Of course there’s two parts to it. The red card is the denial of a goal-scoring opportunity. There were two distinct goal-scoring opportunities in that passage of play.
Why wasn’t TAA sent off?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
But hes sliding from the previous action, not from the pen incident itself. He isnt trying to play the ball for the pen because he isnt able to but he still isnt playing it.
If its the exact same tackle but its Richarlison from the side who darts in and runs into TAA then it becomes clearer that its a pen imo. Being the same player confuses everything.
The main argument here is that TAA is helpless and if hes helpelss then he isnt trying to play the ball and should be shown a red.
Or something!
He's not deliberately took him down so no double punishment
Because Jim Beglin thinks it is not even a penalty. yes it is a penalty and it should have been a red card too because CL had an empty net to score as TAA got up and hooked his leg up the moment CL was going to poke it home. There was no one between CL and the ball and the goal.
Deliberately doesn't have anything to do with it as seen with David luiz red
It's whether he's attempted to go for the ball or not
For the first attempt he tried to go for the ball
For the second attempt, he wasn't go for the ball, but it was still the same action from the first attempt
So it's whether that now counts as trying to play the ball or not.
The commentary team I had was Lee Dixon and some other guy. They were sure it was gonna be a red and even mentioned the reff going for a card but instead pulling his shorts up and questioning if Trent tried to play the ball (which on the second attempt he didn't )
By law it should be a red given the penalty was awarded I think
Sorry that's what I meant. He hasn't deliberately took the player down with no attempt to play the ball
Because is English, plays for Liverpool and a media darling unlike Luiz who got sent off for very similar accidental last man foul?
Intent is irrelevant. If you trip someone up and deny them a goalscoring opportunity - and you’re not attempting to play the ball when you trip them up - then it’s a red card. See also David Luiz vs Wolves.
That is in fact, the sole requirement for a red in that situation.
Intent is irrelevant yet you mention attempting to the play the ball or not?
Surely if you're attemepting to play the ball you're intending to play it and vice versa?
As its been said to you on another post above, intent is irrelevant.
What matters is whether an attempt for the ball is made or not which determine whether double jeopardy comes into play
Are referees allowed to use a bit of judgment without a bollocking? Like will he get told off now he's called it as a penalty and clear obstruction it should have also been a red? I mean in the sense, should he be robotic, in that he's called it as such so that the follow up should be natural.... I'm not debating whether it was or wasn't a pen.
Or maybe they should tell us that if a pen is given, and it's not a clear malicious challenge to stop an advantage to the opponent, then a red card isn't necessary, but my first instinct in these occasions is if he's made X decision then Y decision comes naturally too....
Or maybe they should tell us that if a pen is given, and it's not a clear malicious challenge to stop an advantage to the opponent, then a red card isn't necessary, but my first instinct in these occasions is if he's made X decision then Y decision comes naturally too....
Intent for foul is where it's irrelevant
Intent on going for the ball is where it's relevant
Cutch mentioned deliberately taking somebody down.
You can accidentally take somebody down like luiz did and it's a red (which needs to be changed)
But if you try to go for the ball, swipe and completely miss and kick the players legs it's a not a red
Intent is irrelevant when committing a foul. They don’t have to intend to trip someone up for it to be a foul.
It is relevant in the rules re penalties for DOGOS. If they make a genuine attempt to play the ball then it’s a penalty only, no red card. If they foul someone without trying to play the ball then it’s a straight red.
Pretty obvious that it's because he was already on the ground as a result of trying to at the ball. This one fits into the rules exactly.
Intent and attempt are not the same thing in this situation. You can't see what someone's intent (thought) was, but you can see what they were attempting (action). TAA makes an attempt to block the initial shot, which (for me) is the cause of him obstructing DCL trying to get to the rebound.
That’s definitely the ‘no red card’ way to interpret it. So presumably how the ref saw it. I don’t agree though. Because I see it as two distinct goal-scoring opportunities and TAA was only trying to play the ball for the first one. After that he inadvertently takes out CL with an action that was never taking him anywhere near the (new location of the) ball.
I'm looking at DCL, not TAA. He was doing his next action. Someone who hadn't reacted to the new situation felled him.
Him raising his head to try and block CDL wasnt trying to get the ball.
It's interesting... Imagine a world where there are no specific rules as such and a ref just had to look at this incident and decide should this be a foul or not "in the spirit of the game"
On the one hand TAA has no clue he's about to stop DLC and it seems "unfair" to punish him, but at the same time, DLC has an open goal which he has been prevented from scoring.
The rules obviously side with DLC, but would just a spiritual ref what you think is right?
