up the shin of Clyne. The only saving grace is that he didn’t catch Clyne properly as it could’ve resulted in a serious injury. His red card is rescinded because of a lack of contact I presume.
Jones goes in low and gets the ball but completely by accident his foot slips over the ball and catches Bissouma. Not dangerous, just incidental contact and unfortunate. His red card is not rescinded and he serves a 3 game ban. It’s totally crazy. If they are rescinding DCL’s red card then they should’ve definitely rescinded Jones’s. For a start, Jones got the whole ball, DCL got no ball at all.
They probably had the rescinded red card for MacAllister in mind and thought they can’t rescind 2 for Liverpool in a couple of weeks because it looks bad. They are completely clueless.
{Ed025's Note - i agree about them being clueless BP, the thing with Jones is that he actually caught his man full on mate..
13.) 09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 21:13:43
25 - not sure what you mean by merit?
{Ed025's Note - on the merit or should i say detriment of the individual case faith..
14.) 09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 21:21:09
In VAR the game has become too microscopic, to the point that they try to find something that isn’t there.
The ref should have more balls to go with his conviction, but instead I guess they feel they HAVE to go with whatever VAR see, no matter how ridiculous.
I seem to remember PGMOL, overturning a Liverpool red card earlier in the season, I bet they weren’t so bad then?♂️.
Enjoy your Southern Comfort tonight Ed25 ?.
{Ed025's Note - will do Irish...cheers mate..
15.) 09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 21:31:59
Do you know what Ed I knew you were going to say that which is exactly the point I was making the other day on the DCL challenge.
If contact is the deciding factor then I can swing a punch on the football pitch and as long as I miss it’s ok? Yet if I make a tackle, get the ball and make contact with a player by accident I risk a red card?
Surely you can see how stupid that sounds?
It’s the action that should be penalised not the outcome. It’s football, contact will happen, injuries will happen but what you are not allowed to do is to endanger the opponent with your actions.
How is a tackle that is low and gets the ball more dangerous than a tackle that is over the top and gets none of the ball? Regardless of the outcome?
{Ed025's Note - surely actual contact has to be worse than intent BP, intent can always be seen as subjective mate, are you saying that if a tackle is reckless but misses that it is just as bad as if he connects?, come on mate surely the punishment should be harsher if actual contact is made and causes injury..
16.) 09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 21:36:12
@BP I know, right?
@Ed25, you did "win" the debate, the same way I won the CL while playing for Liverpool, I guess. Like I said, you'll be back hating on the PGMOL again when they don't do what you want and find a fake interpretation to justify why they screwed your team.
Also like BP said, Jones got the ball full on first. DCL got NONE of of the ball and if the CP player does not get of of the way, he ends up in the hospital so again, the PGMOL has bowed to pressure and let DCL off the hook on a made up technicality, one that does NOT exist in the rule itself. Just don't come complaining to me when they do your lot in the same way and let the oppo. get away with stuff. Cos we know they will.
{Ed025's Note - you are confusing the issue to suit your agenda Oli, i have vilified the PGMOL because for me they are unfit for purpose, clearing DCL is not a thing they should be applauded for...he should never have been sent off in the first place, most fans of other clubs have all said the same...except for a few fans...cough cough..
17.) 09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 21:58:48
Why should it be harsher if it connects? The action is the same!
Contact happens all of the time and sometimes results in bad injuries but that doesn’t mean the player was reckless or dangerous. It’s a contact sport.
Look at Andre Gomez or Harvey Elliott. Both had broken bones but the action from the opponent wasn’t reckless or dangerous in either case. They both got sent off for the outcome and it was universally agreed that they were not red card challenges and the outcome was just a freak accident.
Then you look at the 2 footer from Udogie against Sterling the other week. Sterling jumps out of the way so contact is minimal but the challenge is a red card all day long! It high, with excessive force and dangerous but because Sterling gets out of the way it’s a yellow not a red. That can’t be right can it?
Sometimes none dangerous challenges are unlucky and sometimes dangerous challenges are lucky but the contact shouldn’t come into it. If it’s dangerous, it’s dangerous and should be penalised as such.
{Ed025's Note - im not having that at all BP, so if you are in town and have an altercation with a couple of guys and one whacks you in the mush but the other one tries but misses....should they get the same punishment?, thats all a bit cudda wudda shudda for me mate..
18.) 09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 22:14:07
SERIOUS FOUL PLAY
‘A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play. ’
The rules as they are written Ed. It all points to the action of the player not whether he makes contact or not.
So taking the DCL challenge vs Jones’s challenge, DCL was the player that lunges in, over the ball, endangering the opponent but Jones actually won the ball without lunging in but made contact accidentally afterwards.
Based on the rules as they are written DCL’s is much more a red than Jones’s.
Once again, complete incompetence from the PGMOL, I don’t know why we are surprised.
{Ed025's Note - REALITY and COMMON SENSE;- a player who goes over the top however its caused and ploughs into another players shin (Jones) making full contact, is far worse than a player who maybe a little high (DCL) but makes contact with a thread of stocking causing no damage at all....now you tell me which is worse?, i think if we asked the actual players they would side with me mate..
19.) 09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 22:15:20
I would say 90% of bad tackles are unintentional, so for me you have to go with the outcome, which in DCL case was minimal contact and minimal force. Jones again unintentional but he did end up catching the player high up his leg and you could see the players ankle bent under. It was unfortunate but definitely a red and Jones knew he was in trouble from the get go.
Throwing a punch even if you somehow miss ?♂️Is an intentional act, he’s meaning to cause harm, so it’s far from the same thing as a bad ( unintentional) tackle.
20.) 09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 22:26:42
You’re now talking about criminal law Ed which is different to the rules of football but in this hypothetical scenario then absolutely, both should and probably would be prosecuted. Especially if it was caught on CCTV.
{Ed025's Note - im just putting myself in that scenario BP and i would want the one who connected to get the most punishment mate..
21.) 09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 22:35:00
Mate I was a player and I can tell you I’d much rather be on the end of Jones’s tackle which would have a very small chance of serious injury purely because in the vast majority of those tackles (low, gets the ball) there is no serious contact after the tackle. In this case there was incidental contact which DID NOT injure the player anyway and was totally accidental.
If your on the end of an over the top tackle with the player jumping in and catching you half way up the shin there is a fair chance you are spending the next 2 months in a leg brace on crutches. Trust me, I’ve seen it at very close quarters.
22.) 09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 22:40:09
Sterling jumps out of the way and prevents himself being seriously hurt. Clyne didn’t need to jump out of the way and hardly got a touch. I hope you can see the difference ?♂️.
Maybe we should ban jumping for a ball if an opposing player is within a yard in case the outcome is POSSIBLY an elbow in the face?
23.) 09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 22:54:28
Criminal law is totally different though Ed with multiple layers and multiple charges available for each action.
In football there are 4 potential scenarios, no action, a foul, a yellow card, a red card.
If we apply the same to your scenario outside the Grafton then you’d have, no action, a telling off, a caution, criminal prosecution.
If you were set upon by 2 blokes and 1 hit you but the other tried and missed, both would face criminal prosecution in one form or another.
Not the greatest analogy really, a better one would be, you’ll get prosecuted if you drink and drive whether you crash your car and cause injury or not but if you crash your car and cause injury but an investigation deems it an accident there would be no prosecution.
The outcome is the same but in one scenario your actions were reckless, illegal and whether injury was caused or not you would be prosecuted, in the other the injury was deemed unfortunate but nobody’s fault.
24.) 09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 22:55:31
25 - I’ve just ran out of popcorn mate :-)
Happy New Year by the way pal ??
Drogie.
25.) 09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 23:01:53
Nobody has even mentioned intent Irish because we can’t try to second guess what was in the player’s mind as he did it.
We are talking about the action and what is deemed dangerous or not.
Are you seriously telling me that a tackle where you stretch and get all of the ball is more dangerous than lunging, off your feet, over the top of the ball?
Come on that makes no sense at all!
26.) 09 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 23:09:00
This is going to be another long one. I'm getting my popcorn out. seriously tho i think the Jones "red" wasn't overturned because they admitted to so many absolute howlers after that match that the PGMOL had to have one "win". We've seen worse go unpunished this season.
27.) 10 Jan 2024
09 Jan 2024 23:36:40
It’s an interesting debate Redflyer and it’s something that has wound me up for years.
Contact will happen in football, we don’t want to get rid of that it’s a contact sport. As a consequence, sometimes people will get injured through contact with another player, it’s inevitable.
What gets on my nerves is the way that officials seem to give decisions based on contact and outcome rather than what you’ve actually done. You can slide in low a bit late and catch a player who goes over on his ankle and breaks his ankle. That would be a red card.
On another day you could do exactly the same thing but the player skips over the tackle and you get no sanction. So the red card is dependant more on whether the player gets out of the way rather than the way you’ve gone into the tackle.
They should be trying stamp out the dangerous tackles, the lunging tackles, high tackles, 2 footed tackles, tackles with excessive force, regardless of whether they make contact or not. Contact is a lottery.
If you let these tackles go just because they don’t make contact it’s only a matter of time until they do make contact and end someone’s career.