Pickford's tackle on VVD: What should be the punishment?

Jippy

Sleeps with tramps, bangs jacuzzis, dirty shoes
Staff
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
47,465
Location
Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams
If they get 100000 signatures through the official channels it could be considered for debate in parliament. I think it would get rejected at the first stage though.

https://petition.parliament.uk/help

I think they’re serious sadly.
Yeah let's just put the Covid response and final stages of the Brexit negotiations to one side for a minute and focus on the real issue at hand.
 

NotThatSoph

Full Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
490
Why 6+ why not 7+? It's all so arbitrary.
Can you imagine if you a premier league panel judging how long a ban to give for each red card tackle? No-one would ever agree on it.
It's just one of those quirks of the game- a two-footed legbreaker gets the same red card as pulling a player's shirt when he's clean through.
Barton got 12 matches for his rampage against City. Suarez 8 matches for racially abusing Evra and 10 for eating Ivanovic. Prutton got 10 matches for pushing the ref, Di Canio 11 matches for pushing another ref, while Batty got 6 matches for ... pushing a ref. Tatcher got 8 matches for that elbow.

Whether or not it's arbitrary, yes I can totally imagine a panel judge red card tackles. Not every tackle, but those that are clearly more serious. Consistency isn't the be-all end-all, in my opinion.
 

VP89

Pogba's biggest fan
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
16,780
Just read Souness' quote about it being assault :lol:
 

jungledrums

Full Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
2,491
They should use this to set a precedent. Reckless behaviour like that should be ironed out to stop permanently harming players short careers. 3 match ban.
Do you actually think a three match ban will act as any kind of deterrent? He didn’t make a considered decision to injure Van Dijk after weighing up the risk v reward, it was a decision made during a match in the heat of the moment. Mandatory bans will not prevent bad tackles.
 

Untied

Full Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
4,480
Ridiculous accusation. It was reckless if at all. There is no malicious intent in his tackle.
As has been pointed out Pickford has a technique for these tackles that is particularly dangerous. He could have done Alli two years ago, he had a similarly dangerous tackle on Mandzukic in the World Cup, and now he's done Van Djik. There's nothing about keeper coming out to close players down which means they have to scissor whilst off the ground. A substantial ban is warranted in my opinion. If Martial gets 3 games Pickford should get at least 5.
 

Jippy

Sleeps with tramps, bangs jacuzzis, dirty shoes
Staff
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
47,465
Location
Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams
Barton got 12 matches for his rampage against City. Suarez 8 matches for racially abusing Evra and 10 for eating Ivanovic. Prutton got 10 matches for pushing the ref, Di Canio 11 matches for pushing another ref, while Batty got 6 matches for ... pushing a ref. Tatcher got 8 matches for that elbow.

Whether or not it's arbitrary, yes I can totally imagine a panel judge red card tackles. Not every tackle, but those that are clearly more serious. Consistency isn't the be-all end-all, in my opinion.
Not one of those examples was for someone tackling for the ball though. Those are all extraordinary events, eg pushing a ref, racist abuse or biting.
Only the Barton one was a classic 'footballing incident' as it were and that was so blatantly deliberate it was elevated to an extraordinary event. Pickford's challenge is multiple tiers below any of those.
 

Adisa

likes to take afvanadva wothowi doubt
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
39,837
Location
Birmingham
Feck the intent discussion. It was a reckless tackle with no regard for the opponent's safety. That's a red all day long.
 

NotThatSoph

Full Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
490
Not one of those examples was for someone tackling for the ball though. Those are all extraordinary events, eg pushing a ref, racist abuse or biting.
Only the Barton one was a classic 'footballing incident' as it were and that was so blatantly deliberate it was elevated to an extraordinary event. Pickford's challenge is multiple tiers below any of those.
Only meant to highlight the arbitrariness, not the type of challenge, though personally I think extreme recklessness like this is a lot more serious than e.g. Di Canio's push.
 

Walrus

Oppressed White Male
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
10,317
It should’ve been a red. He deserves a ban for a few matches.

But even if they are stupid, we can’t go changing the rules in the middle of the season, just because it’s Liverpool. Enacting some retroactive punishment now would set a dangerous precedent.
 

Jippy

Sleeps with tramps, bangs jacuzzis, dirty shoes
Staff
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
47,465
Location
Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams
Only meant to highlight the arbitrariness, not the type of challenge, though personally I think extreme recklessness like this is a lot more serious than e.g. Di Canio's push.
Agree on the arbitrariness. Intent is important though- I was picturing the Thatcher elbow when you mentioned Barton tbh - and that can't be proven with Pickford either way.
 

