Premier League 2019-2020 we’re off

[Orikoru]

You just can’t see it because of your a Spurs fan, if it was a genuine attempt to play the ball then fine, then it would be a freak accident!
Son made no attempt to play the ball, his only intent was stop Gomes, therefore, EVERYTHING that followed was initiated by Son.
I fully agree he may of not intended for Gomes to suffer as he did and might be upset, but he set the chain of events in motion.
The studs in the grass caused the dislocation and now there saying Aurier slamming in to him caused the break, all initiated by Son’s recklessness, if Son getting a Red card and the FA upholds it, it may send out a warning to other players that these type of dangerous, petulant fouls can have serious consequences, it may prevent another player from suffering.

You can't just change the laws of football mid-game because someone got hurt though. That was a yellow card challenge, even if it was on purpose, because he just tripped him.

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

There's absolutely no way it was excessive force. By the above definition it was reckless, and a yellow card. The referee applied the laws incorrectly, and the red card should be overturned.

 

[Orikoru]

Great scenario, totally irrelevant in the Gomes scenario, ie 2 struggling teams, side of the pitch etc etc.
I’m sure we can all play the what if game!

Well that's exactly what you're doing. If someone gets injured it's a red, if they don't it's a yellow? Makes no sense. As people are always telling me in the Rules of Golf sub-forum, the rule has to be fairly applied to everyone, not adjusted based on the outcome.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

You can't just change the laws of football mid-game because someone got hurt though. That was a yellow card challenge, even if you think it was on purpose, because he just tripped him.


There's absolutely no way it was excessive force. By the above definition it was reckless, and a yellow card. The referee applied the laws incorrectly, and the red card should be overturned.

So again Son is innocent.

 

[Papas1982]

Great scenario, totally irrelevant in the Gomes scenario, ie 2 struggling teams, side of the pitch etc etc.
I’m sure we can all play the what if game!

🙄🙄 It's a tactical foul. Either you accept them or you dont. Spurs have been lacklustre for weeks. The least their fans will demand is effort and win at all costs. Tactical fouls are part of the sport.

It's OK for you to try and use the fact that Orikuro is a spurs fan to show he's bias, but you're in the same boat as a spurs fan.

 

[Orikoru]

So again Son is innocent.

What are you talking about? He's guilty of making a reckless challenge. The punishment is a yellow card.

 

[Tashyboy]

Is there any reason why a referee cant pull a massive smart phone out of his pocket and instantly review a VAR decision rather than run the length of a pitch to view a 32 inch screen which they seem reluctant to do as it seemly takes too long to do?

The tech is here to run this show much better yet they seem to be making a complete pigs ear of it.

Yes, he would probably not know how to turn it on.

 

[Tashyboy]

So as I mentioned, Spurs have appealed the red card. Watch this space.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

🙄🙄 It's a tactical foul. Either you accept them or you dont. Spurs have been lacklustre for weeks. The least their fans will demand is effort and win at all costs. Tactical fouls are part of the sport.

It's OK for you to try and use the fact that Orikuro is a spurs fan to show he's bias, but you're in the same boat as a spurs fan.

Rubbish, you’re assuming because I’m Blue that’s my stance, what about the others who have agreed it was a Red Card.
Please, please explain how Son’s tackle was tactical?
Could Son guarantee the force and speed he made that tackle at would not injure Gomes?
Would Gomes of got injured if Son had missed him?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

What are you talking about? He's guilty of making a reckless challenge. The punishment is a yellow card.

If Son had used less force would the injury have happened? Who decides excessive force? The Ref and after seeing the results of Son’s challenge he’s upgraded the card to Red.

You keep using the word accident, it wasn’t, Son only had one intention and that was to bring Gomes down.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Yes, he would probably not know how to turn it on.

I have an image of a ref running around the pitch holding his phone up trying to get a signal. Move a bit left, right more, up a bit, up a bit more

 

[Papas1982]

Rubbish, you’re assuming because I’m Blue that’s my stance, what about the others who have agreed it was a Red Card.
Please, please explain how Son’s tackle was tactical?
Could Son guarantee the force and speed he made that tackle at would not injure Gomes?
Would Gomes of got injured if Son had missed him?

The highlighted part is entirely irrelevant when discussing a tactical foul. Players do them to stop the game. Not to injure a player. If the rule has changed and consequences now count then its a red, but imo that's not a good rule as players will start making even bigger deals of slight knocks to con a ref into thinking they're really hurt.

As to your bias. Same question, you're assuming orikuro thinks it's not a red coz he's a spurs fan. What about all the others that agree it's a yellow.....

Son chased him back for about 20 yards. Had 2 nibbles then got him. He was simply looking to stop the game. It was neither reckless or intended to cause harm which prior to the refs announcing that consequences count eqayres to a yellow imo.

 

[Orikoru]

If Son had used less force would the injury have happened? Who decides excessive force? The Ref and after seeing the results of Son’s challenge he’s upgraded the card to Red.

You keep using the word accident, it wasn’t, Son only had one intention and that was to bring Gomes down.

You've lost the plot now mate, I think you need to calm down. He obviously didn't use excessive force, all he did was trip him over. This for me is a perfect description of what Son did:

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

Excessive force refers to the studs up, lunging, bone-crunching tackles you see players like Delph and Kompany make from time to time. This certainly wasn't that. The laws very clearly state this challenge should have been a yellow card. I can't really say it anymore clearly than that. If you're still going to deny it in the face of that evidence then I don't know what more to say.

