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

devips

Full Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
1,233
What Carragher did to Nani. What goes around comes around.
 

Adam-Utd

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
39,954
I find these statements dotted throughout the thread to be the most challenging. You can 'accidently on purpose' have a 50:50 nonchalance to whether you take someone out or not. If nothing happens to that person, oh well and if something does happen, then you were only going for the ball.. knee high, full weight, scissor-spread.

Throwing yourself in their general direction like that is a malicious act - you're going for the ball, but you're also going to take out anything in your path. If it was an honest tackle, with no scissors, at ankle or foot level, that's a hard, no-nonsense, good old-fashioned statement; if it's calf or above, you're not doing that by accident.

Pickford probably didn't mean to smash VVD, but he didn't go in in a way that would avoid it, either, particularly once his own legs were above a certain height.

That's like fighting with your hands open and gouging - you didn't necessarily mean for it to happen, but if you get a good eyeful of someone in that manner, it is, by no means, an unexpected outcome. A secondary intention, if you will.
It's just not though is it?

Pickford is throwing his body in the way to block the ball, lots of goalkeepers use the star fish technique to spread themselves and block a shot.

The issue is he went running towards VVD and his forward momentum while jumping took him into him.

You have to ask yourself did he purposely jump into him trying to hurt him, or did he make a bad judgement? for me it was clear what he was attempting to do and made a complete hash of it. If you're going to hurt somebody you'd also go studs forward, not wrap your legs around him like an octopus. It was just out of control but not malicious.

for me Richarlisons tackle on Thiago was 1000x worse - now that was frustration and intent to hurt.
 

Varun

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Messages
46,772
Location
Mumbai
The calls for Pickford to get a huge ban are serious over reactions. There was clearly no intent from him. It was just a stupid attempt at making himself big to block any kind of attempt at goal. It was wreckless in hindsight but nothing more than that.

The truth is if VVD continued playing without needing to come off, this would no longer be discussed. The fact that VVD is out for a significant amount of time is the only reason it is being looked at in greater detail.
Wonder how goalkeepers so far have managed to make themselves "big" without needing to go in stud first into someone's leg that high. It doesn't matter 1 bit whether or not Pickford went into that challenge wanting to hurt VVD, the simple fact is that a challenge like that is going to cause a serious injury almost every time unless the other player has high leg in the air. People dismissing it as nothing blah blah but I wonder how different the reactions would be if Pickford did that to one of our guys. Ridiculous..
 

Adam-Utd

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
39,954
Wonder how goalkeepers so far have managed to make themselves "big" without needing to go in stud first into someone's leg that high. It doesn't matter 1 bit whether or not Pickford went into that challenge wanting to hurt VVD, the simple fact is that a challenge like that is going to cause a serious injury almost every time unless the other player has high leg in the air. People dismissing it as nothing blah blah but I wonder how different the reactions would be if Pickford did that to one of our guys. Ridiculous..
He didn't go studs first.
 

Varun

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Messages
46,772
Location
Mumbai
It's just not though is it?

Pickford is throwing his body in the way to block the ball, lots of goalkeepers use the star fish technique to spread themselves and block a shot.

The issue is he went running towards VVD and his forward momentum while jumping took him into him.

You have to ask yourself did he purposely jump into him trying to hurt him, or did he make a bad judgement? for me it was clear what he was attempting to do and made a complete hash of it. If you're going to hurt somebody you'd also go studs forward, not wrap your legs around him like an octopus. It was just out of control but not malicious.

for me Richarlisons tackle on Thiago was 1000x worse - now that was frustration and intent to hurt.
He did jump into VVD is the only fact we know. Only Pickford knows what his intent was and that's fine because it means jackshit. Intent or not, it was a mental challenge and very reckless. He's lucky the FA are simply inept.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
37,331
Lets be clear, he didnt intend to do Virgil since it would have been a red card and a pen. He didnt know the flag would go up.
Pickford is just inconpetent. He truly is that bad. I dont think tackles without malicious intend should be treated this harshly.
 

Adam-Utd

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
39,954
One thing for sure though;

David Coote the VAR official should be never allowed to work it again unless he's retrained.

This isn't the first time he's made mistakes, I remember his name specifically from other games and i'm sure a match of ours also.

To see that challenge and decide no red card is required is quite frankly ridiculous.
 

Adam-Utd

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
39,954
He did jump into VVD is the only fact we know. Only Pickford knows what his intent was and that's fine because it means jackshit. Intent or not, it was a mental challenge and very reckless. He's lucky the FA are simply inept.
i'm not sure what you're arguing? I said it's a bad challenge, but not intented to hurt. He deserves a red card but to say he went to do VVD is incorrect IMO.
 

One Night Only

Prison Bitch #24604
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
30,647
Location
Westworld
Not much they could really do, opens a whole can of worms.

Villa ghost goal from last year for example. Liverpool's millions of bullshit goals from last year would also be disallowed.
 

