Premier League 2019-2020 we’re off

[Liverbirdie]

Brilliant, a day off for us Liverpool fans, let us know when you've finished.

 

[Orikoru]

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.

Excessive force or brutality! No, of course that can't be levelled at Son ffs.

 

[Orikoru]

Brilliant, a day off for us Liverpool fans, let us know when you've finished.

Haven't you admitted that Mane is a diving scumbag yet? Hurry up, Sawtooth has barely slept.

 

[Papas1982]

Brilliant, a day off for us Liverpool fans, let us know when you've finished.

Still your bloody city!!

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Excessive force or brutality! No, of course that can't be levelled at Son ffs.

You don’t see it because you’re defending him, happy for you to show us your measurement for force and when it becomes excessive!

I’ll ask you this did Son’s tackle result in Gomes suffering the injury? Your answer will probably be along the lines of, it was the tackle that did it, it was him getting his studs caught in the grass, to which I’ll ask what caused him to land like he did and the answer to that is Son’s tackle and round in circles we go.

As previously stated, if it had been a genuine tackle by Son then fair enough, it wasn’t. He knew he couldn’t get the ball and it was a blatant attempt to foul Gomes.
For that reason and that reason alone Son should get a ban for what his actions resulted in, all the accidents that followed were from a deliberate action.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

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.

1st point, it wasn’t 100% a tactical foul.

2nd point, you say yourself Gomes wouldn’t of been hurt if Son hadn’t caused him to trip (it didn’t just trip him, it was a late tackle) but let’s just class it as an unfortunate accident, how about we don’t, how about we put full responsibility on Son and admit, no tackle, no injury.

3rd point, 3rd day now of trying to convince everyone that somehow Son has been badly treated by the Ref.

 

[Orikoru]

You don’t see it because you’re defending, happy for you to show us your measurement for force and when it becomes excessive!

I’ll ask you this did Son’s tackle result in Gomes suffering the injury? Your answer will probably be along the lines of, it was the tackle that did it, it was him getting his studs caught in the grass, to which I’ll ask what caused him to land like he did and the answer to that is Son’s tackle and round in circles we go.

As previously stated, if it had been a genuine tackle by Son then fair enough, it wasn’t. He knew he couldn’t get the ball and it was a blatant attempt to foul Gomes.
For that reason and that reason alone Son should get a ban for what his actions resulted in, all the accidents that followed were from a deliberate action.

Already did, try and keep up please, this is exactly why discussions with you go round in round in circles forever: LAST PARAGRAPH.

The tackle clearly started the chain of events for him to get injured. That is irrelevant though in what colour the card is so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. The laws do not say that if the player gets injured then you upgrade the yellow to a red, because that would be absurd.

A deliberate foul defined as reckless in the laws is STILL A YELLOW CARD unless it prevented a goalscoring opportunity. Like when you pull someone back by their shirt - that is deliberate but you wouldn't expect a red for it would you - even if the guy somehow twisted his knee ligaments because of it. How are you not getting this?? The injury is irrelevant to the card colour.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

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.

Cheers for that, I do understand what you’re saying, the difference from my point of view was that it was a tackle that he didn’t need to make, it was very late, he had cover and his only intent was to foul Gomes and his petulant, dangerous play has led to a serious injury.

 

[Papas1982]

1st point, it wasn’t 100% a tactical foul.

2nd point, you say yourself Gomes wouldn’t of been hurt if Son hadn’t caused him to trip (it didn’t just trip him, it was a late tackle) but let’s just class it as an unfortunate accident, how about we don’t, how about we put full responsibility on Son and admit, no tackle, no injury.

But your final point could be argued is a what if scenario. He evaded Son twice. Aurier is still gonna come across, so who know.

I agree that if Son hadn’t gone for him then the most likely outcome wouldn’t have been the same. But for me, as I’ve already said. The actual tackle itself doesn’t warrant anymore than a yellow. Now if the rules have been changed to actually say that an injury may affect the card the then yes. The unfortunate accident could be deemed a red. But, if that isn’t actually in the rules then the repercussions of a tackle shouldn’t matter.

