Was Lindelofs foul for Tuanzebe’s goal the correct decision?

[Annihilate Now!]

He would argue that. Lindelof would argue that he gets in his way when he makes a legitimate attempt to get the ball.

I do think it’s a foul if the defender does nothing more than stand his ground. Different scenario if he walks across Lindelof’s flight path. I haven’t yet seen a replay which clearly differentiates these two scenarios.

Plus, as I said to @Brophs, these situations are referee’d inconsistently. How often do we see goalkeepers* smash through a crowd of stationary players to punch the ball without ever conceding a pen?




* who aren’t called David

He basically is standing his ground, he makes a slight movement right but its logical with him about to turn around to face play.




The goalkeeper one is an interesting one (assuming he gets the ball)... as if he knee's a player in the head whilst doing so I think there'd be strong grounds for a pen. Wasn't there an incident in a Leeds match (I want to say against Burnley?) where the keeper knee'd Bamford in the back and got a foul and everyone after agreed it should have been a foul/pen to Leeds instead?

The fact that Lindelof doesn't get anywhere near the ball makes it a pretty cut and dry decision - it becomes more interesting if Lindelof actually heads the ball (still a foul IMO) or knees him in the side/just falls into him (not a foul)

 

[The Original]

The point being made is that if you’ve decided to make no attempt to play the football then you shouldn’t get in the way of someone who is.

So you are saying a defender should not stand his ground in order to give the attacker a better chance? He has the right to stand right there and Lindelof has the right to jump. He must exercise this right with reasonable care for the safety of his opponent.

The foul is not because he made contact, you are allowed to jump and make reasonable contact. The foul is for recklessly, uncontrollably jumping knee first into a person's head. There is no place for such endangerment of a human life in the game.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

So you are saying a defender should not stand his ground in order to give the attacker a better chance? He has the right to stand right there and Lindelof has the right to jump. He must exercise this right with reasonable care for the safety of his opponent.

The foul is not because he made contact, you are allowed to jump and make reasonable contact. The foul is for recklessly, uncontrollably jumping knee first into a person's head. There is no place for such endangerment of a human life in the game.

Should this have been a yellow or red card?

Can’t work out how to post the fecking picture from my phone. @Samid Help!

 

[Samid]

Should this have been a yellow or red card/penalty?

Can’t work out how to post the fecking picture from my phone. @Samid Help!

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Doing God’s work

 

[Zlatan 7]

He was miles away not only far under the ball but also far in front of it. Perhaps this was a training ground routine and Telles messed up the delivery, but Lindelof misses the ball because he starts his run early and thus he's not tracking the flight of the ball, rather he is speculatively getting into position.

Counter arguments ignore the fact that not one other player from either side jumps.

I can agree with all this. I was disputing that defenders don’t jump if they can’t think they can reach the ball

edit. I don’t agree he was miles away. It was close in my eyes

 

[ManchesterYoda]

Would it have been a foul if the defender jumped to head the ball and Lindelof connected with a bullet header?
Players make running leaps to meet crosses like Lindelof did all the time. Why are they not fouls? Usually the opponent tries to jump and head the ball too.
Lindelof wasn't careless or reckless. The defender caused the situation, not Lindelof. So the defender is the one who is guilty of careless play. Lindelof could have collided with the defender in a completely different manner and ended up landing on his head breaking his neck. Would it be a foul by the defender then? Would they be booked or sent off? Lindelof didn't do anything out of the ordinary, he simply attacked a set piece, made a basketball style leap in an attempt to head the ball into the net.
Also the accidental collision between Lindelof and the idiot defender had no impact on Tuanzebe winning his header and scoring the goal.
If two players jump for the ball and they headbutt each other is it a foul? Who by?

 

[The Original]

Should this have been a yellow or red card?

In theory that looks reckless as well. Few refs will give that because keepers get a lot of leeway.

Against an opponent, that ought to be a foul.

 

[ManchesterYoda]

Change the flight path of the ball slightly, have the defender jump like he should and imagine Lindelof scores. Is that a foul?

 

[AgentSmith]

Should this have been a yellow or red card?

Can’t work out how to post the fecking picture from my phone. @Samid Help!

I assume Henderson gets the ball as he’s punching it? That’s one key difference between the two incidents. Lindelof didn’t get ball.

