Red card / yellow card / foul / no foul?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 43869
  • Start date


He probably just wanted to hit him as hard as he could without any thought about whether he'd seriously injure him or not.
Hitting the ball as hard as you can and taking the man is something entirely different to looking to hurt someone imo.

Did you think wes browns was a red out of interest, personally I thought that one was worse than this as there was less margin for error due to the speed.
 
That's 50:50. Going in knowing you're going to hurt someone is totally different. Do you not know the difference
That's 50:50. Going in knowing you're going to hurt someone is totally different. Do you not know the difference
You don’t necessarily hurt them just because you give it your all in the tackle don’t you know that? if you think that’s what I want to happen you are plain wrong, I like a good hard challenge and think it’s part of the game, you cannot have a good hard challenge and just stop yourself as soon as you touch the ball sometimes a clattering is inevitable
Hitting the ball as hard as you can and taking the man is something entirely different to looking to hurt someone imo.

Did you think wes browns was a red out of interest, personally I thought that one was worse than this as there was less margin for error due to the speed.
Probably better put than me
 
Last edited:
You don’t necessarily hurt them just because you give it your all in the tackle don’t you know that? if you think that’s what I want to happen you are plain wrong, I like a good hard challenge and think it’s part of the game, you cannot have a good hard challenge and just stop yourself as soon as you touch the ball sometimes a clattering is inevitable

Probably better out than me
I've said it's inevitable. You previously said that it was perfection if you nail the man afterwards. Can you not see that is completely wrong
 
Hitting the ball as hard as you can and taking the man is something entirely different to looking to hurt someone imo.

Quite clearly he was looking to hit the man as hard as he could. Why would he care about how hard he was 'hitting the ball'? He's clearly looking to completely wipe out Richarlison. Truth be told its quite entertaining but there's no way he is throwing himself in like that to make a hard contact on the ball. He's looking to hurt Richarlison and remove his appetite for the rest of the game.
 
Quite clearly he was looking to hit the man as hard as he could. Why would he care about how hard he was 'hitting the ball'? He's clearly looking to completely wipe out Richarlison. Truth be told its quite entertaining but there's no way he is throwing himself in like that to make a hard contact on the ball. He's looking to hurt Richarlison and remove his appetite for the rest of the game.

I disagree with what you see as clearly, such is life. You hit the ball as hard and as quickly as you can to make sure you get there first, there is always the possibility of contact and you can't sherk through issue of injuring yourself. Again id cite cattermole challenge on modric.

Physiological advances are within the laws of the game also, its aggression and it plays a role.

You haven't answered about the wes brown challenge, no big issue, I was just interested in your take?
 
I disagree with what you see as clearly, such is life. You hit the ball as hard and as quickly as you can to make sure you get there first, there is always the possibility of contact and you can't sherk through issue of injuring yourself. Again id cite cattermole challenge on modric.

Physiological advances are within the laws of the game also, its aggression and it plays a role.

You haven't answered about the wes brown challenge, no big issue, I was just interested in your take?
I'm not from round these parts so I had to find the Wes Brown one. It's an odd one because he doesn't even make contact with the guy. In fact he's not even close to him .I think he goes in like that anticipating that the opponent will also go in full blooded but he just steps to the side. The big difference on the Richarlison one is that he is pinned to the touchline with nowhere to go. He's a sitting target. Fair enough if you disagree but to me it looks like Tarkowski is hoping to get something on the ball and then carry through and put Richarlison into the stands. I don't blame him to be fair, I'd probably want to do the same but there's no way you can tell me that he wasn't trying to wipe him out.

I take your point about not wanting to get injured but in that scenario Richarlison is pretty much stationary. There is no threat to Tarkowski whatsoever. It's 100 - 0 in his favour.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not from round these parts so I had to find the Wes Brown one. It's an odd one because he doesn't even make contact with the guy. In fact he's not even close to him .I think he goes in like that anticipating that the opponent will also go in full blooded but he just steps to the side. The big difference on the Richarlison one is that he is pinned to the touchline with nowhere to go. He's a sitting target. Fair enough if you disagree but to me it looks like Tarkowski is hoping to get something on the ball and then carry through and put Richarlison into the stands. I don't blame him to be fair, I'd probably want to do the same but there's no way you can tell me that he wasn't trying to wipe him out.

Wipe him out, let him know he's there, physiological advantage, plenty of terminology can be used to describe, some more sinister than others but I dont think its against the rules of the game.
 
Wipe him out, let him know he's there, physiological advantage, plenty of terminology can be used to describe, some more sinister than others but I dont think its against the rules of the game.
Like I said, it depends on what you think the rules should be. If you want to reduce the chance of injury, you ban it, if you want an aggressive, action packed game, you allow it. One thing I'd stand by is that a challenge like that is likely to injure an opponent. I don't think Tarkowski intended to cause him serious harm but I doubt he was particularly concerned about whether he did or he didn't. I do think he intended to hit him with as much force as possible and not really worry about the consequences.
 
Anything goes? Well no. Only the tackle goes. Obviously. The question makes no sense

I think it's the upswing of the boot after the contact with the ball that's the issue. It's not necessary and used as a way to increase momentum into the contact with the player.
 
I think it's hard to argue that he wasn't trying to leave one on him, and it's also hard to argue that leaving one on him is a legitimate act given it's exactly the same thing as trying to hurt an opponent behind the veil of trying to win the ball.

It's not the same as an opponent being hurt as an unfortunate consequence of winning the ball
 

Back
Top