arnie_ni
Full Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2014
- Messages
- 15,200
One ref would have let the goal stand, another would have gave him a red, this one went right down the middle
You can if they jump into you with a knee to the head, because that's a foul. That's the point. The defender is under no obligation to jump for a ball he has correctly judged he can't get just because Lindelof has incorrectly judged it and leaped at him knee first. It's Lindelof's responsibility to make sure the collision doesn't happen like that, not the defender's. Because Lindelof is the one who has made the decision to fly at the defender with his knee at head-height to try and win a ball that's nowhere near him when he collides into his opponent.It's a strange one no doubt.
The argument for it being a foul is based on it being reckless/dangerous play by lindelof, but would it be reckless/dangerous if the defender had made an attempt to either challenge for the ball or had more awareness of his surroundings and defended himself.
Lindelof is entiltiled to go for the ball and is allowed to run and jump to go for it I'm not sure he does much wrong, it looks bad on replays of course but in my eyes it's not a foul it's the defenders fault he should either make a challenge or be more aware of his surroundings you cant just stand still on a corner and then complain when someone runs/jumps into you.
Football is still a contact sport and sometimes there will be unavoidable contact that isn't a foul and I think this is one of those cases.
It actually looks as though Lindelof had a decent chance of getting the ball but ducks at the moment of impact with the defender. Without that collision he would have got very close to the ball, possibly getting his head on it.You can if they jump into you with a knee to the head, because that's a foul. That's the point. The defender is under no obligation to jump for a ball he has correctly judged he can't get just because Lindelof has incorrectly judged it and leaped at him knee first. It's Lindelof's responsibility to make sure the collision doesn't happen like that, not the defender's.
"Direct free kick100% foul and probably should be red as he's so far from the ball.
Question is IF he scored, would that be a foul but I feel we discussed it enough in the match day thread
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/why-wasn’t-taa-sent-off.461014/page-5This thread really opens the eyes to how many fans genuinely don't know the rules of football
Not really, my point was it wasn't against the rules and many others agreed it wasn't a penalty (including Carragher) and I still believe that. TAA didn't do anything wrong IMO.
Your opinion means nothing when you don’t understand the rules.Not really, my point was it wasn't against the rules and many others agreed it wasn't a penalty (including Carragher) and I still believe that. TAA didn't do anything wrong IMO.
This is clearly a very different situation, it's wreckless and dangerous and he was lucky he didn't get a red card.
Sorry what rule are you talking about? i'd love for you to point it out.Your opinion means nothing when you don’t understand the rules.
The situation is the same, it’s people not knowing the rules. Just like yourself a few days ago.
It’s ironic you laugh at people here when you made an absolute fool of yourself just a few days ago.
Caf wanted his balls after that.If that had been the other way round and it was one of our players getting the knee in the face, how many on here would be arguing for the goal to stand?
Anyone remember this gem?
Can't believe we didn't get a goal and a penalty for this, defender is clearly trying to pull Tuanzebe back here.
I see nothing untoward there...just a dude getting kneed in the face.
Not only that, but that for some reason the defender is at fault because he didn't challenge for a ball he would never be able to reach in a million years.The idea that if the defender jumped it would have been fine is one of the stranger things about this debate. He'd have still had someone do a running jump at him and taken a knee to the ribs.
Honestly if people can't understand you don't jump like that towards someone then there's no hope.
Don't forget standing still, because that isn't allowed in football. You have to keep permanently moving otherwise you're not in the gameNot only that, but that for some reason the defender is at fault because he didn't challenge for a ball he would never be able to reach in a million years.
As if he has a duty to challenge because Lindelof is challenging... which doesn't really make any sense.
It's just the way it happens, every time I watch it I find it funny for some reason. BOOM!Why is this funny? It was very dangerous, could have ended the life of the other player there. Definite red card.
Players jump towards each other all the time. Look at the next time a keeper comes out to collect a high ball. They even do the knees first shape in the air.The idea that if the defender jumped it would have been fine is one of the stranger things about this debate. He'd have still had someone do a running jump at him and taken a knee to the ribs.
Honestly if people can't understand you don't jump like that towards someone then there's no hope.
Whether that was the right decision or not Defenders always challenge for a ball they’re not going to reach, most of the time the attacker has the run on them so will jump higher, defenders jump to interfere with the striker. Not just stand there waiting for the runner to jump into them. (Unless your Harry Kane)Not only that, but that for some reason the defender is at fault because he didn't challenge for a ball he would never be able to reach in a million years.
As if he has a duty to challenge because Lindelof is challenging... which doesn't really make any sense.
The point being made is that if you’ve decided to make no attempt to play the football then you shouldn’t get in the way of someone who is.Not only that, but that for some reason the defender is at fault because he didn't challenge for a ball he would never be able to reach in a million years.
As if he has a duty to challenge because Lindelof is challenging... which doesn't really make any sense.
Not true.Think an important question that isn't being asked is why the feck did he do it??
He leapt about 5 foot in the air and still got nowhere near the ball, whilst battering an opposing player who had understandably let the ball sail over head.
With or without Lindelof doing that, Tuanzebe scores there. Pointless from the Iceman.
