Is that even if the ref did see the foul?VAR can inform the ref that a foul he didn't give deserves a red.
Is that even if the ref did see the foul?VAR can inform the ref that a foul he didn't give deserves a red.
There’s a lot I agree with in there but not the bit about it would’ve been a straight red up to the 90s.It is a red card in my opinion:
- tackle comes from behind, player cannot see it coming and is thus extremely injury prone
- the player was already gone, the tackle was more than desperate
- he tackles with both feet and thus is whole body weight, multiplied by his speed
I think you guys in the UK have a different view on this, because you all really like physical football, but if this tackle was no red and allowed, there would definitely a lot of ugly injuries in one season. If in doubt, you need to protect the player anyway.
Up to the 90s, this would have been a straight red in every single case. But after 2k I feel that the referees have got some additional baggage from their managers, like "don't give a red" and disrupt the game.
We see this type of hook tackle in almost every game, in fact, we saw one 5 minutes later that wasn't even deemed a foul. He clearly hooks the ball away from the side. There is only contact from the side, until he is already in possession of the ball.It is a red card in my opinion:
- tackle comes from behind, player cannot see it coming and is thus extremely injury prone
- the player was already gone, the tackle was more than desperate
- he tackles with both feet and thus is whole body weight, multiplied by his speed
I think you guys in the UK have a different view on this, because you all really like physical football, but if this tackle was no red and allowed, there would definitely a lot of ugly injuries in one season. If in doubt, you need to protect the player anyway.
Up to the 90s, this would have been a straight red in every single case. But after 2k I feel that the referees have got some additional baggage from their managers, like "don't give a red" and disrupt the game.
I agree with that to a point. But like rugby, there should be an onus in tackler to control his actions?Are you suggesting that he intentionally timed his tackle to ensure that his trailing leg landed on a planted trailing foot exactly when it was at an awkward angle to ensure maximum damage? If so, that’s bloody impressive.
The unlucky circumstances are that the trailing leg (which the player cannot detach upon making a tackle) accidentally made contact with the foot that the player didn’t intend to tackle, and that the foot happened to be 1) planted, and 2) at an awkward angle right at the point of impact.
Any tackle, or contact, can, given unlucky circumstances, end up in a serious injury. Should we ban everything from the sport?
Tiny nudge of the shoulder makes a player roll his ankle and break it. Should that be a red card too?
I am not suggesting he intended the injury but he is responsible for the tackle and the resulting injury. He got it wrong. His spacial ability fell short of the tackle he committed. RED CARD. No passes for lack of intent.Are you suggesting that he intentionally timed his tackle to ensure that his trailing leg landed on a planted trailing foot exactly when it was at an awkward angle to ensure maximum damage? If so, that’s bloody impressive.
The unlucky circumstances are that the trailing leg (which the player cannot detach upon making a tackle) accidentally made contact with the foot that the player didn’t intend to tackle, and that the foot happened to be 1) planted, and 2) at an awkward angle right at the point of impact.
Any tackle, or contact, can, given unlucky circumstances, end up in a serious injury. Should we ban everything from the sport?
Tiny nudge of the shoulder makes a player roll his ankle and break it. Should that be a red card too?
There is, and the rules say as much. My point is that this type of tackle (trailing leg making contact with opponent) happens a couple of times every gameweek but is never penalised with a red card because most of the time the contact isn’t on a planted leg at an awkward angle and doesn’t end up in an injury. Most of the time, it’s not even a free kick and it wasn’t on Elliott either until the consequence was obvious (and the rules say nothing about changing verdict based on outcome).I agree with that to a point. But like rugby, there should be an onus in tackler to control his actions?
So if I nudge you with my left thumb while you’re running at full pelt, and you lose balance and break your arm while breaking the fall, do I deserve a red card due to freak circumstances occurring and a serious injury happens?I am not suggesting he intended the injury but he is responsible for the tackle and the resulting injury. He got it wrong. His spacial ability fell short of the tackle he committed. RED CARD. No passes for lack of intent.
Your left thumb would not have done the damage directly. It would be classified as a secondary injury. This case is different. It is a primary injury caused directly from the tackler's leg.So if I nudge you with my left thumb while you’re running at full pelt, and you lose balance and break your arm while breaking the fall, do I deserve a red card due to freak circumstances occurring and a serious injury happens?
Would a drunk driver be convicted for a hit and run if he/she didn't hit anyone? You're logic is lacking.Some seriously stupid opinions in here. Even the player saying it wasn’t a Red ffs. Just think rationally for a minute, would this have been a red without the injury? Obviously the answer is no, never in a million years.
He wouldn't have broken his leg though if the tackler hadn't jumped in with such force and out of control that their trailing leg did that damage, it's not a freak outcome but a perfectly logical outcome given the nature of the challenge.If Elliot don't get injured, I think 99% of people (bar Klopp) nod in appreciation of a very good tackle, won the ball, contact with trailing leg, happens all the time, contact sport. Elliot is so unlucky here, but you can't send people off because of a freak outcome.