 

[Orikoru]

Rubbish, you’re assuming because I’m Blue that’s my stance, what about the others who have agreed it was a Red Card.
Please, please explain how Son’s tackle was tactical?
Could Son guarantee the force and speed he made that tackle at would not injure Gomes?
Would Gomes of got injured if Son had missed him?

Possibly yes - if he'd have hurdled the challenge he still could have landed awkwardly and damaged his ankle the same way. Why bother speculating though - you were the one who didn't to do "what ifs".

 

[Deleted member 16999]

The highlighted part is entirely irrelevant when discussing a tactical foul. Players do them to stop the game. Not to injure a player. If the rule has changed and consequences now count then its a red, but imo that's not a good rule as players will start making even bigger deals of slight knocks to con a ref into thinking they're really hurt.

As to your bias. Same question, you're assuming orikuro thinks it's not a red coz he's a spurs fan. What about all the others that agree it's a yellow.....

Son chased him back for about 20 yards. Had 2 nibbles then got him. He was simply looking to stop the game. It was neither reckless or intended to cause harm which prior to the refs announcing that consequences count eqayres to a yellow imo.

You are making it up! Virtually everyone agreed Son was looking for retaliation after getting caught in the face, he went after Gomes with one intention and that was to foul him, I’ve said I’d agree Son didn’t intend for that outcome, but that was the outcome and Son has to take responsibility for his actions.

Please show how Son’s foul was tactical?

As for bias, I kept out of this initially to avoid exactly what you’ve done, all orikuro has done is defend Son and made him look like the victim in this because of a red card, no one else has continually done that for a 3rd day, I post twice on it and I get bias shout!

 

[Deleted member 16999]

You've lost the plot now mate, I think you need to calm down. He obviously didn't use excessive force, all he did was trip him over. This for me is a perfect description of what Son did:

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

Excessive force refers to the studs up, lunging, bone-crunching tackles you see players like Delph and Kompany make from time to time. This certainly wasn't that. The laws very clearly state this challenge should have been a yellow card. I can't really say it anymore clearly than that. If you're still going to deny it in the face of that evidence then I don't know what more to say.

I’ve lost no plot, did Son’s uneccesary tackle cause the injury?

It was a trip? You’re kidding it was deliberate and out of control, as for quoting rules I trust a PL Ref more than you to make that decision

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Possibly yes - if he'd have hurdled the challenge he still could have landed awkwardly and damaged his ankle the same way. Why bother speculating though - you were the one who didn't to do "what ifs".

Because from minute 1 you’re speculating on Son’s intent, only he knows.

You haven’t once explained why Son made the tackle?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Definition of Serious Foul Play - Red Card:

“A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play. ... Brutal actions involving excessive force (violence, endangering the safety of an opponent) must always result in a red card!

Obviously none of that could be labelled at Son.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Rubbish, you’re assuming because I’m Blue that’s my stance, what about the others who have agreed it was a Red Card.
Please, please explain how Son’s tackle was tactical?
Could Son guarantee the force and speed he made that tackle at would not injure Gomes?
Would Gomes of got injured if Son had missed him?

But that same level of uncertainty applies to any tackle, foul or otherwise.

As a neutral I would say that the challenge merited no more than a yellow card as the level or degree of injury was irrelevant. The challenge was not a studs up, potential leg-breaker such as has been witnessed elsewhere.

Anyway that's just my view and my concern now is that Gomes makes a full and speedy recovery, both physically and mentally.

 

[Papas1982]

You are making it up! Virtually everyone agreed Son was looking for retaliation after getting caught in the face, he went after Gomes with one intention and that was to foul him, I’ve said I’d agree Son didn’t intend for that outcome, but that was the outcome and Son has to take responsibility for his actions.

Please show how Son’s foul was tactical?

As for bias, I kept out of this initially to avoid exactly what you’ve done, all orikuro has done is defend Son and made him look like the victim in this because of a red card, no one else has continually done that for a 3rd day, I post twice on it and I get bias shout!

I said myself I only saw the incident last night. I simply saw a 30 second clip and It looked to me that he'd chased him on a counter so was trying to stop him by any means.

Hadn't seen whole game so can't comment on what happened before. Even so, if he was after him then he'd have done more than the little trips he attempted imo. So Whilst he (gomes) most likely wouldn't have have been hur if son hadn't caused him to trip, we can't prove what ifs.... For me it's an unfortunate accident. You don't belive that. I do.

I'm not sure where orikuro is making son a victim.
As to the bias. If you use someone's team allegiance agaimst them. Then state that others believing the same as you proves it. It's a weak argument then the exact same can be argued at you.

Fwiw I'm not saying your stance is because of bias, just that it can easily look like it.

The same as I've nit said your opinion is wrong, it's just not one I share.

 

[Orikoru]

I’ve lost no plot, did Son’s uneccesary tackle cause the injury?

It was a trip? You’re kidding it was deliberate and out of control, as for quoting rules I trust a PL Ref more than you to make that decision

Really? Every pundit said he was wrong to give a red. I've shown you the official law of football that says he was wrong to give a red. Yes he has caused him to get injured - with a challenge that was a yellow card offence.

Because from minute 1 you’re speculating on Son’s intent, only he knows.

You haven’t once explained why Son made the tackle?

Because he was playing football and that's what people do?? I think talk of it being retribution is wide of the mark, if you watch the footage he has a nibble at the previous player who passed it to Gomes, then followed the ball over and made that late challenge that brought him down. He's an extremely competitive player, he chases opposition players down like that all game. Earlier in the game he threw himself into a slide tackle trying to block a clearance from Pickford after sprinting 30 yards to get there. That's just how he plays.