Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Winning the football in the sport of football is fairly relevant.
Consistency is impossible.
Who decides whether they are similar? For every pair of incidents that you claim are similar, someone else could argue 5 reasons why they're not.
You can win the ball with both feet and it could still be a red.Winning the football in the sport of football is fairly relevant.
Its the people using it. Funny how all this wasn't really an issue in the euros.VAR is no good then?
VAR is no good then?
You can win the ball with both feet and it could still be a red.
Its the people using it. Funny how all this wasn't really an issue in the euros.
I think it's a good opportunity to let referees make a more informed decision. If you want consistency then you'd need some pretty stupid rules that would ruin the game.
How would the rules be stupid if the outcome was more consistent?
Because it's virtually impossible to have two challenges that are exactly the same. Once you try and bundle all 'types of incident' into one bracket you get ridiculous rules.
Ie.
All hand to ball contact is handball.
Any shirt pulling is a penalty.
Any contact is a penalty etc.
As soon as you try to achieve 'consistency' you have to give the same decision for completely different challenges.
You constantly hear fans moaning about 'consistency' and refer to another incident that is totally different.
Excessive force is very much in the laws which could be seen as "full on"Whilst remembering that opinions are like arseholes, for me looking at it objectively, it is certainly very full on, nothing in the rules about that though in itself, but not what we're used to seeing now.
So, does he get the ball. No regardless of what anyone says the way I see it the tackle doesn't make contact with the ball but certinly gets the player.
Is it two-footed, hmmm, kind of but not in the text book style, so I'd have to go with no.
Is it raised or studs up. Clearly not as far as I can see.
Does he take out the player, yes absolutely and without winning the ball. SO CLEARLY A FREE-KICK.
Is it a cautionable offence, judgement call there, it was very full on and failed, therefore reckless? Knife edge that - could go either way.
Is it a red: Taking emotion out of it, no, I really don't see why it would be.
Right just leave it as it is then.
Big thumbs up.
Excessive force is very much in the laws which could be seen as "full on"
Also there are times when the ref gets it right as he's closer than the fans who think they are right. Mike Dean for example last night got it spot on when Almiron dived. The half wits in the stand ganin beserkI'd agree but fans have to accept that referees will make awful decisions due to having to make quick decisions at 100 mph, usually from a shit angle, often with a restricted view and under considerable pressure from fans and players.
I'm not sure what you've seen but are you sure if you look at it again?Is it raised or studs up. Clearly not as far as I can see.
I'm not sure what you've seen but are you sure if you look at it again?
From what I see of the follow through, Tarkowski's foot is well above ankle height with his studs facing Richarlison's leg. As I mentioned, it's more to do with Richarlison pulling his right leg back in anticipation of being clattered into that stopped Tarkowski's foot going into Richarlison's shin and potential serious injury.
Logon or register to see this image