Players break legs with no contact, it happens.
Wish the young lad well, seems a decent sort.
While that's true, it wasn't a red card either.Whether it was malicious or not has literally zero bearing on whether it's a red card though, because that's not how the rules work. People can argue whether it should have been a red card but intent isn't even a factor for the ref to consider, so lack of intent isn't an argument for it not to be given, unless you want to change the rules.
Yes, the VAR can always indicate that a foul might have been red, then it's up to the main ref to determine if he's sure of what he saw, if he wants to double check on the screen or if he trusts the VAR refs and gives a red directly without checking. In this case, I suspect VAR told him its a clear red and considering how bad the injury was, he decided to give it directly.Is that even if the ref did see the foul?
He did not jump in nor was he out of control. Don't exaggerate.He wouldn't have broken his leg though if the tackler hadn't jumped in with such force and out of control that their trailing leg did that damage, it's not a freak outcome but a perfectly logical outcome given the nature of the challenge.
They are normal every game tackles, Mane had one on him 5 minutes later, ball won, exact same trailing leg contact, play on and no one batted an eyelid at it. seen it in the game last night too, play on. Either they all get reds for that tackle, or not, but shouldn't be on an extremely unlucky outcome because of the way the lads ankle has twisted badly.He wouldn't have broken his leg though if the tackler hadn't jumped in with such force and out of control that their trailing leg did that damage, it's not a freak outcome but a perfectly logical outcome given the nature of the challenge.
He did not jump in nor was he out of control. Don't exaggerate.
Both of his feet are off the ground which is otherwise known as "jumping", while if he was in control then how was he not able to stop his trailing leg from connecting with Elliott's planted leg with the force that it broke it?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Thanks!Yes, the VAR can always indicate that a foul might have been red, then it's up to the main ref to determine if he's sure of what he saw, if he wants to double check on the screen or if he trusts the VAR refs and gives a red directly without checking. In this case, I suspect VAR told him its a clear red and considering how bad the injury was, he decided to give it directly.
Silly comparison. If you drink and drive that’s that crime regardless. If you go into a tackle in a fair manor and win the ball then the outcome is irrelevant. Not every tackle that causes an injury is a foul. So how do you argue against Saying it wasn’t a red card?Would a drunk driver be convicted for a hit and run if he/she didn't hit anyone? You're logic is lacking.
Yeh you are right let’s ignore the player who actually got tackled and just go with what you reckon. Forget the rest of it.Why are we putting any weight behind what the player said?
Has he watched it back because he wouldn't have seen much in the moment?
I asked a very specific question which you ignored to make a sarky remark.Yeh you are right let’s ignore the player who actually got tackled and just go with what you reckon. Forget the rest of it.
I’m not being funny when you play football you know when you are on the end of a bad challenge. I have had people dive in two footed from behind at me and you really know it! Elliott will know if that challenge came in with enough force and intent to cause injury. Clearly the lad is aware that wasn’t the case and he was just unlucky which really is obvious from seeing the tackle. All this microanalysis of the back leg is irrelevant and pointless, it’s only a foul/red due to the injury caused and that’s a stupid precedent to set.He was involved in the incident in which he suffered a serious injury.
Are you telling me he was able to rationally analyse the whole situation in the heat of the moment when he in all likelihood didn't even see the trailing leg?
Have you considered that maybe Elliott is just trying to avoid more people piling on to Strujik, who has already had to turn off his Instagram comments, and is just being dipomatic? Elliott saying it's not a red does not definitively mean it's not a red.I’m not being funny when you play football you know when you are on the end of a bad challenge. I have had people dive in two footed from behind at me and you really know it! Elliott will know if that challenge came in with enough force and intent to cause injury. Clearly the lad is aware that wasn’t the case and he was just unlucky which really is obvious from seeing the tackle. All this microanalysis of the back leg is irrelevant and pointless, it’s only a foul/red due to the injury caused and that’s a stupid precedent to set.
Have you considered that the moon landing was false and that 5G caused covid? Sometimes the obvious point is right in front of you.Have you considered that maybe Elliott is just trying to avoid more people piling on to Strujik, who has already had to turn off his Instagram comments, and is just being dipomatic?
Nobody said it was intentional or that he dived in to do him. Besides it clearly did come in with enough force to cause injury.I’m not being funny when you play football you know when you are on the end of a bad challenge. I have had people dive in two footed from behind at me and you really know it! Elliott will know if that challenge came in with enough force and intent to cause injury. Clearly the lad is aware that wasn’t the case and he was just unlucky which really is obvious from seeing the tackle. All this microanalysis of the back leg is irrelevant and pointless, it’s only a foul/red due to the injury caused and that’s a stupid precedent to set.
