Was Lindelofs foul for Tuanzebe’s goal the correct decision?
- Thread starter SirAnderson
- Start date
The only reason it's dangerous is because the Real defender isn't paying attention. Who is he marking and who is he looking at? He's not watching the ball. Lindelof goes for ball and he's in his way. Sorry if their player got hurt but don't stand in the way of people trying to play football and you won't get hurt...
Of course, I wouldn't be any more happy about it than I am about having Tuanzebe's goal ruled out. But it was the correct call and I certainly would take no joy in seeing a player get hurt in such a potentially serious manner, just for the sake of some entertainment.
He can jump, but if he misses trying to be a decoy and knees someone in the face, it’s obviously a foul
It’s like asking why shouldn’t a defender go diving in for a last gasp tackle and twatting through an opposition player without the ball, cause “decoy”.
What’s this decoy crap? He jumped to try and head the ball. Mistimed his leap and accidentally crashed into a defender who chose to stand underneath the path of the ball without making any attempt to play it.
Never a foul. The yellow card was an atrocious decision.
You mean the ball that Lindelof misses by a country mile? What's the point of having fouls in the rulebook when you can simply demand that all opponents simply give way to players flying around?
Accidentally fouling someone is still a foul.
I agree with this. The defender doesn't intend to foul Lindelof and to be fair to him, he probably doesn't know too much about it.
But at the end of the day, he has prevented Victor from reaching the ball and was fortunate not to concede the penalty.
Auditioning for the new Mortal Kombat movie.
All those years of watching him shy away from aerial duels only to come Schmeichel style on an opponent (who was nowhere near the ball himself) to stop the first senior goal for his team-mate and a win for us.
He can jump, but if he misses trying to be a decoy and knees someone in the face, it’s obviously a foul
It’s like asking why shouldn’t a defender go diving in for a last gasp tackle and twatting through an opposition player without the ball, cause “decoy”.
Not to mention that you’ve previously agreed about how dangerous it is to get under an airborne player. Turns out it can be dangerous for both parties. Moral of the story. Compete for the ball in the air, or get the feck out of the way.
Do you think it was a foul by Lindelof?
The clue is in the phrase “never a foul”.
So instead of giving us a pen, Axel can keep his goal.
The ol’ Kane trick
In my view not jumping for the ball and impeding a player in the air is more dangerous and more of a foul that what Lindelof did. The lad could have been seriously hurt if he landed awkwardly because of it.
This complaint is levelled at Harry Kane every week. The dirty baassssteeerrd.
Is jumping for a ball and hitting someone who hasn't jumped a foul? I mean if they both jumped its not a foul right?
Regardless of where you stand on whether it's a foul or not though that defender weren't getting near the ball before it got to Tuanzebe so yeah not sure it was right the goal was ruled out
Regardless of where you stand on whether it's a foul or not though that defender weren't getting near the ball before it got to Tuanzebe so yeah not sure it was right the goal was ruled out
Think it's time to update @JJ12 tag, "His eyes on the ball"
Definitely better than predicting something that happened in 2016!
Do hope you wumming.
Definitely better than predicting something that happened in 2016!
Do hope you wumming.
Ah, my bad. Was taken in by the never a yellow part of the post.
Interesting take.
That's not what happened. You do not impede a player who comes into your path--you impede when you move into their path.
Still no.1
By not moving he is still impeding his flight toward the ball.
6 green smilies in two posts? Seriously?
That would be underwhelming to say the least. You do have an odd sense of humour I must say.Think it's time to update @JJ12 tag, "His eyes on the ball"
Definitely better than predicting something that happened in 2016!
Do hope you wumming.
He only had eyes for the ball but I guess technically it was a foul.
Shame. Axel deserved the goal.
Shame. Axel deserved the goal.
You do realize that standing in the way of a player is a foul right?
That was so funny man.
He had a decent game but this is kind of like when he got outmuscled by Diagne for the goal against West Brom and then in the next 2-4 headers completely overcompensates and just bulldozed through him instead.
It was an impressive leap that pretty much ended with him ducking under the ball because his timing was a bit off, which is something we've seen more than a few times before..
I really don't want to sneek a line of criticism as it's more of an observation there but man it's just too easy ffs
He had a decent game but this is kind of like when he got outmuscled by Diagne for the goal against West Brom and then in the next 2-4 headers completely overcompensates and just bulldozed through him instead.
It was an impressive leap that pretty much ended with him ducking under the ball because his timing was a bit off, which is something we've seen more than a few times before..
I really don't want to sneek a line of criticism as it's more of an observation there but man it's just too easy ffs
hwoarang would be impressed
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.
This is the opinion of someone who has never played
Really? What section of the rulebook are you quoting there?
Missed the game because I was playing football.
Just saw this, and I cant believe he wasn't sent off.
That's some shit for the MMA thread.
Just saw this, and I cant believe he wasn't sent off.
That's some shit for the MMA thread.
Personally i thought it was dangerous play.
Explain shepherding the ball out of play then.
The one where it talks about impeding a players movement
You are allowed to screen the ball out when it is within playing distance of you and you are moving with the ball. You cannot stand in a players way. This isn't basketball. There is no such thing as "charging"...
Go on...you must have access to Google, don't you? Quote it
Don’t about the rules, but for me, that is a foul and possibly a red anywhere on the pitch, except in this situation. It’s a corner, people jump, people are physical, but this guy is day dreaming and not alert at all.
In the end it doesn’t change anything but feel for Tuanzebe who got his first goal.
In the end it doesn’t change anything but feel for Tuanzebe who got his first goal.
Gotta give it to him, that’s some serious air. Now let’s teach him to contest every header in the box like that
Just to add the official perspective on this (I've bolded the parts I thought might be relevant)
This is from the 'IFAB's 2020-21 Laws of the Game' explanation of what constitutes a foul --- https://www.thefa.com/football-rule.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
An indirect free kick is awarded if a player:
I think it would be impossible to argue that Lindelof's knee to the head, although accidental, didn't break at least one of the rules in bold. The yellow was probably harsh given there was no reckless intention or malice in his challenge and it was the fact that the defender stayed rooted to the ground that exacerbated the whole thing. The challenge also had no effect on the actual goal so it reinforces the feelings of unfairness about it - I get that.
But the simple fact is he smashed his knee into an opponent's head, with force and carelessness, while failing to get a touch on the ball. A foul 10 times out of 10. I have a suspicion people arguing to the contrary would have a different opinion if it had been a Real Sociedad centre back flooring a United player.
This is from the 'IFAB's 2020-21 Laws of the Game' explanation of what constitutes a foul --- https://www.thefa.com/football-rule.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
- Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off.
An indirect free kick is awarded if a player:
- plays in a dangerous manner
- impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made
- is guilty of dissent, using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures or other verbal offences
- prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it
- commits any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player
I think it would be impossible to argue that Lindelof's knee to the head, although accidental, didn't break at least one of the rules in bold. The yellow was probably harsh given there was no reckless intention or malice in his challenge and it was the fact that the defender stayed rooted to the ground that exacerbated the whole thing. The challenge also had no effect on the actual goal so it reinforces the feelings of unfairness about it - I get that.
But the simple fact is he smashed his knee into an opponent's head, with force and carelessness, while failing to get a touch on the ball. A foul 10 times out of 10. I have a suspicion people arguing to the contrary would have a different opinion if it had been a Real Sociedad centre back flooring a United player.
Last edited: