Discussion in 'Football Forum' started by Samid, Jan 22, 2018.
And somehow still got yellow card for it?
The mind of referees works in mysterious ways these days.
Yeah could have been red. That was a nasty tackle and clearly at least a yellow card.
How can anyone argue this was a clean tackle is beyond me, no touching the ball doesn't mean it's a clean tackle.
I love Van Dijk (okay not that much really), but that's dangerous play and a red for me. He got the ball yes, but he also went into Merten's ankle with his studs up.
I have no idea what the rules exactly say, but risking serious injury for the oppo is a red no?
Let's abolish tackling altogether in that case then because every one of them could lead to an injury of your opponent.
Van Dijk got to the ball an eternity before Mertens did, you could even argue if Mertens would've gotten there faster his leg wouldn't be where it was right now. From that angle, your studs will always be showing a bit if you're making a tackle, unless you want to break your own leg in the process.
Yes. Using excessive force to win possession is a red card and Van Dijk could have easily been sent off for that challenge.
Where exactly do you see the excessive force in this one? He's going in as calmly as you'd like.
That's a bit of an overreaction. Surely you can see why some people make the case for this particular tackle being a bit excessive? I'm quite sure, plenty of people on here do it a bit more willingly since it's a United forum, but still. There's a case to be made for this being a dangerous tackle. There really is. Problem is that he slides in with his wrong leg, which is why his heel and point of weight is on Merten's side. It's close, but it's quite dangerous nonetheless.
I don't see any point in discussing this, when you think "he is going as calm as you'd like".
Yeah of course I can see it but I just disagree with it - excessive force for me is like the tackle Sterling made on Valencia a few years ago, were he just went in full guns blazing right to the place where his opponent was standing. That's really dangerous, but this is just unlucky. If Mertens' leg ends up anywhere else it's a great tackle, and in my opinion what happens after you got the ball is only relevant to a certain extent, and has to be judged by how a player goes into a tackle in the first place (as I don't think "studs showing is a definite red" is a great way to assess tackling).
Yeah fair enough, that one is obviously worse. I think the Van Dijk one, there's a case to be made for either side. We can agree to disagree of course
And you are wrong. Objectively wrong. The laws of the game are pretty clear and explicit in these cases. It should have been a straight red. This really isn't down to opinion, the laws of the game say as much. That's all there is to it
Laws are open to interpretation mate, in case you didn't know.
Not in this case. It's a textbook case
Lunges at an opponent - no since Mertens was a fecking mile away from the ball when Van Dijk made contact with the ball, it was a loose ball not in Mertens' possession
Endangers the safety - again, no
Excessive force - again, no
Textbook case for ya.
Literally the first line.
"Endangers the safety of the opponent"
Looking at where his foot ended up on Merten's leg and the way his ankle twists I'd say that was endangering his safety.
Was a red for for me. Doesn’t mean he hasn’t been the best defender in the league but still a red.
Cause and consequence for you, there was nothing "endangering" about the tackle itself other than that Mertens was running in the wrong place. Once again, he got there an eternity before Mertens did, it's not even like it was a collusion or anything. Going by your logic you could argue that opening a door is endangering behaviour because there could be standing someone at the other side.
Well, yes, if you go around kicking doors open, of course it is endangering. You are having a shocker here. I could somewhat understand people arguing for a yellow. But calling it "as good a tackle as you'll see this season" arguing "Let's abolish tackling altogether in that case then because every one of them could lead to an injury of your opponent" is just childish. He goes in studs high at ankle height when the oppponent is close to ball and cleary going towards it (that's why he has to tackle in the first place...). Of course that is endangering. If you are taking out someone's ankle at that speed, it's dangerous and it should be a red card.
There goes Sterling
Could have been red? It's about as red as it gets. Could easily have broken his leg.
Are you serious? His foot is fully stretched far above the ground. Both are running for the ball. It doesn't matter if he gets there first. It's a horrible tackle and lucky he didn't break his leg. Would you have said the same if Smalling had done that to Salah?
I agree, shame the liverpool fan think it's a clean tackle with no dangerous play at all.
Yes, I'd argue this for any player. It obviously mattered that he got there first. If he tackles like that and he hits nothing but Mertens' ankle it's about as red as it can be, I wouldn't argue against that.
Ah yes, a Liverpool fan can't possibly be unbiased, I forgot.
What are you even talking about?
Never mind mate.
I still think that was a wonderful tackle. If it is a red according to the rules then fair enough, I'll accept that. It really shouldn't be though IMHO.
Sterling is a heavy little guy isn't he he actually bounced Van Dijk! he didn't take kindly to that though
That's even weirder. Either you think he shouldn't go in like that and it's a red, or you think it's a fine tackle because he got there first. Why would you give a yellow?
He didn't go in studs high on a player, he went studs high to a loose ball and comfortably got there first.
It doesn't work like that. Van Dijk makes mistakes sometimes, get over it.
Yeah agreed. He’s transformed us over the last 18 months but that doesn’t mean he’s perfect. A red card every day of the week.
I don't need to "get over" anything. Like I said numerous times, I disagree with the concept that studs showing always equals a red. Too many times football gets dictated by laws which can't account for every situation.
Same goes with the handball rules. Kimpembe's wasn't one against United just like Sissoko's wasn't one against Liverpool for me.
Wouldn't be unjustified i guess
Tweet— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet— Twitter API (@user) date
Fantastic player this season, transformed the scousers and has been the concrete of their defense. I hate Pool, but if the lad wins Ballon d'Or, fair fecks to him.
Evidently not seen as you seem to think van Dijk's foul on Mertens wasn't a red card I'm guessing you think his challenge on Salah was a red card yet you're arguing van Dijk did nothing wrong against Mertens. Kompany had an iffy start to the season but in the big games and at the end of the season when he was called upon he delivered and marshalled the defence brilliantly. And who can forget...
Everyone forgets because no one cares if you win anything
That challenge was not a red either but it was certainly more dangerous the way he went in on Salah’s legs. And yes, Kompany was finished, and he knew it himself fecking off to our crap Belgian league again.
It was a more than deserved victory. RvP was pretty clever o.a.
Hope that Feyenoord will build the new stadium a.s.a.p. and close part of the financial gap with Ajax and PSV. Good for Dutch football.
I hope so too, but I doubt it. In the mean time I can enjoy Ajax European success quite well, I'm not very tribal.
The rules clearly states that it doesn't matter if the ball is played if it's an unnecessarily hard tackle, which it was. Both went for the ball, vvd followed through with a straight leg about a foot over ground. As I said, could easily have broken his leg. Clear red as it csn get. Normally I find you sensible, but not here.
Separate names with a comma.