If the player had sat down, perfectly controlled, on the ankle while it was at the angle it was and planted in the ground, the same injury might have occurred. It’s a combination of forces and the angles they’re applied at that caused the injury. With two fit players weighing 70kgs each, the most controlled of actions can cause a leg break if the circumstances are the wrong ones, and the ref had deemed it a great tackle initially and then suddenly it was out of control because the player got injured.He wouldn't have broken his leg though if the tackler hadn't jumped in with such force and out of control that their trailing leg did that damage, it's not a freak outcome but a perfectly logical outcome given the nature of the challenge.
The outcome probably shouldn't have a bearing on the decision, but in this case it clearly did.While that's true, it wasn't a red card either.
the initial tackle was clean, but as he rotated to the left to sweep the ball away unfortunately his body landed on Elliots ankle.
That's just purely bad timing and a freak accident as the player says himself. If he didn't get his ankle trapped it wouldn't have even be a foul (which the ref didn't call for either)
If malicious or not has zero bearing, neither does the outcome?
There's a big difference between a player heading in dangerously / studs up with over aggression, or just an unlucky coming together.
I honestly think you are only judging the challenge based on the injury. If you can honestly sit there and say without the injury that’s a red card then you have a very different view of football to me. I once had an incident a few years ago when I was running alongside my opposition striker. There was a tangle of legs as we crossed and it ended up with the striker breaking his ankle. I didn’t go in to tackle him or put any force in, it was a freak incident where an unfortunate injury occurred, it wasn’t a foul just because this striker was in agony.Nobody said it was intentional or that he dived in to do him. Besides it clearly did come in with enough force to cause injury.
Without the other camera angles drawing definitive conclusions on this is difficult.
It's even hard to pin point when the tackler touches the ball. The question for the ref would have been if it was reckless or not.
Well it's absolutely nothing like the incident. You keep telling me how I've judged the incident. At this point my opinion is that it's impossible to make a proper judgement without access to the replays.I honestly think you are only judging the challenge based on the injury. If you can honestly sit there and say without the injury that’s a red card then you have a very different view of football to me. I once had an incident a few years ago when I was running alongside my opposition striker. There was a tangle of legs as we crossed and it ended up with the striker breaking his ankle. I didn’t go in to tackle him or put any force in, it was a freak incident where an unfortunate injury occurred, it wasn’t a foul just because this striker was in agony.
I understand that’s not the exact same as this incident but I just think it’s the classic case of people judging by the reaction.
Sure I’d also like to see more of the videos, but from the evidence we do have and from watching the initial clip a good few times It certainly doesn’t look anything like a red card which is what we have to go off. If more videos surface that show I’m wrong I’ll hold my hands up but I suspect it won’t.Well it's absolutely nothing like the incident. You keep telling me how I've judged the incident. At this point my opinion is that it's impossible to make a proper judgement without access to the replays.
I thought I'd made that clear.
There is a moment in every single slide tackle ever made where this would be the case, do you think they are all out of control?Both of his feet are off the ground which is otherwise known as "jumping", while if he was in control then how was he not able to stop his trailing leg from connecting with Elliott's planted leg with the force that it broke it?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This is a stupid image which is only a frame capture and does not show how the action truly unfolded. He can't stop his trailing leg because it's simply not physically possible. He stretched his leg out and this is how it works in real life. This is natural physics at play, there is no lunge. It was unfortunate, but it was Elliott's leg that was trailing in that part of his stride.Both of his feet are off the ground which is otherwise known as "jumping", while if he was in control then how was he not able to stop his trailing leg from connecting with Elliott's planted leg with the force that it broke it?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I was literally responding to a comment where you said he didn't jump, I posted a picture where he's clearly jumping and now that's being called stupid by someone who doesn't seem to understand the definition of a 4 letter word. I didn't base my opinion on a still image, it's the fact that it's a tackle from so far behind that a player has to jump to make it and therefore cannot be in control of what happens with his trailing leg.This is a stupid image which is only a frame capture and does not show how the action truly unfolded. He can't stop his trailing leg because it's simply not physically possible. He stretched his leg out and this is how it works in real life. This is natural physics at play, there is no lunge. It was unfortunate, but it was Elliott's leg that was trailing in that part of his stride.
He's not jumping in the picture.I was literally responding to a comment where you said he didn't jump, I posted a picture where he's clearly jumping and now that's being called stupid by someone who doesn't seem to understand the definition of a 4 letter word. I didn't base my opinion on a still image, it's the fact that it's a tackle from so far behind that a player has to jump to make it and therefore cannot be in control of what happens with his trailing leg.
SoHe can't stop his trailing leg because it's simply not physically possible. He stretched his leg out and this is how it works in real life. This is natural physics at play,