Snow

Somewhere down the lane, a licky boom boom down
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
32,040
Location
Lousy Smarch weather
It's a ridiculous comparison. A clumsy tackle is a bit different to smashing into someone at 70mph pissed in a car.
Never seen anyone get a criminal record for a tackle either.
I'm comparing it with intent in mind, not what the result is. Football law doesn't work the same way as real law. If this were on the street Pickford would get done for assault and Martial would have nothing happen to him.
 

sammsky1

Pochettino's #1 fan
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
31,968
Location
London
You'll likely feel very differently about the situation if/when a United player receives a similarly reckless challenge and is subsequently sidelined for over half a season as a result. Think about it.

The only way to avoid that is the through FA handing out a retrospective ban, which will act as a detterent to future offenses of a similar nature. Whereas ignoring it, allowing Pickford to escape scot-free, only encourages players to do it more, safe in the knowledge that no punishment will come.
Agree. It gets worse and worse every time you look at it. If his intentions were innocent, He would have gone hands first, or dived sideways.

WTF is Pickford thinking? In that split second, he most certainly intended to stop VVD through physical force. In slow mo it looks like some crazy ju jitsu manoeuvre. Else why would he jump at him side on, studs first and right through him.
 
Last edited:

sammsky1

Pochettino's #1 fan
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
31,968
Location
London
There was zero intent, it's just a clumsy bad goalkeeper challenge on a player. Bizarre people making it out like it was some vicious attack where Pickford was trying to kill him.
I dont agree. Else why dont we see this kind of thing a lot more often?
The scenario certainly presents itself a few times in every game, but we dont see goalkeepers doing this very often.
 

Robertd0803

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2014
Messages
4,404
I remember there was an incident early in Jose's United career where he kept banging on about how United should have had a penalty and a red card against an opposition keeper for a similar lunge (against City?). Everyone laughed at him.
Bravo at Old Trafford on Rooney. Still annoys me he got away with it.

There was zero intent, it's just a clumsy bad goalkeeper challenge on a player. Bizarre people making it out like it was some vicious attack where Pickford was trying to kill him.
Exactly. I dont believe for a minute that Pickford intended to do him considering they were 1-0 down and it was the first 10 minutes of the game and if he got it wrong he was looking at a red card/penalty and 2-0 down. No way he had enough time for intent.

But taking all that in to consideration if Pickford did intend to hurt him then he truly must be thick as a plank.

I can only see Pickford getting a 3 match ban (if he gets one at all) given that if it had been seen/acted on thats would have been the punishment. Adding on extra games because VVD ended up injured would be setting a very dodgy precedent.
 

NotThatSoph

Full Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
490
Agree on the arbitrariness. Intent is important though- I was picturing the Thatcher elbow when you mentioned Barton tbh - and that can't be proven with Pickford either way.
I think intent is important, but it's not as simple as intentional and unintentional. Worst case is of course to intentionally try to hurt someone, while a freak accident is best case. But unintentional can mean everything from freak accident to recklessly going in for a challenge that you should know is highly dangerous, but you do it anyway either because you don't care or you were too stupid to see the obvious. This challenge is, in my opinion, right towards the end of that scale. He probably didn't hurt him on purpose, but it wasn't an unfortunate accident either.
 
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
7,167
Bravo at Old Trafford on Rooney. Still annoys me he got away with it.



Exactly. I dont believe for a minute that Pickford intended to do him considering they were 1-0 down and it was the first 10 minutes of the game and if he got it wrong he was looking at a red card/penalty and 2-0 down. No way he had enough time for intent.

But taking all that in to consideration if Pickford did intend to hurt him then he truly must be thick as a plank.

I can only see Pickford getting a 3 match ban (if he gets one at all) given that if it had been seen/acted on thats would have been the punishment. Adding on extra games because VVD ended up injured would be setting a very dodgy precedent.
Agreed. In terms of punishing Pickford, VVDs injury is irrelevant. Otherwise you can easily injure a players with a yellow card challenge, which will cause issues. It sets a precedent.

if the ref saw it, then there should be no ban. You can take retrospective action when the ref saw it and acted. If he missed it completely, then he should get a 3 match ban. Clearly nothing different.

cant see how the ref missed it, it wasn’t off the ball, so I expect no ban. Those are the rules.
 

arnie_ni

Full Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
4,789
The foul is irrelevant if it’s offside so the refs/VAR wouldn’t do anything.

For retrospective punishment they’d have to believe Pickford deliberately did it which I don’t think he did for the reasons I detailed. He just threw his body in the way and unfortunately caught VVD awfully in the process.
Not true. They could still have red carded them just as they did richarlison. The whistle had already gone before he put in his tackle.

The bt ref said as much as well.
 

Cornish

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
127
No chance any further punishment gets handed down to Pickford now unless the referee put something in his match report that he didn’t spot it at the time but would’ve sent him off if he had. Although I’m sure it would’ve come out in the media by now if he had or even if referees can do that anymore since the introduction of VAR.

As a side note, what was the VAR checking the offside for anyway? From what I remember the ball just ended up going out for a corner and surely VAR doesn’t just check offsides for every corner? Sort of implies that VAR looked at the challenge and decided it was fine. But then again why would they look for the offside first? Wouldn’t they check the challenge first and then look at if there was an offside or anything in the build up? Doesn’t quite make sense!
 

