Red card / yellow card / foul / no foul?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 43869
  • Start date
Summer Bee said:
Fantastic summary imo
Click to expand...
Summary? That summary was the unabridged version to my earlier post in the thread just showing a single image and a single paragraph 🤪🤣

I just said it as I saw it (only seen it this morning) and it's clear that some on here won't see it the same way no matter how you break it down. Football has moved on from hard tackles regardless of potential consequences to the opponent. As a few have said, this was a great 'challenge' years ago but these days the laws are trying to protect players from injuries and allow players to do shit without being hacked down in certain ways.
 


Scunny Dan said:
If you get the ball and wipe the bloke out through your momentum in winning the ball, that should be fair enough.
Click to expand...

And breaks his ankle in the process? Totally disagree, touching the ball shouldn't excuse a rash/OTT challenge. Players should be protected imo, we don't want players injured for long spells because a gumball flew into a challenge like a maniac, but because they won the ball that's all that matters.
 
gipetto said:
And breaks his ankle in the process? Totally disagree, touching the ball shouldn't excuse a rash/OTT challenge. Players should be protected imo, we don't want players injured for long spells because a gumball flew into a challenge like a maniac, but because they won the ball that's all that matters.
Click to expand...
It's mad how people still think getting the ball means summit 🤪 I'm yet to see "Does the player get to the ball first or win it cos if he does then it's areet to clatter into the opponent" in the rules of the game 🤣😂

The amusing thing is that Tarkowski is about a yard away from the ball when Richarlision plays it yet some on this thread think Tarkowski got it first 🤓
 
gipetto said:
Did he? Honestly it was that fast it looked like he missed the ball from that video. Plus it went to the left, if he'd got a full boot on the ball you'd have thought it would have gone out for a throw.
Click to expand...

It did go out for a throw in didn't it?
MackemX said:
When Tarkowski goes in, he knows what he's doing and he could not say that he may not do some serious damage. This stuff was lauded in the 80's (and worse prior to that like RItchie's tackle in '73 Final). It was even happening in 90's with Kevin Ball but 20 years later it's a lot tamer.

Looking at the the laws again, how much Tarkowski endangered Richarlison needs to considered.

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.

I'll put one thing to bed and that's who got the ball as some people are saying Tarkowski clearly got the ball. They're completely mistaken as it's Richarlison who kicks it onto Tarkowski's foot who is still about a yard away so fuck knows what they are watching this on (Nokia 3310 perhaps?) 🤪 So that's one thing to consider overall which is just how far Tarkowski is away from the ball when it's played and it's a probably a yard.

Logon or register to see this image


This is yet another slowed down gif below but I will explain it in more detail as to what I see. Tarkowski has gone in with a straight leg leading with his studs up going in at an angle above ankle height to the point he'd meet Richarlison. The straight leg means the force of his momentum is going to be hard if he hits something. Given Tarkowski is in no way 100% sure he wouldn't clatter into Richarlison and this is the 2nd thing to consider.

The last thing to consider is that Richarlison's right leg is nearly straight after kicking the ball. He actually pulls his right foot back as he's anticpating contact as Tarkowski comes flying in. If Richarlison just planted his foot down then Tarkoswki would have hit Richarlison hard and we've seem what can happen. Tarkoswki doesn't know Richarlison is going to pull away or plant his foot.

Logon or register to see this image


This is another angle to show the ball being kicked by Richarlison and the height of Tarkowski's foot. This is probably why people think Tarkowski got the ball as the ball is coming directly to camera so it doesn't seem to move but above gifs clearly show a different perspective as to the timing of the tackle.



So as mentioned above, it's clear in this above gif if Richarlison had planted his foot rather than retract it just how high Tarkowski would have clattered into Richarlison's planted leg above the ankle. It's not about the possible outcome, it's about the intention, the actions etc. Given the timing of the tackle, the excessive force with outstretched straight leg at above ankle height which is clearly endangering Richarlison then it's a red card for me. Given the position of the players, was the tackle even neccesary in that wa as why not just go in but with foot a bit lower and not directly into player? It could have been a lot worse and there's no way Tarkowski could have known the consequences of his actions but he knew he was gonna go in hard.

Aye it's a long winded explanation some may scoff at but it's showing that the reason why these kinds of tackles aren't really part of the game any more as it's not the 1980's ;)
Click to expand...

Your comment says you aren't sure how people are saying JT got the ball then show a slowed down gif clearly showing him get the ball. I don't think we agree on what get the ball means.
 
Last edited:
parsonjohn1985 said:
It did go out for a throw in didn't it?


Your comment says you aren't sure how people are saying JT got the ball then show a slowed down gif clearly showing him get the ball. I don't think we agree on what get the ball means.
Click to expand...
Ah reet, so Richarlison kicking the ball onto Tarkowski's foot is what getting the ball means even though that wasn't really Tarkowski's intention?

OK, just jesting and aye I'll agree that I worded that bit incorrectly as it's more along the lines of get the ball first which some people think means it's an OK challenge regardless. I expanded on it a bit more in my piss take of the non existent rule of "Does the player get to the ball first or win it cos if he does then it's areet to clatter into the opponent"

Tarkowski 'blocking' Richarlison's kick still means sweet FA in regards the way Tarkowski went in as it's obvious he wasn't going in for a block anyway.
 
MackemX said:
They're completely mistaken as it's Richarlison who kicks it onto Tarkowski's foot
Click to expand...

I think that's what most people consider 'winning the ball'. If the ball had evaded Tarkowski's boot I'd agree with you.

Edit: just seen you qualifying what you mean above.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m past caring now, VAR was supposed to make things better, it’s just made it a lot worse.

Leave it for offsides as that is all they actually get correct 100%.

Decisions are still very much as opinionated as they were before.
 
tomsafc10 said:
A red :lol: barley a foul
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends to what extent you want to legislate against serious injury. If you're happy with players getting their leg snapped then you'd be alright with the challenge. It depends on your perception of what the game should be about.
joemcdokes said:
Decisions are still very much as opinionated as they were before.
Click to expand...

Amazing that people ever thought football could be reduced to binary, consistently applied decisions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
parsonjohn1985 said:
It did go out for a throw in didn't it?


Your comment says you aren't sure how people are saying JT got the ball then show a slowed down gif clearly showing him get the ball. I don't think we agree on what get the ball means.
Click to expand...

I meant not in the direct that the player was going in, which indicates it wasn't exactly a clean tackle.
 
What I don't get is why getting the ball is relevant. If people agree that it should be a red if he didn't 'get the ball' then why does 'getting the ball' change that. Surely whether he gets the ball or not doesn't change how dangerous it is.
 
sambantam82 said:
I suppose it depends to what extent you want to legislate against serious injury. If you're happy with players getting their leg snapped then you'd be alright with the challenge. It depends on your perception of what the game should be about.


Amazing that people ever thought football could be reduced to binary, consistently applied decisions.
Click to expand...

It should be better than it is, there is no consistency, that’s the main problem.

You can get similar incidents having different outcomes, that shouldn’t be happening.
 
sambantam82 said:
What I don't get is why getting the ball is relevant. If people agree that it should be a red if he didn't 'get the ball' then why does 'getting the ball' change that. Surely whether he gets the ball or not doesn't change how dangerous it is.
Click to expand...
That's why I said earlier that I'm yet to see "Does the player get to the ball first or win it cos if he does then it's areet to clatter into the opponent" in the rules of the game.
 

Back
Top