I find this idea odd that because he got ‘near the ball’ it somehow excuses the contact that came after.

How does that rationale fit in with dangerous potential leg-breaking tackles on the ground?

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Change the flight path of the ball slightly, have the defender jump like he should and imagine Lindelof scores. Is that a foul?

Well no, but you've changed a lot of variables there!

 

[Adam-Utd]

Would it have been a foul if the defender jumped to head the ball and Lindelof connected with a bullet header?
Players make running leaps to meet crosses like Lindelof did all the time. Why are they not fouls? Usually the opponent tries to jump and head the ball too.
Lindelof wasn't careless or reckless. The defender caused the situation, not Lindelof. So the defender is the one who is guilty of careless play. Lindelof could have collided with the defender in a completely different manner and ended up landing on his head breaking his neck. Would it be a foul by the defender then? Would they be booked or sent off? Lindelof didn't do anything out of the ordinary, he simply attacked a set piece, made a basketball style leap in an attempt to head the ball into the net.
Also the accidental collision between Lindelof and the idiot defender had no impact on Tuanzebe winning his header and scoring the goal.
If two players jump for the ball and they headbutt each other is it a foul? Who by?

It clearly was as he kneed him in the face, there's no other situation that matters.

The defender is allowed to stand his ground and not move an inch.

If Lindelof didn't raise his knee, headed the ball then clattered into the defender with his body it would be deemed OK. The action of raising his knee is what the offense is here, how can't people see that?

 

[The Original]

Would it have been a foul if the defender jumped to head the ball and Lindelof connected with a bullet header?
Players make running leaps to meet crosses like Lindelof did all the time. Why are they not fouls? Usually the opponent tries to jump and head the ball too.
Lindelof wasn't careless or reckless. The defender caused the situation, not Lindelof. So the defender is the one who is guilty of careless play. Lindelof could have collided with the defender in a completely different manner and ended up landing on his head breaking his neck. Would it be a foul by the defender then? Would they be booked or sent off? Lindelof didn't do anything out of the ordinary, he simply attacked a set piece, made a basketball style leap in an attempt to head the ball into the net.
Also the accidental collision between Lindelof and the idiot defender had no impact on Tuanzebe winning his header and scoring the goal.
If two players jump for the ball and they headbutt each other is it a foul? Who by?

If two players legitimately jump for the ball and one accidently swings his elbow into the others head, will a foul be given?

 

[Tom Cato]

Tuanzebe's goal reminded me of this magnifico goal by Carles Puyol vs Germany - (Video quality in both available pixels)

 

[Zlatan 7]

If Lindelof caught his shoulder and done a 360 in the air it would have been a pen. Fine margins

 

[Annihilate Now!]

I can agree with all this. I was disputing that defenders don’t jump if they can’t think they can reach the ball

edit. I don’t agree he was miles away. It was close in my eyes

Not miles but it was quite far... hard to actually judge distance but maybe a foot or so?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Not miles but it was quite far... hard to actually judge distance but maybe a foot or so?

Nice one! That’s what I’ve been getting at. He sort of folds up when he hits the defender. Probably would have got his head to the ball without that collision. Certainly wasn’t nowhere near it, which a lot of people have been claiming.

 

[SuperiorXI]

PC gone mad that decision

Can't say or do anything these days

 

[Grande]

1. It was Lindelof who was 'moving' for the collision, not the other way around.
2. He was also running "blind folded", to use your expression, without being aware of his environment.
3. He misjudged the ball, he had no chance of getting to it, and challenging for it was unreasonable.

Truth is, the defender realized he couldn't get to the ball, so made no effort to challenge for it. He didn't see Lindelof, or expect anyone to charge at him. If he had, he probably would have moved out of the way, as Lindelof was not really a threat.

I see it differently, but fair enough. Both are looking at the ball, both are moving forward, albeit at very different pace. I disagree that Lindelöf has no chance of reaching the ball at the time he jumps, or that it was unreasonable to try. Rather, if he had not changed his body position last second to shield the impact, he would have been close to the ball but at serious risk of breaking his neck. Which I’ve seen happen in a similar situation. Which is why there is a rule covering that moving into the body of someone who is airborne is considered a foul and can be considered dangerous play.