OnlyTwoDaSilvas

Gullible
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
18,532
Location
The Mathews Bridge
3 match ban IMO. No more. It was dangerous and reckless, but it doesn't look like a clear attempt to hurt him. Pickford is a shithouse though, so you never know.

As I was on the beeb earlier, there was 4 articles about the incident and his injury. It was a shite challenge and all, but you'd think he'd died or something.
 

Frosty

Logical and sensible but turns women gay
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
12,857
Does anyone else remember when the FA imposed three game bans on Scholes and Rooney for getting sent off in a pre-season friendly?

Just noting the contrast...
 

Reiver

Full Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
1,496
Location
Near Glasgow
I'm a supporter of VAR but if someone has looked at that tackle and decided no action should be taken it might as well be binned.
I also don't think intent matters or not. It's still a horrendous tackle.
I can't stand Pickford, massively overrated. A worse version of Joe Hart, not even worthy of a shampoo commercial.
 

Sphaero

Struggling to explain his genius to the hoi polloi
Joined
Nov 24, 2012
Messages
4,467
Location
Potsdam, Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund
The foul is irrelevant if it’s offside so the refs/VAR wouldn’t do anything.

For retrospective punishment they’d have to believe Pickford deliberately did it which I don’t think he did for the reasons I detailed. He just threw his body in the way and unfortunately caught VVD awfully in the process.
Yes, he just threw his body in the way by doing a slide tackle feet first on knee height as he has done several times before. This is not only poor goal keeping it is downright dangerous one.

You said you played as GK yourself and so have I. Over 400 matches in more than 20 years on mostly pretty high amateur level and not once did I make a challenge like this. The reason for that is that I was properly trained in goal keeping and as a professional GK I would assume Pickford was aswell. Slide tackles is one of the first things you (re)learn as GK and train extensively. In the vast majority of the situations a sideways tackle where you build a wall with your upper body, arms and hands to cover as much space as possible is always the better choice but in the rare occasions when you have to resort to a frontal tackle you have to make absolutely sure to keep your feet and legs as low as possible to the ground because otherwise you won´t hit the ball first and only the opponent which will nearly always result in either a pen or a red card.

This was not some unfortunate collision where Pickford ran into a player he did not see or caught him after a proper slide, He did not slip either but jumped into a player with a motion that has a high likelihood to injure a player. That is textbook dangerous play, punished by a red card and a three game ban. Intent matters little here, unless you want to advocate for an even harder punishment.

The problem here is also that this not an isolated incident but something I have seen from Pickford at least three times now. At that point, you could definitvely argue against clumsiness or recklessness but more towards a deliberate tackling technique that should never be used by decent GK, let alone a professional one.
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
1,988
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
Just to add a more granular perspective to this, here's a twitter thread from a specialist in goalkeeping analytics breaking it down:


The fact that Pickford continues with this approach is either a failure of coaching or a conscious decision on his part if you ask me. There is absolutely no reason for him to go in like that from a shot stopping perspective.
 

MrEleson

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
780
I didn't realise it was possible to get an ACL injury from a bad tackle, although I guess anything is possible.
You can tear your ACL from as little as a knock to the knee depending on what kind of torsional forces are in play.
 

paraguayo

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 24, 2019
Messages
910
Supports
neutral
Long shot but does anyone remember a similar tackle Wesley from Aston Villa suffered last year (torn ACL)? I don't remember any histeria, or punishment for the burnley player
 

mancan92

Full Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2011
Messages
8,316
Location
Loughborough university
I dont agree. Else why dont we see this kind of thing a lot more often?
The scenario certainly presents itself a few times in every game, but we dont see goalkeepers doing this very often.
Uh we see it every game everytime a keeper comes out. Just that players also normally pull out. VVD didn't.
 

bludsucker

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
333
This is a Manchester United forum. You are doing it wrong. Aren't we supposed to give Pickford a Knighthood for that?
But then I remember this is the Redcafe, not a hardcore hub of angry fans. And I'm glad for that.
So knighthood is off the table. How about an MBE. Just kidding. Ban him for 8 months
 

shahzy

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
529
Exactly. I dont believe for a minute that Pickford intended to do him considering they were 1-0 down and it was the first 10 minutes of the game and if he got it wrong he was looking at a red card/penalty and 2-0 down. No way he had enough time for intent.
Doesn't Pickford have a history of these Scissor tackles trying to take out opponents. I think maybe he doesnt intend to hurt the player but he definitely intends to go through the player and leave something there. This should be an easy ban for the FA if they had any intention of protecting players against thuggish tackles.
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
74,775
Location
Centre Back
Watching it in real time it didn't look that bad. A red card most likely and a penalty but the keeper was watching the ball and racing out for it with no intent to injure (not that intent is that important).