I had Jim Beglin and some other commentator and Michael Owen and Leon Osman in the studio. Owen and Osman thought it was a penalty and that TAA was lucky not be sent off. Dermot Gallagher also thought that he was lucky not to be sent off. It was the raising of the leg and Dermot says when he looked at the replay he could see that there was no Liverpool player between CL and the ball and the goal. And the VAR should also be looking at the red.
I only saw it at a glance during the game and it looked a really, really ridiculous decision to award a penalty.
On further review though that is of course the rule now. Doesn't need to be intent. It can't be a red though.
The rule of intent is stupid
On further review though that is of course the rule now. Doesn't need to be intent. It can't be a red though.
The rule of intent is stupid
Wouldn't be so sure, most 'fans' on here love when they can get negative!
DOGSO.
Yeah, it's whether you deem the contact with Calvert-Lewin to be part of the original slide (attempt to play the ball), or a secondary movement (no attempt).
Personally, I thought he raised his leg to trip DCL so should have been a red, but I can see why it wasn't given
Is it due to backlash from the Luis and Bednarak red cards? I think they were rescinded afterwards so it muddy's the waters with DOGSO by bringing in intent.
‘Tis just this, really.
amazing how all this stuff, every week, has become not only a sideshow but the main focus, game after game. Very little discussion about football.
Last edited:
I don't think it's as clear cut as you're making it sound.
There are two different phases to this situation.
1: DCL shoots and TAA slides in but fails to block the shot. At the point Alisson makes the save, DCL hasn't even touched TAA yet.
2: As the ball rolls away from Alisson, and into a position where DCL could theoretically now get to it and shoot again, DCL falls over TAA, who at that point is not making a deliberate move to trip/block him but is just there on the ground where he finished after his slide.
For me, that's two separate things: a slide to block which failed but wasn't a foul, and then simply being on the ground in a football match, which is also not a foul.
The only thing you could seriously consider as a foul is the little flick out with his (already naturally raised) foot that TAA does as DCL is passing. But by that point DCL has already basically fallen over and it's such a tiny movement I'm not sure it's relevant.
I won't argue further as I'm obviously chuffed it got given and we're into the grey area where it's all subjective now anyway. But I don't agree with anyone who claims that's in any way a stonewall pen.
Yes, that is how I saw it as well.
Leave the dogs alone
Wasn't even a pen according to the cnuty red media.
You’re the only sane poster left on redcafe it seems, just thought you should know that.
im genuinely baffled how so many can think it’s a clear penalty. I suspect it’s more through hatred for liverpool than anything.
It was a straight sending off offense.
As clear as clear can be. But Liverpool are fekked and at this point whether TAA was or was not sent off is not my concern.
As clear as clear can be. But Liverpool are fekked and at this point whether TAA was or was not sent off is not my concern.
It’s a clear penalty because it’s obvious that Calvert-Lewin is going to have an unchallenged shot at an open goal from 8 yard away if he doesn’t make contact with Alexander-Arnold (it’s as easy a chance if not an easier than a penalty).
TAA has committed to a challenge from the initial shot, which impedes DCL from having that shot. Intent and the part of his body that impedes DCL is immaterial in the laws of the game, so the only thing the ref can give is a penalty.
The rules say it is a pen, what we feel is right or fair is irrelevant. I hope you're still not on that "intent" notion since yesterday
, I would have hoped it got through to you.Not gonna lie, it wasn’t a penalty.
Watching the incident again it’s clear that DCL is already falling over before TAA’s body unintentionally touches him.
Shouldn’t it be a foul against DCL since he is falling over an opposition player who is on the ground first?
Watching the incident again it’s clear that DCL is already falling over before TAA’s body unintentionally touches him.
Shouldn’t it be a foul against DCL since he is falling over an opposition player who is on the ground first?
It would have been stupid to send him off. I don't care about the rules. DCL ran into TAA, you can't send the latter off for that and not call it stupid
I agree, not a penalty. If you run into the shoulder of a defender on a corner and throw yourself to the floor, you don't get a penalty just on the basis he is blocking the path. The fact TAA is on the floor is irrelevant as he isn't making a tackle there, he is just there, blocking the path. DCL then runs into the back of him.
The situation also reminds me of those annoying penalties on Fifa that happens once in a while. You just can't get out of the way, buttons have been pressed and the move is done, feck off ref.
It’s not even a penalty. The ref spoilt what would have been a tidy victory for Everton. Not that Liverpool could have been able to muster a point if the incident never happened but it gives Liverpool fans something to moan about and an excuse to give.