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

arnie_ni

Full Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
6,721
One ref would have let the goal stand, another would have gave him a red, this one went right down the middle
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
24,038
It's a strange one no doubt.

The argument for it being a foul is based on it being reckless/dangerous play by lindelof, but would it be reckless/dangerous if the defender had made an attempt to either challenge for the ball or had more awareness of his surroundings and defended himself.

Lindelof is entiltiled to go for the ball and is allowed to run and jump to go for it I'm not sure he does much wrong, it looks bad on replays of course but in my eyes it's not a foul it's the defenders fault he should either make a challenge or be more aware of his surroundings you cant just stand still on a corner and then complain when someone runs/jumps into you.

Football is still a contact sport and sometimes there will be unavoidable contact that isn't a foul and I think this is one of those cases.
You can if they jump into you with a knee to the head, because that's a foul. That's the point. The defender is under no obligation to jump for a ball he has correctly judged he can't get just because Lindelof has incorrectly judged it and leaped at him knee first. It's Lindelof's responsibility to make sure the collision doesn't happen like that, not the defender's. Because Lindelof is the one who has made the decision to fly at the defender with his knee at head-height to try and win a ball that's nowhere near him when he collides into his opponent.
 

Adam-Utd

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
29,997
This thread really opens the eyes to how many fans genuinely don't know the rules of football :lol:
 

Conor

Full Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
1,256
Of course it's a foul, he could have knocked the player out with his kneecap.
 

Pogue Mahone

Poster of the year 2008 & 2020
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
108,120
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
You can if they jump into you with a knee to the head, because that's a foul. That's the point. The defender is under no obligation to jump for a ball he has correctly judged he can't get just because Lindelof has incorrectly judged it and leaped at him knee first. It's Lindelof's responsibility to make sure the collision doesn't happen like that, not the defender's.
It actually looks as though Lindelof had a decent chance of getting the ball but ducks at the moment of impact with the defender. Without that collision he would have got very close to the ball, possibly getting his head on it.

Really all that matters is whether the defender moved into Lindelof’s path or not. Which is hard to tell from the replays I saw. Backing into the path of an airborne player, who is looking only at the ball, is incredibly dangerous (for both parties, as it turns out!) and should be penalised more often than it is. You can be guilty of dangerous play, even if it’s only you that gets hurt (see also lying on the ball)
 
Last edited:

Tom Cato

Full Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
3,955
100% foul and probably should be red as he's so far from the ball.

Question is IF he scored, would that be a foul but I feel we discussed it enough in the match day thread
"Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded
if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

  • charges
  • jumps at
  • kicks or attempts to kick
  • pushes
  • strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
  • tackles or challenges
  • trips or attempts to trip

Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed

Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned

Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.



So while I'm genuinely annoyed Tuanzebe don't get credit a goal borrowed directly from the sockdrawer of Carles Puyol, I suppose the referee saw the play as Reckless and dangerous. Even if Lindelöf hits the ball cleanly, that's probably being disallowed due to where the contact was made.

So new tactic: Defend corners by planting yor faces into the opponents flying knees. It's hard work but someone's gotta do it.
 

Irrational.

Full Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
28,346
Location
LVG's notebook
I bet a lot of posters would be creaming themselves if Ronaldo had done something like that. What an incredible leap.
 

Roux

Full Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2008
Messages
2,642
This would have been given as a goal if was against United in the league this season.
 

Adam-Utd

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
29,997

limerickcitykid

There once was a kid from Toronto...
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
13,554
Location
East end / Oot and aboot
Not really, my point was it wasn't against the rules and many others agreed it wasn't a penalty (including Carragher) and I still believe that. TAA didn't do anything wrong IMO.

This is clearly a very different situation, it's wreckless and dangerous and he was lucky he didn't get a red card.
Your opinion means nothing when you don’t understand the rules.

The situation is the same, it’s people not knowing the rules. Just like yourself a few days ago.

