Of course its about perspex and what side of the tackle you are looking at it from, if that was Aurier on Rashford I would find it very hard to believe that every United supporter would say. "Thats fine yellow card, lets move on"
Erik Lamela
- Thread starter Cantonagotmehere
- Start date
Because they're desperately trying to defend Lamela here by using strawmen for some reason.Try and twist it all you want. A trip is not SFP. It's a professional foul. That's it. No idea why people are looking for more than that? We see this all the time
Agreed. And you would be the one arguing it was a perfectly valid yellow card foulif that was Aurier on Rashford I would find it very hard to believe that every United supporter would say. "Thats fine yellow card, lets move on"
Gotta love football.Agreed. And you would be the one arguing it was a perfectly valid yellow card foul
It's very close to a red. In referee guidance they are told to consider things like whether it's an aggressive lunge, could it injure the opponent, is there a chance of getting the ball, is there malice in the challenge etc. The more boxes ticked, the more likely it's serious foul play, and Shaw ticked a lot of boxes with that one. His eyes showed he had no intention of getting the ball and they were going at some speed when he went for him. He could very easily have injured Moura.
The VAR team made a number of errors yesterday, i think the Shaw decision was them trying to balance things out after knowing they screwed up with Lamela. I hope that has taught every single one of our players to go down screaming at the slightest hint of contact. Sod taking the high ground when players like him are in the game.
Where have I defended Lamela? I have been the complete opposite.
Haha, yes, I did consider that point! I think the point to remember on all three is that VAR isn't being used to maintain consistency or make correct decisions, but to change obviously incorrect ones. If a referee deals with two marginal incidents inconsistently (like Lamela and Martial) it's going to enshrine that inconsistency even if most fair minded people would probably say 'surely you have to send off both or neither'. For all I know, the VAR official may have thought it was a red card tackle from Shaw, but I do think it at least means something that there was enough doubt they didn't think it was an egregious error.I have very little faith in either
No, but, by the same token if a player does get injured it doesn't always mean that the tackle was one which used excessive force. I have to admit, I'm drawing a blank trying to think of examples of those sorts of tackles which have led to injuries over the years, I'm sure they've happened, but I think it's pretty unfortunate if it does.
I would say that I think it's a tackle that was made with no consideration for Moura's safety, but not one which I would argue was especially likely to cause injury, which is why I think it's a yellow not a red. If Shaw had been sent off it, I don't think it would have been a burning injustice, I just think it's difficult to make the case according to the laws.
He kicks him much higher up, it's not similar.
Rooney kicked him in the knee. Shaw tripped him. Totally different play...
90% of players would do it - so don't forget that when calling him a 'cnut' and stuff. Seems Martial on that occasion was part of the 10%.
I have absolutely no idea why people continue to pretend that Shaws tackle is worse than it is, nor why you continue to misunderstand simple rules.
A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play. A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play. Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play. Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play unless there is a clear subsequent opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send off the player guilty of serious foul play when the ball is next out of play. A player who is guilty of serious foul play should be sent off and play is restarted with a direct free kick from the position where the offence occurred (see Law 13 – Position of free kick) or a penalty kick (if the offence occurred inside the offender’s penalty area).
Chance of getting the ball matters the square root of absolute feck all, 0, nothing, doesn't matter. You can easily win the ball at the same time as you use excessive force and endanger the safety of the opponent.
In Shaws case: There's no excessive force or brutality, it doesn't endanger the safety of the opponent, he takes him out and that's it. It's cynical as feck, but never in a million years a red card unless they change the rules.
I will never defend the indefensible (our back 4 + Matic yesterday) but there were several instances in that game where to prevent a counter attck, Spurs players were grabbing United players arms, jerseys and shooulders and dragging them back. w/ Lamela being one of the players that was guilty of this. NO measures taken to discipline for that. No cards, nothing. At least City will have a kick at you, Spurs were just grabbing players and dragging them.
Rooney also kicked him from behind in the knee, which furthur adds to it being "dangerous"
They've finished their transition into a Jose team, maybe they'll actually win something at this rate. Twats.
It has nothing to do with Jose. Poch's Spurs also played like a bunch of c**ts.
I'll take him on the right wing, though
And I have no idea why people continue to misunderstand that there are rules, and there are guidances issued to referees in how to interpret those rules. The guidance expressly says they must take into account the position of the ball and whether the player was intending to play the ball or not.
link?
I completely agree. I have no idea why some people are saying this should have been a red. Like you said, it's cynical as feck, but never a red card. The only danger wasn't from the point of contact. Point of contact was only a trip. Only thing he could possibly injure is his shoulder, but that's from a fall, and if a red card is given for falling on your shoulder then we will see 5-10 red cards per game. The only other possible red card would be DOGSO, but Moura was too far away from the goal for it to be DOGSO and there were defenders who could come over to keep it from being an "obvious goal scoring opportunity". Yellow card is 100% the right call...
I put quite a detailed post on page 2 about it. When you look at the IFAB rules, there's some clear distinctions as to why Lamela wasn't red, and why Shaw should have been. Not biased, as I said, as it's just written rules.
I have only seen it in the AFC because that is where i played (i did something very similar to Shaw once and only got a yellow for it, that's why i know the rule), but there is a reference to it here in an FA disciplinary case against Etienne Capoue:
http://www.thefa.com/-/media/files/...issal---etienne-capoue---3-december-2018.ashx
I'd say Shaw falls foul of up to 6 of those. The one about malice refers to whether you're genuinely going for the ball or just trying to take the player out.
Last edited:
To be fair, I've seen Fernandes dive when there is no contact at all. So his goal is for the ref to give his team a free kick/penalty but also to penalize a fellow professional for something he didn't do. So both are disgraceful acts. One being worse than the other doesn't mean the first example becomes ok. Technically, Simeone vs. Beckham is Simeone embellishing contact. He didn't actually pretend he got hit, since there was contact there.
You quite clearly have no understanding whatsoever of what any of it actually means. I mean, christ, you've singled out A,B,C,D,H without actually understanding any of them
The challenge doesn't clearly endanger the safety of the player, there's no brutality or malice, he hasn't travelled a long distance simply to take the player out, there's no high speed or intensity.
It's a cynical as feck professional foul.
Feck me, it's there in front of you in black and white, professional referees have commented on it, and you're still refusing to admit you're wrong.
I'm not saying its definite or not, but those are the rules, and it could easily have been given as a red.
Its like I said, if Aurier don't that to Rashford, it would be a red.
Which part of it is applicable to the situation with Shaw and why...
I dont promote the violence but Lamela needs a good slap.
Goal of the season and a red card in the same game, possible future quiz question
Called it. When he got nailed 5 mins before it I thought he'd do something cowardly.....
He's a disaster player, red card walking.
Good. Cheating prick.
First red card of his career todayHe's a disaster player, red card walking.
Well deserved red, karma got served!
Beautiful instance of football karma.
Now no-one will give a feck about his wonder goal.
Now no-one will give a feck about his wonder goal.
Is it just 2 yellows?
shame the cnut won’t get a longer ban.
hopefully he will have cost Spurs the match though.
grade a prick
shame the cnut won’t get a longer ban.
hopefully he will have cost Spurs the match though.
grade a prick
Dirty, cheating player. Lots of footballers are but he plays dirtier and cheats more than most. Glad he finally got a red card.
Had it been a straight red, he'd miss the game v United.