Do you have snow in your eyes? He nearly boots Emerson into the stands.
Premier League Gameweek 17+18
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
The rules state this:
"The second change is on accidental handball in the immediate build-up to a goal.
If an attacking player’s accidental handball immediately precedes another player scoring, the goal will now be awarded, when last season it was likely to have been ruled out.
However, a player will still be penalised if he commits an accidental handball immediately before scoring himself."
https://www.premierleague.com/news/2204759
I'm sorry but that's such a stupid rule! A handball, deliberate or not, that leads to another player scoring should be ruled out!
He's seriously lucky he's blessed with premier league football talent, as without that I'd be fearful for how he'd fare.Haha fair point
At least he’s not swearing on his daughter’s life this time
Thanks to city, at least our 20th is still in lead. Without City, they'd have already surpassed us.
I agree with today's example, but there have been some that have been ludicrous the other way round.
There was one where a player had been bundled to the floor, someone smashed the ball against his hand from cm away, the ball broke, someone through on goal and scored.
And it was ruled out.
I think that was actually Tottenham.
Is it possible that this was also Spurs - Liverpool?
There's no part of me that understands how Kane didn't get sent off. None at all.
But Robertson should have been too. That's filthy from him.
Also, it's been 2 years since Liverpool had someone sent off. Huh. Almost 80 premier league matches.
But Robertson should have been too. That's filthy from him.
Also, it's been 2 years since Liverpool had someone sent off. Huh. Almost 80 premier league matches.
I did wonder, but wasn't sure. But I'm sure it was Kane put on the floor. Then someone wellied the ball against his hand!
Think he was even fouled, the ball touched his hand on the ground and they scored from the advantage
I know. You’ve lost me now though.
you can’t slide in to a tackle, miss the ball, have your studs showing and connect with a players shin either.
Kane’s was worse, again, purely IMO, whether it was part of the game or not.
Why they both weren’t referred to the screen is still baffling!
Just seen Kane’s tackle not sure what’s the outcry, it was borderline red but not much force in it and it didn’t look too bad at all. The kick by Robertson was much worse imo he just went for him as Klopp said he lost it during that moment.
Not convinced that Kane challenge is too bad.
If Robertson’s foot was planted it’s a possible leg-breaker. And as Carragher pointed out, he has sprinted into the slide tackle so there is plenty of force - studs up and over the ball. The reason there isn’t too much impact is because Robertson manages to evade it, but that shouldn’t factor into the decision.
The really strange thing is that VAR asked the ref to reconsider one foul and not the other. Klopp didn’t argue that Robertson’s wasn’t a red, he just doesn’t understand the inconsistency.
Neither do I. Redknapp said he’s always thought that captaining England brings leniency from refs and it certainly looks like that was the case here.
Kane's tackle is by far the more dangerous of the two. If Robertson doesn't jump, that's serious damage. Robertson's tackle is clear intent to take the player, ball or not. Both are reds. Jota's penalty call is as stone wall as it gets. Matip's foul on Winks is made outside the area. Liverpool robbed. Should have been playing against 10 men for about 70 minutes.
Spot on.
I feel I need to explain myself a bit at the risk of being the board dafty!Are you that Arsenal fan from the The Fast Show?
FOOTBALL!
Spurs very wasteful today. Should have been 3 up on them at half time. Conte had made Winks and Dier look like actual footballers again. I’m not sure how that is even possible.
I get it in normal circumstances, where it doesn't directly impact your team. Every Arsenal fan wanted Liverpool to win the Champions League final vs Spurs, that's a given.
I just wasn't sure how strong it would be if it had a direct impact on your team. Spurs are probably Man Utds biggest rivals for that 4th position, & dropping out that might have major repercussions for Man Utd, who might be looking for a new manager like Ten Hag, who might be looking for new players like Haaland, where being in the Champions League might be deemed as essential.
Plus, going forward, do you want to give a manager as good as Conte momentum & more money to build his side? For the next couple of years you are up against Klopp, Pep, Tuchel & Conte. I certainly don't want Conte to build up a head of steam.
So, yeah while I understand football rivalry (I'm a Rangers fan first & foremost who is 1 half of 1 of the most hated football rivalries in the world), I hold my hands up & obviously underestimated the hatred for Liverpool. And let's be honest, City are the best team in the league currently and will likely win it anyway. Anyway, for that I apologise for my stupid observation!
Robertson / Kane debate is completely different. Robertson lost his head and went for the player as much as the ball and didn't care how he did it which resulted in an excessive force challenge that could have hurt the opponent if he connected better. The Kane challenge was a terrible mistimed challenge that was studs up and two footed which also could have resulted in a serious injury if Robertson had his foot planted. Different reasons why it's a red but both are a red. I'd probably say this is where you should have difference in bans for a red. The Robertson one warrants a further ban than the Kane one for me due to him actively having an edge in trying to hurt the player.
How come Klopp can go point fingers and rant at the end of the game and doesn't get sanctioned?
Tierney should have given him a second booking.
Tierney should have given him a second booking.
Does that mean you're allowed to pick up the ball and carry it into box make 2 passes and score.
Yes, assuming the referee misses you picking up the ball and carrying into the box.
That’s interesting. I see where you’re coming from and agree that they are both reds. But I think Kane’s tackle is far more dangerous. Robertson properly connected with his foul and there was no long term damage. Whereas had Kane connected with a planted leg (which he has no control over) Robertson could have been done for the season.
So while you could argue that Robertson has more intent, Kane’s foul is far more dangerous. Both have no place in the game, but I think Kane’s is worse.