It’s ironic you laugh at people here when you made an absolute fool of yourself just a few days ago. :lol:
 

Adam-Utd

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
29,997
Your opinion means nothing when you don’t understand the rules.

The situation is the same, it’s people not knowing the rules. Just like yourself a few days ago.

It’s ironic you laugh at people here when you made an absolute fool of yourself just a few days ago. :lol:
Sorry what rule are you talking about? i'd love for you to point it out.

Amazing that you can't tell the difference between these 2 incidents, but then again i'm not surprised ;)

Luckily football is a game of opinions, and i'll never apologise for having my own :D
 

Hughes35

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2014
Messages
861
I think it might be the most obvious red card I have ever seen. I have no idea how he got away with it.
 

youmeletsfly

Full Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2018
Messages
1,461
Don't think it was a red, Lindelof wasn't even looking at the opponent, he just jumped the highest he could, like a hillbilly.
Foul was obvious as feck though and the yellow rightfully deserved.
 

Smores

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
22,156
The idea that if the defender jumped it would have been fine is one of the stranger things about this debate. He'd have still had someone do a running jump at him and taken a knee to the ribs.

Honestly if people can't understand you don't jump like that towards someone then there's no hope.
 

sebsheep

Full Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Messages
4,552
Location
Here


I see nothing untoward there...just a dude getting kneed in the face.
Can't believe we didn't get a goal and a penalty for this, defender is clearly trying to pull Tuanzebe back here.
 

Annihilate Now!

...or later, I'm not fussy
Scout
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
41,087
Location
W.Yorks
The idea that if the defender jumped it would have been fine is one of the stranger things about this debate. He'd have still had someone do a running jump at him and taken a knee to the ribs.

Honestly if people can't understand you don't jump like that towards someone then there's no hope.
Not only that, but that for some reason the defender is at fault because he didn't challenge for a ball he would never be able to reach in a million years.

As if he has a duty to challenge because Lindelof is challenging... which doesn't really make any sense.
 

Adam-Utd

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
29,997
Not only that, but that for some reason the defender is at fault because he didn't challenge for a ball he would never be able to reach in a million years.

As if he has a duty to challenge because Lindelof is challenging... which doesn't really make any sense.
Don't forget standing still, because that isn't allowed in football. You have to keep permanently moving otherwise you're not in the game :D
 

Pogue Mahone

Poster of the year 2008 & 2020
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
108,120
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
The idea that if the defender jumped it would have been fine is one of the stranger things about this debate. He'd have still had someone do a running jump at him and taken a knee to the ribs.

Honestly if people can't understand you don't jump like that towards someone then there's no hope.
Players jump towards each other all the time. Look at the next time a keeper comes out to collect a high ball. They even do the knees first shape in the air.

I’ve changed my opinion a bit, now I’ve slept on it. If the defender was standing still then it’s reckless and a foul. Watching it last night I thought he was moving into Lindelof’s path, who clearly had eyes for nothing but the ball. In which case the defender should have been penalised. Even if he got all his teeth knocked out. Knowingly getting under someone who is jumping to head the ball is a shitty, dangerous thing to do.
 

Zlatan 7

We've got bush!
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
7,360
Not only that, but that for some reason the defender is at fault because he didn't challenge for a ball he would never be able to reach in a million years.

As if he has a duty to challenge because Lindelof is challenging... which doesn't really make any sense.
Whether that was the right decision or not Defenders always challenge for a ball they’re not going to reach, most of the time the attacker has the run on them so will jump higher, defenders jump to interfere with the striker. Not just stand there waiting for the runner to jump into them. (Unless your Harry Kane)
 

Pogue Mahone

Poster of the year 2008 & 2020
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
108,120
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Not only that, but that for some reason the defender is at fault because he didn't challenge for a ball he would never be able to reach in a million years.

As if he has a duty to challenge because Lindelof is challenging... which doesn't really make any sense.
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.
 

groovyalbert

it's a mute point
Joined
Feb 14, 2013
Messages
5,294
Location
London
Think an important question that isn't being asked is why the feck did he do it?? :lol:

He leapt about 5 foot in the air and still got nowhere near the ball, whilst battering an opposing player who had understandably let the ball sail over head.

With or without Lindelof doing that, Tuanzebe scores there. Pointless from the Iceman.
 

Pogue Mahone

Poster of the year 2008 & 2020
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
108,120
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Think an important question that isn't being asked is why the feck did he do it?? :lol:

He leapt about 5 foot in the air and still got nowhere near the ball, whilst battering an opposing player who had understandably let the ball sail over head.

With or without Lindelof doing that, Tuanzebe scores there. Pointless from the Iceman.
Not true.
 

Jaqen H'ghar

I can't drive...55
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Messages
1,378
I’ll repeat this from the Lindelöf thread:


When there is an airial ball, and one player doesn’t go for the ball but moves in for a collision, it is a foul against him, and might even be a yellow for dangerous play. The player who is airborn has no way of changing direction or keeping balance. This was a cross from a corner, Lindelöf goes up for the ball as you should, and is chanceless when Bautista comes walking blindfolded into him, neither looking for the ball or other players. If Lindelöf doesn’t try to cover himself, he will be the one taking a somersault two meters up, possibly landing on his neck.

There has been a tendency of late for referees to ignore the rules regarding this and award freekicks for those who ‘look more victimized’. But it’s bad refereeing, and sets a dangerous precedent.
  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.
 

Brophs

The one and only
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
44,358
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.
I presume what you’re referring to is the Harry Kane sort of situation. This, a ball with pace played into a packed box, over the heads of several players who are trying to read its flight, is nothing like that. Imposing some sort of positive duty on the defenders to either make a challenge he can’t win or cede ground to a player whose presence he’s probably only peripherally aware of, seems oddly harsh.
 

r3idy

Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
718
Location
Near Old Trafford
What's more annoying is he doesn't attack his defensive heading duties with such gusto !!!!
 

Pogue Mahone

Poster of the year 2008 & 2020
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
108,120
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
I presume what you’re referring to is the Harry Kane sort of situation. This, a ball with pace played into a packed box, over the heads of several players who are trying to read its flight, is nothing like that. Imposing some sort of positive duty on the defenders to either make a challenge he can’t win or cede ground to a player whose presence he’s probably only peripherally aware of, seems oddly harsh.
It probably is harsh. As I said I’ve changed my opinion from last night. It’s a foul by Lindelof unless the defender knowingly stepped in his way.

Incidents like this are referee’d inconsistently though. How often do we see a keeper clean a bunch of bystanders out when he comes through a crowd to clear the ball? Even in the first leg of this match we saw Henderson absolutely wreck Telles in a similar scenario with no mention of him being reckless or dangerous. And we all know that dangerous play can be penalised even if you’re the only player in danger. Doesn’t have to be opposition players at risk.
 

Adam-Utd

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
29,997
Players jump towards each other all the time. Look at the next time a keeper comes out to collect a high ball. They even do the knees first shape in the air.

I’ve changed my opinion a bit, now I’ve slept on it. If the defender was standing still then it’s reckless and a foul. Watching it last night I thought he was moving into Lindelof’s path, who clearly had eyes for nothing but the ball. In which case the defender should have been penalised. Even if he got all his teeth knocked out. Knowingly getting under someone who is jumping to head the ball is a shitty, dangerous thing to do.
:houllier: Pogue he's defending the front post, the ball goes a metre over his head and he turns to watch the flight of the ball and gets absolutely flattened by Lindelof.

Nothing the defender does is wrong or his fault at all. You can't go flying full speed into the box then jump head height knee first into a defenders face and expect to get away with it?! I thought David Luiz was stupid going head first into Raul Jiminez but this was even worse.