I’ll repeat this from the Lindelöf thread:
When there is an airial ball, and one player doesn’t go for the ball but moves in for a collision, it is a foul against him, and might even be a yellow for dangerous play. The player who is airborn has no way of changing direction or keeping balance. This was a cross from a corner, Lindelöf goes up for the ball as you should, and is chanceless when Bautista comes walking blindfolded into him, neither looking for the ball or other players. If Lindelöf doesn’t try to cover himself, he will be the one taking a somersault two meters up, possibly landing on his neck.
There has been a tendency of late for referees to ignore the rules regarding this and award freekicks for those who ‘look more victimized’. But it’s bad refereeing, and sets a dangerous precedent.
I presume what you’re referring to is the Harry Kane sort of situation. This, a ball with pace played into a packed box, over the heads of several players who are trying to read its flight, is nothing like that. Imposing some sort of positive duty on the defenders to either make a challenge he can’t win or cede ground to a player whose presence he’s probably only peripherally aware of, seems oddly harsh.The point being made is that if you’ve decided to make no attempt to play the football then you shouldn’t get in the way of someone who is.
It probably is harsh. As I said I’ve changed my opinion from last night. It’s a foul by Lindelof unless the defender knowingly stepped in his way.I presume what you’re referring to is the Harry Kane sort of situation. This, a ball with pace played into a packed box, over the heads of several players who are trying to read its flight, is nothing like that. Imposing some sort of positive duty on the defenders to either make a challenge he can’t win or cede ground to a player whose presence he’s probably only peripherally aware of, seems oddly harsh.
Pogue he's defending the front post, the ball goes a metre over his head and he turns to watch the flight of the ball and gets absolutely flattened by Lindelof.Players jump towards each other all the time. Look at the next time a keeper comes out to collect a high ball. They even do the knees first shape in the air.
I’ve changed my opinion a bit, now I’ve slept on it. If the defender was standing still then it’s reckless and a foul. Watching it last night I thought he was moving into Lindelof’s path, who clearly had eyes for nothing but the ball. In which case the defender should have been penalised. Even if he got all his teeth knocked out. Knowingly getting under someone who is jumping to head the ball is a shitty, dangerous thing to do.
Similarly you can’t go just go sliding across the box on your arse taking out who evers in your way.Pogue he's defending the front post, the ball goes a metre over his head and he turns to watch the flight of the ball and gets absolutely flattened by Lindelof.
Nothing the defender does is wrong or his fault at all. You can't go flying full speed into the box then jump head height knee first into a defenders face and expect to get away with it?! I thought David Luiz was stupid going head first into Raul Jiminez but this was even worse.
This is the definition of wreckless/dangerous play and will always be given as a foul. Whether the goal should have been cancelled is another talking point, as technically it didn't stop the goal happening - but it was definitely a foul and usually off the ball fouls get called to stop goals. (like Shaw)
Yeah, he was much closer to heading the ball than many are willing to admit. He sort of ducks slightly, right as it goes past. I actually think the collision is what distracts him and makes him miss the ball.Similarly you can’t go just go sliding across the box on your arse taking out who evers in your way.
making out the ball was a yard over his head when tuanzebe headed it without jumping just a metre behind him, ball must have come down like a falling star
They do, and that's fine... but just as its fine to jump for a ball you can't win, it's also fine to not jump for the ball and then try and defend the second ball that drops behind you. You can't really criticise a guy for not going for a ball he won't win.Whether that was the right decision or not Defenders always challenge for a ball they’re not going to reach, most of the time the attacker has the run on them so will jump higher, defenders jump to interfere with the striker. Not just stand there waiting for the runner to jump into them. (Unless your Harry Kane)
But he would argue he is attempting to play the second ball that drop's over his head by turning around.The point being made is that if you’ve decided to make no attempt to play the football then you shouldn’t get in the way of someone who is.
You can’t criticise him no but his manger probably would, you should challenge for balls. Pretty simple. There’s hundreds of headers that a defender has no chance of reaching but the striker having a running jump will reach. The defender still jumps not to let the striker get that clean header. That ball wasn’t all that far away from lindelof, people making out like it was above the floodlights.They do, and that's fine... but just as its fine to jump for a ball you can't win, it's also fine to not jump for the ball and then try and defend the second ball that drops behind you. You can't really criticise a guy for not going for a ball he won't win.
But he would argue he is attempting to play the second ball that drop's over his head by turning around.
He's in a perfectly logical position for the situation.
He was miles away not only far under the ball but also far in front of it. Perhaps this was a training ground routine and Telles messed up the delivery, but Lindelof misses the ball because he starts his run early and thus he's not tracking the flight of the ball, rather he is speculatively getting into position.You can’t criticise him no but his manger probably would, you should challenge for balls. Pretty simple. There’s hundreds of headers that a defender has no chance of reaching but the striker having a running jump will reach. The defender still jumps not to let the striker get that clean header. That ball wasn’t all that far away from lindelof, people making out like it was above the floodlights.
He would argue that. Lindelof would argue that he gets in his way when he makes a legitimate attempt to get the ball.But he would argue he is attempting to play the second ball that drop's over his head by turning around.
He's in a perfectly logical position for the situation.