Smores

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
25,496
They both actually start with studs high but VVD thinks better and gets his leg down then Pickford who is coming in faster just clatters him. It's reckless but it wasn't a straight leg studs challenge which we see only get a 3 match ban plenty.

How they looked at it and didn't think it was a red is beyond me though.
 

RashyForPM

New Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2020
Messages
3,183
What Carragher did to Nani. What goes around comes around.
Not a great example as VvD isn’t Carragher. I suppose you could bring up his tackle on Mertens instead, when he said it wasn’t even a bad tackle. Still though, wish him a good, quick recovery.

Anyway, we can lock this thread now. FA says no retrospective action on Pickford.
 

Varun

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Messages
46,772
Location
Mumbai
i'm not sure what you're arguing? I said it's a bad challenge, but not intented to hurt. He deserves a red card but to say he went to do VVD is incorrect IMO.
Just read your post above. My bad. I don't really care about intention when it comes to this and misunderstood your post to mean no intent = no punishment.
 

Fortitude

TV/Monitor Expert
Scout
Joined
Jul 10, 2004
Messages
22,424
Location
Inside right
It's just not though is it?

Pickford is throwing his body in the way to block the ball, lots of goalkeepers use the star fish technique to spread themselves and block a shot.

The issue is he went running towards VVD and his forward momentum while jumping took him into him.

You have to ask yourself did he purposely jump into him trying to hurt him, or did he make a bad judgement? for me it was clear what he was attempting to do and made a complete hash of it. If you're going to hurt somebody you'd also go studs forward, not wrap your legs around him like an octopus. It was just out of control but not malicious.

for me Richarlisons tackle on Thiago was 1000x worse - now that was frustration and intent to hurt.
Like I said before: it's very easy to go for the ball and through a man at the same time. It's an outlawed technique as far as defenders go - the scissors - particularly leaving your own trailing leg behind yourself in line with the opponents standing leg. Of course, primarily you won the ball, and in the old days, it didn't matter what damage the rest of you did to the rest of the opponent; ostensibly, the ball was won and that's that.

There's a reason that was outlawed and it's the odd keeper you see doing it now, and even then, at lower height for point of connection than Pickford.

Claiming no intent when someone goes in like that is naive at worst and serious benefit of the doubt at best.

I can run through a plethora of ways to win the ball and leave your man in a heap with 'no intent' or at least as a by-product of winning the ball. It really doesn't matter whether he set out to do him or whether it was a totally obvious accident waiting to happen as a result of whatever you want to call him.

Btw, even whiffing that kind of action completely and not touching your man is a red card these days, but not for keepers, just that the propensity for them to do what Pickford has form for is very low.

Richarlson's action was punished on the spot, which is why it's not a talking point in the same manner.

It's a shambles and a rod for their own back that no action has been taken; at the very least Pickford better keep his nose clean for the remainder of the season. At least our players should be safe, if nothing else.
 

Adam-Utd

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
39,954
Like I said before: it's very easy to go for the ball and through a man at the same time. It's an outlawed technique as far as defenders go - the scissors - particularly leaving your own trailing leg behind yourself in line with the opponents standing leg. Of course, primarily you won the ball, and in the old days, it didn't matter what damage the rest of you did to the rest of the opponent; ostensibly, the ball was won and that's that.

There's a reason that was outlawed and it's the odd keeper you see doing it now, and even then, at lower height for point of connection than Pickford.

Claiming no intent when someone goes in like that is naive at worst and serious benefit of the doubt at best.

I can run through a plethora of ways to win the ball and leave your man in a heap with 'no intent' or at least as a by-product of winning the ball. It really doesn't matter whether he set out to do him or whether it was a totally obvious accident waiting to happen as a result of whatever you want to call him.

Btw, even whiffing that kind of action completely and not touching your man is a red card these days, but not for keepers, just that the propensity for them to do what Pickford has form for is very low.

Richarlson's action was punished on the spot, which is why it's not a talking point in the same manner.

It's a shambles and a rod for their own back that no action has been taken; at the very least Pickford better keep his nose clean for the remainder of the season. At least our players should be safe, if nothing else.
This is where you're getting confused though. you're comparing Pickfords attempt to block the ball to an actual tackle.

Pickford isn't trying to tackle VVD, he's doing a star jump infront of him to block the ball - the issue is he has forward momentum and that causes him to crash into him. It was wreckless and out of control, but he's not attempted to kick the ball away and then smash him after.

If he had tried to tackle him in that fashion then yes i'd say it could be malicious, but on this occasion I don't think so.
 

SilentWitness

ShoelessWitness
Staff
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
30,147
Supports
Everton
Everton goalkeeper Jordan Pickford will not face retrospective action over his challenge on Virgil van Dijk in Saturday's Merseyside derby.

The FA determined the incident was seen at the time having consulted with the match officials, including VAR.