This is the definition of wreckless/dangerous play and will always be given as a foul. Whether the goal should have been cancelled is another talking point, as technically it didn't stop the goal happening - but it was definitely a foul and usually off the ball fouls get called to stop goals. (like Shaw)
 

Zlatan 7

We've got bush!
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
7,360
:houllier: Pogue he's defending the front post, the ball goes a metre over his head and he turns to watch the flight of the ball and gets absolutely flattened by Lindelof.

Nothing the defender does is wrong or his fault at all. You can't go flying full speed into the box then jump head height knee first into a defenders face and expect to get away with it?! I thought David Luiz was stupid going head first into Raul Jiminez but this was even worse.

This is the definition of wreckless/dangerous play and will always be given as a foul. Whether the goal should have been cancelled is another talking point, as technically it didn't stop the goal happening - but it was definitely a foul and usually off the ball fouls get called to stop goals. (like Shaw)
Similarly you can’t go just go sliding across the box on your arse taking out who evers in your way.

making out the ball was a yard over his head when tuanzebe headed it without jumping just a metre behind him, ball must have come down like a falling star
 

Pogue Mahone

Poster of the year 2008 & 2020
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
108,120
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Similarly you can’t go just go sliding across the box on your arse taking out who evers in your way.

making out the ball was a yard over his head when tuanzebe headed it without jumping just a metre behind him, ball must have come down like a falling star
Yeah, he was much closer to heading the ball than many are willing to admit. He sort of ducks slightly, right as it goes past. I actually think the collision is what distracts him and makes him miss the ball.
 

Annihilate Now!

...or later, I'm not fussy
Scout
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
41,087
Location
W.Yorks
Whether that was the right decision or not Defenders always challenge for a ball they’re not going to reach, most of the time the attacker has the run on them so will jump higher, defenders jump to interfere with the striker. Not just stand there waiting for the runner to jump into them. (Unless your Harry Kane)
They do, and that's fine... but just as its fine to jump for a ball you can't win, it's also fine to not jump for the ball and then try and defend the second ball that drops behind you. You can't really criticise a guy for not going for a ball he won't win.

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.
But he would argue he is attempting to play the second ball that drop's over his head by turning around.

He's in a perfectly logical position for the situation.
 

Zlatan 7

We've got bush!
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
7,360
They do, and that's fine... but just as its fine to jump for a ball you can't win, it's also fine to not jump for the ball and then try and defend the second ball that drops behind you. You can't really criticise a guy for not going for a ball he won't win.



But he would argue he is attempting to play the second ball that drop's over his head by turning around.

He's in a perfectly logical position for the situation.
You can’t criticise him no but his manger probably would, you should challenge for balls. Pretty simple. There’s hundreds of headers that a defender has no chance of reaching but the striker having a running jump will reach. The defender still jumps not to let the striker get that clean header. That ball wasn’t all that far away from lindelof, people making out like it was above the floodlights.
 

lsd

The Oracle
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
5,865
Should be a poll so then I can put everyone who thinks it was not a foul on ignore as they are clearly insane and I would never want to hear their opinions on anything again.

This was one of the most blatant fouls I have ever seen in a football match he was never getting the ball and just hammered there opponent. I would have sent him off never mind give a foul against him
 

The Original

Full Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2016
Messages
815
Location
The Gambia
You can’t criticise him no but his manger probably would, you should challenge for balls. Pretty simple. There’s hundreds of headers that a defender has no chance of reaching but the striker having a running jump will reach. The defender still jumps not to let the striker get that clean header. That ball wasn’t all that far away from lindelof, people making out like it was above the floodlights.
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.
 

Pogue Mahone

Poster of the year 2008 & 2020
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
108,120
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
But he would argue he is attempting to play the second ball that drop's over his head by turning around.

He's in a perfectly logical position for the situation.
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