parsonjohn1985
Winger
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.
To me, yes. If he slides in and the ball hits him before he hits the player it's not a foul. There's enough fouls that get given for 'contact with the player' when no challenge at all is made that the reverse has to apply or how does anyone actually defend?
I've never said 'gets to the ball first' and meant the defender hits the ball before the attacker. I've said get to the ball first to mean the defender hits the ball before hitting the attacker. Those are two distinct things.
If intention matters which I've never agreed it should necessarily then a player just standing still as an attacker runs into him shouldn't be given as a foul but in the top leagues always is. And players like Bruno Fernando's should be booked as soon as they walk on the field. You know he intends to dive. He says as much in interviews. Therefore book him straight away
I meant not in the direct that the player was going in, which indicates it wasn't exactly a clean tackle.
It looped up over richarlisons head and went out almost directly behind him.
So it depends on your definition of a clean tackle