What is most unreasonable is to walk blind into the path of a corner cross, at ground level, with no intention to attempt for the ball. It is dangerous play, and that it is unintentional does not change that fact.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Nice one! That’s what I’ve been getting at. He sort of folds up when he hits the defender. Probably would have got his head to the ball without that collision.

Not quite - the point of impact with the defender is pretty much at the exact same time the ball is a foot above his head.

So the defender doesn't really impact Lindelof reaching for it, and it was too high for him to reach in any event

 

[ManchesterYoda]

If there was no defender in his path and Lindelof leaped for the ball, missed and landed off the pitch, would that be deemed careless and reckless?

 

[ManchesterYoda]

It clearly was as he kneed him in the face, there's no other situation that matters.

The defender is allowed to stand his ground and not move an inch.

If Lindelof didn't raise his knee, headed the ball then clattered into the defender with his body it would be deemed OK. The action of raising his knee is what the offense is here, how can't people see that?

He only raised his knee because he realized he was about to dangerously collide with an opponent whilst he was in mid-air. It was a natural panic type of reaction. Lindelof was the one most at risk and the reason he was most at risk is because of the actions of the defender. The defender was the one being careless and reckless. The defender's actions caused all possible outcomes. Just because the possible outcome that resulted was knee connecting with head doesn't change this fact that the defender's action caused all possible outcomes.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

He only raised his knee because he realized he was about to dangerously collide with an opponent whilst he was in mid-air. It was a natural panic type of reaction. Lindelof was the one most at risk and the reason he was most at risk is because of the actions of the defender. The defender was the one being careless and reckless. The defender's actions caused all possible outcomes. Just because the possible outcome that resulted was knee connecting with head doesn't change this fact that the defender's action caused all possible outcomes.

How? By not jumping for a ball he had no hope of heading?

 

[The Original]

He only raised his knee because he realized he was about to dangerously collide with an opponent whilst he was in mid-air. It was a natural panic type of reaction. Lindelof was the one most at risk and the reason he was most at risk is because of the actions of the defender. The defender was the one being careless and reckless. The defender's actions caused all possible outcomes. Just because the possible outcome that resulted was knee connecting with head doesn't change this fact that the defender's action caused all possible outcomes.

Err what? His knees are raised because that is what happens when you leap forward like that. It's biomechanics and his knees were in that position throughout his flight.

 

[AjaxNL]

There’s a shitload of hypothetical situations being thrown around here to justify that’s not a foul. As it stands, Lindelof kneed an opponent full force in the face without getting on the ball, and there is no disputing that’s an foul. People changing all variables of this equation and then asking if it’s still a foul

 

[ManchesterYoda]

Accidental collisions are not fouls and it doesn't matter how violent the collisions are. Lindelof was not careless or reckless, he did not commit a foul, he accidentally collided with an opposition player during a genuine attempt to score with a header from a corner. Lindelof is not guilty of anything. It should have been a goal and Lindelof should have no punishment at all.

 

[Adam-Utd]

He only raised his knee because he realized he was about to dangerously collide with an opponent whilst he was in mid-air. It was a natural panic type of reaction. Lindelof was the one most at risk and the reason he was most at risk is because of the actions of the defender. The defender was the one being careless and reckless. The defender's actions caused all possible outcomes. Just because the possible outcome that resulted was knee connecting with head doesn't change this fact that the defender's action caused all possible outcomes.

Take your red specs off for a second. What did the defender do that was so wreckless?

 

[Denis' cuff]

Accidental collisions are not fouls and it doesn't matter how violent the collisions are. Lindelof was not careless or reckless, he did not commit a foul, he accidentally collided with an opposition player during a genuine attempt to score with a header from a corner. Lindelof is not guilty of anything. It should have been a goal and Lindelof should have no punishment at all.

snowflakes, mate. They are brought up in this environment and know no different, no matter how ridiculous. No such thing as a coming together of bodies that happens without it being a foul. Softarse rolls over 3 million times at the slightest contact and guaranteed an outpouring grief. You wouldn’t want to be walking down Elland Rd or Scotland Rd with these at your back.

 

[UpWithRivers]

Im in the no foul camp. He could have killed him with a knee in the face but legally speaking he was jumping for the ball and collided with him. There was no intent. He was not looking at the defender. He was looking and jumping for the ball. There is no rule against that in football. If there was intent to just try and knee the defender in the face then he should have got a red and been locked up. If everyone doesn't want this to happen then they need to change the rules not just add them on the spot.