I am also biased as I watched Diaby and Eduardo have their careers wrecked by bad tackles. I’m not sure I ever want to hear the phrase, “He’s not that type of player” ever again. And Stoke fans took to booing Ramsey for having his leg broken by Shawcross. I hate pointless, reckless challenges (and yes, that includes the numerous examples from our very own Xhaka).
Fair points, I suppose it depends on scenario. Kane's like you say could have been particularly very nasty.
There's no differentiation in "damage" in football.
Violent conduct simply covers a 3 match ban.
Kane at least was vaguely trying for the ball. Robertson just wellied someone. Both reds, both violent conduct.
Except it’s debatable it was accidental. He moved his hand towards the ball, not the other way round.
They’re not both violent conduct. Only Robertson’s is because - as you’ve correctly pointed out - he takes a swipe at him. If Kane was sent off it would have been for reckless endangerment or excessive force.
The point I’m making is that Kane’s foul was far more dangerous. Robertson’s foul leaves a bruise at worst. Kane’s could have left his opponents leg in pieces with a planted foot.
I don’t like to see violent conduct and Robertson was rightly sent off and will be suspended for three games. Whereas fouls like Kane’s can put someone out for a lot longer than the three match punishment (which he didn’t even receive, anyway).
I think you can probably break someone's leg by kicking them too in fairness.
A kick with full force on a planted leg can easily lead to a broken bone, to suggest otherwise is just silly.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/59736316
Clattenburg thinks it is a clear red for Kane, questions the standard of refereeing and says epl refs should release var audio as standard practice.
Clattenburg thinks it is a clear red for Kane, questions the standard of refereeing and says epl refs should release var audio as standard practice.
Meanwhile, Walton, having had time to think, shows everyone how horrendous and insular refereeing is by arguing that it wasn't a red because Robertson lifted his leg (lolwut) and because refs know he isn't that type of player (are you fecking kidding me).
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...f?shareToken=0ff350ae701060acd7f4b643a1075865
"What saves the England striker is that Robertson’s foot was not planted. The Liverpool man’s raised leg limited the force of the tackle and convinced Tierney that there was no serious foul play. Both a booking and a red card are justifiable, therefore the referee did not make a clear and obvious error, and VAR was correct not to intervene.
Referees do study players and formations ahead of a game. They are aware that certain players need to be dealt with proactively. Kane does not fall into this category. It has been more than ten years since his last red card — for Leyton Orient away to Huddersfield Town in League One."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...f?shareToken=0ff350ae701060acd7f4b643a1075865
"What saves the England striker is that Robertson’s foot was not planted. The Liverpool man’s raised leg limited the force of the tackle and convinced Tierney that there was no serious foul play. Both a booking and a red card are justifiable, therefore the referee did not make a clear and obvious error, and VAR was correct not to intervene.
Referees do study players and formations ahead of a game. They are aware that certain players need to be dealt with proactively. Kane does not fall into this category. It has been more than ten years since his last red card — for Leyton Orient away to Huddersfield Town in League One."
Basically admitting bias and double standards. No wonder prem refs are some of the worst in the world.
There's no referee make-belief world in which a "booking is justifiable". You can drive a truck through Walton's line of thinking there. "The force of the tackle" does not change because Robertson lifts his leg, it's still the same force applied by Kane. The fact Robertson just manages to take evasive action to avoid a broken leg does not turn Kane's challenge from red into yellow. Outcome bias is something they learn the first day at referee school - they all know fine well that a reckless challenge is reckless irrespective of whether the opposition player survives it or not.
This is so backwards. At worse Robertson's foul of course could break a leg, its terrible, he also was deliberately trying to hurt the other player whereas Kane's was reckless but an attempt at the ball which is just something that can happen in football. One is much worse than the other, if he got more than a 3 game ban he couldn't complain.
They’re both red card tackles. For different reasons.
Kane is over eager and reckless, very very lucky he didn’t catch Robertson. Robertson was just pure aggression and frustration. Personally I think the latter deserves a longer ban because there was no intention to get the ball, and he’s just kicking through a player.
Kane is over eager and reckless, very very lucky he didn’t catch Robertson. Robertson was just pure aggression and frustration. Personally I think the latter deserves a longer ban because there was no intention to get the ball, and he’s just kicking through a player.
I think Robertson was actually going for the ball. He was just doing it in the way a seasoned snide would and leave something on the opponent at the same time and ended up botching the execution. If he'd made contact with the ball, he'd be looking at a possible yellow which is the gray area I reckon he was aiming for.
Can have no complaints about his sending off though.
Can have no complaints about his sending off though.
Taking a swipe at someone is violent conduct and - as I said - has no place in the game. But the outcome will almost always be an impact injury. It’s very difficult to break bones, rip tendons or damage ligaments from Robertson’s foul.
Whereas Kane has sprinted and slid into - what was milliseconds before contact - a planted foot. Had his studs been anchoring Robertson’s entire body weight to the ground, there would be no way to dissipate that force. It would all be absorbed by Robertson’s shin.
Thankfully that wasn’t the outcome, but Kane had zero control over that. His eyes are even shut on impact.
If you suffer a career-threatening injury, the fact that there was “an attempt at the ball” may not mean a great deal to you.
I'm surprised at the reaction against the ref after this game. I've seen worse refereeing performances with almost zero feedback post-game. This is the first time I've heard so much from a game which I thought was fairly refereed.
They were both ridiculously dangerous, I don't really get how you keep arguing that Kane's was more dangerous and could've resulted in a bad injury if Robertsons foot was planted when Robertson on Emerson Royal was exactly the same; the fouled players foot was airborne and it also could've been a leg breaker if his foot was planted.
He's right, Kane's was the more dangerous. They were both reds, and you could argue Robertson's was more cynical, but there's no doubt which challenge was most likely to cause serious injury.