As expected.
 

dwd

Saturday Night Spies
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
16,294
Location
Under soil heating.
Everton goalkeeper Jordan Pickford will not face retrospective action over his challenge on Virgil van Dijk in Saturday's Merseyside derby.

The FA determined the incident was seen at the time having consulted with the match officials, including VAR.



As expected.
That's going to go down well this afternoon.
 

Brophs

The One and Only
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
50,283
I see Julien Laurens is today’s hysterical helmet. Again.
 

Blueman

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
179
Supports
Man City
I didn't think it was a foul when I saw it. After hours of bias coverage I now think pickford should have been banned.
 

amolbhatia50k

Sneaky bum time - Vaccination status: dozed off
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
95,337
Location
india
Everton goalkeeper Jordan Pickford will not face retrospective action over his challenge on Virgil van Dijk in Saturday's Merseyside derby.

The FA determined the incident was seen at the time having consulted with the match officials, including VAR.



As expected.
To be fair those are the rules. Stubborn and silly rules but they apply to everyone and hence should do so here as well.
 

kopviolator

Full Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
4,273
Location
I just don't know what to do with myself
Aren't retrospective actions only taken on incidents off the ball?

Anyway, the big question to me is not VAR but why didn't the ref call it right away? Looks like he's positioned well enough and he's looking at the incident. How did he miss that?
 

Mb194dc

Full Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2015
Messages
4,595
Supports
Chelsea
Why would anyone be surprised, not allowed to re referee games they obviously saw the tackle.

Just gross incompetence by the referee and VAR. Nothing changed since last year and it won't until the management of the referees is changed.
 

Andy_Cole

Full Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
7,859
Location
Manchester
Aren't retrospective actions only taken on incidents off the ball?

Anyway, the big question to me is not VAR but why didn't the ref call it right away? Looks like he's positioned well enough and he's looking at the incident. How did he miss that?
I think the ref made a mistake to be honest. As it was offside he deemed it not necessary to look at the incident.
 

KiD MoYeS

Good Craig got his c'nuppins
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
32,863
Location
Love is Blind
I think United should refuse to play against Everton unless this thug is permanently banned. We could face horrendous injuries, or even worse death, playing that absolutely reckless unit.
 

amolbhatia50k

Sneaky bum time - Vaccination status: dozed off
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
95,337
Location
india
I think the ref made a mistake to be honest. As it was offside he deemed it not necessary to look at the incident.
Yeah I think that's probably right. Had it been while the ball was in play we'd see a very different outcome. Definitely a mistake and not ideal to see someone put in that tackle and get away with it, but those are them rules.
 

djembatheking

Full Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
3,994
I think United should refuse to play against Everton unless this thug is permanently banned. We could face horrendous injuries, or even worse death, playing that absolutely reckless unit.
Are you forgetting that Phil Jones plays for us?
 

kopviolator

Full Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
4,273
Location
I just don't know what to do with myself
Why would anyone be surprised, not allowed to re referee games they obviously saw the tackle.

Just gross incompetence by the referee and VAR. Nothing changed since last year and it won't until the management of the referees is changed.
I think what's happening is that refs are shifting the responsibility to the VAR panel and avoiding difficult decisions. Which of course means worse refereeing.
VAR should be scrapped.
 

simmee

Full Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
Messages
938
I think United should refuse to play against Everton unless this thug is permanently banned. We could face horrendous injuries, or even worse death, playing that absolutely reckless unit.
I think we should offer to let him play against us every week, for rehabilitation purposes.
 

arnie_ni

Full Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
15,095
Mental that the var ref saw that and evidently looked at it but didnt think it was worthy of a red.

As clear a red as you'll see
 

amolbhatia50k

Sneaky bum time - Vaccination status: dozed off
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
95,337
Location
india
I think what's happening is that refs are shifting the responsibility to the VAR panel and avoiding difficult decisions. Which of course means worse refereeing.
VAR should be scrapped.
VAR is good. It just needs slightly better utilisation. It has corrected many a bad decision already which people don't like to focus on. Maybe we need to put less power in the hands of the referees and more in that of the manager/staff - appeal system as in cricket and tennis.
 

GwilDor

Full Member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
1,888
Location
Norway
IMO, and i might be biased :angel:
If you can imagine this, by chance, actually inferred no injury on VVD, would we even be having this discussion? I feel the situation is judged very much based on the outcome, rather than the action itself. I agree it is a reckless challenge, and the outcome is horrendous. But i think we should judge it based on the action itself, and not the outcome. Though, had it been a United-player, i would probably have a hard time seeing that argument...
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
36,521
Must be a Liverpool fan with that angry whining. Clown.

:lol:

Next time any player gets red card for violent conduct, he should be eligible to play the next game if the other player is fit to play.

Also we should sign some non league player with no hope of playing at any level, make sure he gets tackled by VVD or any other main defender and then fake a injury. Publish that player will miss at least 3 seasons and the player who tackled him should also be banned for 3 seasons.