 

[Oranges038]

Come on. This is comical at this point.

1. First of all Lindelof was not moving towards the ball.
2. Even if the player jumps he would still be impeding Lindelof by your definition.

Thus, you have just argued that defenders must simply move out of the way of an oncoming attacker. And this, regardless of whether said attacker is even near the ball.

He's entitled to jump for the ball. The defender actually takes a step backwards and turns into the oncoming player. He's not aware of his surroundings he is more at fault than Lindelof.

Why don't all players just stand around and not challenge for the ball? If someone that does bumps into you it's your free-kick.

 

[Eugenius]

Im in the no foul camp. He could have killed him with a knee in the face but legally speaking he was jumping for the ball and collided with him. There was no intent. He was not looking at the defender. He was looking and jumping for the ball. There is no rule against that in football. If there was intent to just try and knee the defender in the face then he should have got a red and been locked up. If everyone doesn't want this to happen then they need to change the rules not just add them on the spot.

When did going for the ball give free reign to knee someone in the head. It wouldn't look out of place in the UFC. Very rarely does someone completely set out to do a full on assault on someone, doesn't mean it's not a foul.

It's a bit of a non event really, but it's quite funny there are some people arguing it's not a foul but also got upset because the West Brom goal the other day wasn't given as a foul.

 

[sullydnl]

He's entitled to jump for the ball. The defender actually takes a step backwards and turns into the oncoming player. He's not aware of his surroundings he is more at fault than Lindelof.

Why don't all players just stand around and not challenge for the ball? If someone that does bumps into you it's your free-kick.

Because someone bumping into you wouldn't be a foul whereas someone flying through the air and kneeing you in the head with force is.

The defender isn't more to blame because he literally did nothing, which he is absolutely allowed to do. The onus is on the person making a challenge to do it safely. Being unaware of your surroundings doesn't mean people have free reign to knee you in the head.

 

[The Original]

He's entitled to jump for the ball. The defender actually takes a step backwards and turns into the oncoming player. He's not aware of his surroundings he is more at fault than Lindelof.

Why don't all players just stand around and not challenge for the ball? If someone that does bumps into you it's your free-kick.

What on earth does this mean in the context of football rules? Can you cite any rules in football that requires players to "be aware of their surroundings, failing which they are more at fault"?

And secondly it's quite obvious that even in that phase of play, all other players who correctly judge that they could not reach the ball did not make an attempt for it.


Third, it's not about making contract per se. If you must jump, do something with due regard for your opponents safety.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Nice one! That’s what I’ve been getting at. He sort of folds up when he hits the defender. Probably would have got his head to the ball without that collision. Certainly wasn’t nowhere near it, which a lot of people have been claiming.

He does that Bailly turtle thing when he realises he’s higher than he’s ever jumped before and bricks it.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

He does that Bailly turtle thing when he realises he’d higher than he’s ever jumped before and bricks it.

Or when he realises he might be about to get flipped and break his neck.

Obviously your level of prior bias against Lindelof will influence which scenario you go with

 

[El-Manos]

Why is this funny? It was very dangerous, could have ended the life of the other player there. Definite red card.

Small bit dramatic. But yes it should have been a red.

 

[Peterfeeter]

How people can defend this is insanely mental. It’s a blatant foul

It should have been a red card. He could have caused a very serious injury to a fellow professional.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

I’m really surprised about the debate.

it’s a clear foul, and it doesn’t matter whether the defender was getting the ball, or whether he was being dopey (which he clearly was), it also doesn’t matter whether it was intentional - which it wasn’t.

lindelof kneed someone in the head. Obviousl foul. Unfortunate, yes - and it’s rough on Tuanzebe.

would love to see more of that will to get the ball from Lindelof, that’s a big positive from it.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

He's entitled to jump for the ball. The defender actually takes a step backwards and turns into the oncoming player. He's not aware of his surroundings he is more at fault than Lindelof.

Why don't all players just stand around and not challenge for the ball? If someone that does bumps into you it's your free-kick.

because 99/100 times you won’t get a knee to the head, just a player out jumping you and scoring.

intent doesn’t matter, it’s a free kick.

 

[Robertd0803]

Foul on the grounds he nearly took the other guys head off.