Berbaclass
Fallen Muppet. Lest we never forget
Didn’t clear the ball far enough.He denied the goal scoring opportunity by making the tackle, it moved the ball out of vardys path? Thats how I seen it anyway.
Didn’t clear the ball far enough.He denied the goal scoring opportunity by making the tackle, it moved the ball out of vardys path? Thats how I seen it anyway.
“Reckless” tackles are yellows, not reds, according to the rules.Follow through was reckless.
Not when it’s also a denial of a goal scoring opportunity. He tried to tackle Vardy, lunged in reckless/clumsily and missed the tackle and brought Vardy down. Clear red no issues with it.“Reckless” tackles are yellows, not reds, according to the rules.
Yeah just had another look, Vardy could have probably made it before the keeper got to it.Didn’t clear the ball far enough.
Dont you have to dispossess a player to make a tackle? Otherwise its a failed tackleHe denied the goal scoring opportunity by making the tackle, it moved the ball out of vardys path? Thats how I seen it anyway.
Keepers touch the ball all the time and then wipe out the striker, unanimously accepted as not a foul.Vestegaard touched the ball but Vardy would still have had control of it until he was fouled.
In this particular scenario he didn’t take the opportunity away from Vardy with his attempted tackle. He missed it and clumsily took him down. Clear red.Keepers touch the ball all the time and then wipe out the striker, unanimously accepted as not a foul.
He gets the ball, Vardy gets nothing. I don't see the clear redIn this particular scenario he didn’t take the opportunity away from Vardy with his attempted tackle. He missed it and clumsily took him down. Clear red.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Vardy still has a goal scoring opportunity without Vestegaards tackle. It’s simple mate.
That is really not how it works man. He gets the ball, then it is a new situation. He caught him with the studs, which is the only reason he got a card, fantastic tackle otherwiseVardy still has a goal scoring opportunity without Vestegaards tackle. It’s simple mate.
Do you think Vardy gets to the ball if he’s not taken down? Yes he obviously would. Therefore it’s a denial of a goal scoring opportunity.That is really not how it works man. He gets the ball, then it is a new situation. He caught him with the studs, which is the only reason he got a card, fantastic tackle otherwise
clearly a red card - not sure why people could say otherwise.He gets the ball, Vardy gets nothing. I don't see the clear red
But he still got the ball. Then it is a new situation. It cant be a denial of goal scoring opportunity if he gets the ball. It was part of the initial tackle where he got the ball first. Not saying it wasnt reckless, but denial of goal scoring opportunity should never be in consideration when he gets the ballDo you think Vardy gets to the ball if he’s not taken down? Yes he obviously would. Therefore it’s a denial of a goal scoring opportunity.
Reckless takes it into red.“Reckless” tackles are yellows, not reds, according to the rules.
I don't understand why you keep saying he missed the tackle. What do you mean?In this particular scenario he didn’t take the opportunity away from Vardy with his attempted tackle. He missed it and clumsily took him down. Clear red.
Tonight shows that our 9-0 against them wasn't any kind of given, as teams often go into shutout mode down to 10.Completely understand the Southampton players antics right now, they are fearing another humiliation.
I don’t think it matters whether he touches the ball or not. The important thing is that he either gains control of it or takes it away from Vardy with the tackle. He does neither and I think it’s a fair red.But he still got the ball. Then it is a new situation. It cant be a denial of goal scoring opportunity if he gets the ball. It was part of the initial tackle where he got the ball first. Not saying it wasnt reckless, but denial of goal scoring opportunity should never be in consideration when he gets the ball
He got the ball first didn't he? He didn't "miss it".In this particular scenario he didn’t take the opportunity away from Vardy with his attempted tackle. He missed it and clumsily took him down. Clear red.
It wasn’t a successful tackle if he didn’t actually manage to dispossess Vardy.I don't understand why you keep saying he missed the tackle. What do you mean?
He missed the tackle not the ball. Like I’ve said numerous times he failed to take possession away from Vardy with his attempted tackle so the challenge on Vardy is still a denial of a goal scoring opportunity.He got the ball first didn't he? He didn't "miss it".
It's that he followed through studs into Vardy's leg that was the issue.
If he hadn't studded him, it wouldn't have been a red, as making a "legit" attempt for a challenge when last man isn't a red these days.
I wonder if people were moaning about Ole that night?Tonight shows that our 9-0 against them wasn't any kind of given, as teams often go into shutout mode down to 10.
We were supreme that day as well.
Vardy had possession? I need to see it againHe missed the tackle not the ball. Like I’ve said numerous times he failed to take possession away from Vardy with his attempted tackle so the challenge on Vardy is still a denial of a goal scoring opportunity.
I am pretty sure if you go by that logic you would find a large amount of perfectly fine tackles never gets hold of the ball. There is no rule about the tackler needs to get the ball and run with it himself. As long as the ball is hit before the man, its legitimate. (Barring reckless force of course)I don’t think it matters whether he touches the ball or not. The important thing is that he either gains control of it or takes it away from Vardy with the tackle. He does neither and I think it’s a fair red.
That can't be a thing.It wasn’t a successful tackle if he didn’t actually manage to dispossess Vardy.
It is it’s called an attempted tackle.That can't be a thing.
Its not. There are so so so many tackles taking the ball out for corners etc whilst also taking the attacker at the same time. We would have 5 penalties per game going by that rulebookThat can't be a thing.
You need to catch yourself on. That’s not how it’s refereed anymore. It’s only a red for denying a clear goal scoring opportunity if there was no attempt to play the ball. So a shirt pull is a red but a mistimed tackle is not.Do you think Vardy gets to the ball if he’s not taken down? Yes he obviously would. Therefore it’s a denial of a goal scoring opportunity.
All he did was knock it slightly forward for Vardy to run onto and get a shot away. Vardy got taken out by the follow through so I think it’s a red.I am pretty sure if you go by that logic you would find a large amount of perfectly fine tackles never gets hold of the ball. There is no rule about the tackler needs to get the ball and run with it himself. As long as the ball is hit before the man, its legitimatate. (Barring reckless force of course)
He made contact with the ball first yes, but it is no longer a successful tackle after raking his studs up Vardy's ankle.I don't understand why you keep saying he missed the tackle. What do you mean?
So if I’m clearly wrong and the ref clearly got it wrong then why no VAR intervention if that’s clearly the rule?You need to catch yourself on. That’s not how it’s refereed anymore. It’s only a red for denying a clear goal scoring opportunity if there was no attempt to play the ball. So a shirt pull is a red but a mistimed tackle is not.
This is why they virtually stopped sending off goalies.
Here, not only was there an attempt to play the ball, but he actually did get it. That’s simply not a red card.
The West Ham one was a nonsense but this I can see the logic of.Due to the fact that there's debate about the red card shows that it probably wasn't a stone wall red.
In which case it shouldn't be given.
He gets the ball and follows through, it could be a foul, but certainly not a red.
@Wumminator is the man for such threads.I wonder if people were moaning about Ole that night?
Maybe a belated thread?