So final point from me. Son has to shoulder responsibility for it. Absolutely. It’s happened because of him and he’ll need to get over that. On the pitch it genuinely looked like he Felt bad though. I don’t feel sympathetic for Son. But I do believe the wrong decision was made re the card. Will be interested what is said by all involved once the poor lad is on the road to recovery.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Already did, try and keep up please, this is exactly why discussions with you go round in round in circles forever: LAST PARAGRAPH.

The tackle clearly started the chain of events for him to get injured. That is irrelevant though in what colour the card is so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. The laws do not say that if the player gets injured then you upgrade the yellow to a red, because that would be absurd.

A deliberate foul defined as reckless in the laws is STILL A YELLOW CARD unless it prevented a goalscoring opportunity. Like when you pull someone back by their shirt - that is deliberate but you wouldn't expect a red for it would you - even if the guy somehow twisted his knee ligaments because of it. How are you not getting this?? The injury is irrelevant to the card colour.

Twice now you’ve had a couple of personal digs! You’ve been on about this for 3 days, I’ve posted for the last 2 hours! If you don’t want an answer to a point I make, don’t quote me or put me on ignore, I believe it’s only good manners to respond.

Can we stick to the facts, Son tackle was excessive in that it resulted in the injury, the FA have made the statement and explained it, you don’t agree, I do.

 

[Orikoru]

Twice now you’ve had a couple of personal digs!

Can we stick to the facts, Son tackle was excessive in that it resulted in the injury, the FA have made the statement and explained it, you don’t agree, I do.

Have I? I don't think I have.

They were just defending their own with excuses as they always do. Their own laws of football state that his challenge was a yellow card offence. There was no excessive force whatsoever.

 

[chrisd]

Most injuries in football come from contact, it is a contact sport. Did Son intend to injure Gomez, no not in my opinion, these sort if tackles happen time after time in games and very few players would deliberately cause serious injury to another player. If the repercussions of the tackle had not caused such serious injury would Son have got a red card - no.

The ref only upgraded the card once he saw the extent of the injury and whilst Son was clearly in no mental state to carry on playing his actual tackle did not do the injury it happened consequentially and without intent imo. The red card must be rescinded I believe

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I wish pundits would stop disagreeing with each other.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1191499087218171904

 

[Tashyboy]

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.

Whatever your thoughts on the challenge the first 11 words sum it. Whether you agree with it or not Sons tackle endangered the oppo player whether he meant ot or not.
Me am.outta here, this is going round in ever decreasing circles.
Back to VAR.

 

[Liverbirdie]

Still your bloody city!!

I suppose Son's lunge started in Anfield, so yes, we're probably at fault.

 

[Liverbirdie]

Whatever your thoughts on the challenge the first 11 words sum it. Whether you agree with it or not Sons tackle endangered the oppo player whether he meant ot or not.
Me am.outta here, this is going round in ever decreasing circles.
Back to VAR.

With Fernandinho and Jimmy Milner possibly in action over the weekend, will be interesting to see if the ref clamps down on this early doors.

I wonder what LiverpoolPhil's outlook on the Son challenge is......

BOOM!!!!!

 

[sam85]

Whatever your thoughts on the challenge the first 11 words sum it. Whether you agree with it or not Sons tackle endangered the oppo player whether he meant ot or not.
Me am.outta here, this is going round in ever decreasing circles.
Back to VAR.

Using that logic every single tackle in football potentially endangers the opposition, you'd end up with no players left on the pitch.

I have never heard of fouls being upgraded to red cards depending on how injured a player is as a result, but if that is the case then it has to be one of the craziest rules in football imo.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Using that logic every single tackle in football potentially endangers the opposition, you'd end up with no players left on the pitch.

I have never heard of fouls being upgraded to red cards depending on how injured a player is as a result, but if that is the case then it has to be one of the craziest rules in football imo.

Is every single tackle an act of sh!thousery?

 

[Orikoru]

Is every single tackle an act of sh!thousery?

Nah, only the ones that injure nice Everton players.

 

[Dan2501]

Son copped an elbow, wanted revenge, kicked out at Gomes, Gomes ended up colliding with Aurier and broke his ankle. Sucks for Son, but he made the decision to kick out at Gomes, so has to live with that. It wasn't a red card, but the responsibility lies with Son. He was being petulant and taking revenge on a player and it just happened to end horribly. He didn't mean to break his ankle, this isn't a Keane-Haaland situation, but an opposition player has a broken ankle because of his actions.