• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

+++ West Ham v Aston Villa kick off 1730 Sky Sports Main Event Sky Sports Premier League Sky Sports Ultra HDR +++


Local Lad said:
To be fair looking at the replay again he does get the ball hut soucek would have been able to get to the ball but then the villa player brings him down
Click to expand...
This! Cash doesn't win the ball, nor does he clear it away from Soucek but he then ends up bringing Soucek down.

It's puzzling how some think getting a toe on the ball means it's OK to then take out and therefore impede the player after, even the pundits calling it a 'tackle'. That is the law of the game, stopping an opposing player from playing the ball, not getting a toe on it to knock it a couple of feet away but still playable by the opposing player.
 
Last edited:
Sporty said:
This! Cash doesn't win the ball, nor does he clear it away from Soucek but he then ends up bringing Soucek down.

It's puzzling how some think getting a toe on the ball means it's OK to then take out and impede the player after, even the pundits calling it a 'tackle'.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen it but this is the exact scenario I pictured. Let me guess, Cash's touch did not dispossess Soucek ie. He would've retrieved the ball had he not been brought down.
FatDrummer said:
You couldn’t be more incorrect.
Click to expand...

Looking at the comments on here it seems that this is exactly what happened.
 
Sporty said:
….As for the "getting the ball" comments, it means little as Cash touched the ball away but he hasn't got control not has he cleared it away. He comes into the back of Soucek and then got his legs wrapped up with Soucek and stops Soucek bringing his right foot forward and ends up bringing him down so impeding Soucek attempting to play the ball as the ball is clearly there to be played.

I can see why the ref gave it and due to the stupid C&O then VAR isn't overturning it. It's nowhere near as bad a decision as some are making out as the 'touch' didn't clear the ball nor did he win possession so you can't stop a player for playing the ball just because you get a toenail on the ball 🤪
Click to expand...
I can see why the Ref gave it. I’m not blaming the Ref, but the ‘Video Assistant Referee’ didn’t ‘assist’ either the Referee or the game in general with that mealy-mouthed decision.
Cash got enough of the ball to divert it from the opposition player. It was the epitomé of a good tackle.
 
Matnab said:
I haven't seen it but this is the exact scenario I pictured. Let me guess, Cash's touch did not dispossess Soucek ie. He would've retrieved the ball had he not been brought down.


Looking at the comments on here it seems that this is exactly what happened.
Click to expand...
You’re guessing wrong.
 
FatDrummer said:
I can see why the Ref gave it. I’m not blaming the Ref, but the ‘Video Assistant Referee’ didn’t ‘assist’ either the Referee or the game in general with that mealy-mouthed decision.
Cash got enough of the ball to divert it from the opposition player. It was the epitomé of a good tackle.
Click to expand...

At least you can see that the tackle needed to be sufficient to dispossess the player but surely you can see that Soucek would've retrieved it if he hadn't been brought down. If the ball fell to another defender or went into touch it wouldn't or at least shouldn't have been given.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top