The Footie Thread

[Swango1980]

Also just watched the Sky clip with both angles. I think it's less clear. It looks brutal but it's one of those where I'm wondering what you're supposed to do with your foot after you've kicked the ball. I don't believe he deliberately left it on him.

Before he even got to the ball, I think everyone knew what was about to happen. He was flying in hard and high, he was very possibly going to win the ball, but after that his foot was going in very high and powerfully in towards the legs of the opponent. If he hit the players leg first, I don't think there would be a debate about a red card, as it would be seen as dangerous. Is potentially breaking an opponents leg after making contact with the ball less bad?

I suppose people may argue "where was his foot meant to go?" But, to me, there seems to have been alternative ways to go for that ball without having to have such a high foot, studs first, going into the opponent. It has obviously been a big talking point during and since. There may be someone out there defending it, but I have yet to hear that view, including from a lot of people that have been there and got the T-Shirt.

 

[clubchamp98]

This. If it wasn't given on the field or overturned not sure why PGMOL have changed their tune now

Because they got it wrong on the field and VAR.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

This. If it wasn't given on the field or overturned not sure why PGMOL have changed their tune now

Because they got it wrong

 

[Neilds]

Before he even got to the ball, I think everyone knew what was about to happen. He was flying in hard and high, he was very possibly going to win the ball, but after that his foot was going in very high and powerfully in towards the legs of the opponent. If he hit the players leg first, I don't think there would be a debate about a red card, as it would be seen as dangerous. Is potentially breaking an opponents leg after making contact with the ball less bad?

I suppose people may argue "where was his foot meant to go?" But, to me, there seems to have been alternative ways to go for that ball without having to have such a high foot, studs first, going into the opponent. It has obviously been a big talking point during and since. There may be someone out there defending it, but I have yet to hear that view, including from a lot of people that have been there and got the T-Shirt.

The ball ended up at the other end of the pitch so he got it cleanly - this means his AoA, etc was right for the ball position. You can't be a defender and try to miskick it just because you might collide with the other player.

 

[Swango1980]

The ball ended up at the other end of the pitch so he got it cleanly - this means his AoA, etc was right for the ball position. You can't be a defender and try to miskick it just because you might collide with the other player.

I'm not disputing that he got the ball. The fact it went to the other end of the pitch proves how powerfully he made impact with the ball.

But, unless you can point to a rule that as long as a player wins a ball cleanly, then a red card cannot be given, then it seems like a non-argument about how cleanly he won the ball?

 

[Beezerk]

Because they got it wrong

Well they didn’t as both the ref and VAR thought it wasn’t red

 

[Neilds]

I'm not disputing that he got the ball. The fact it went to the other end of the pitch proves how powerfully he made impact with the ball.

But, unless you can point to a rule that as long as a player wins a ball cleanly, then a red card cannot be given, then it seems like a non-argument about how cleanly he won the ball?

Maybe I should have highlighted the bit in your post I was questioning. You said the foot was high, I was just pointing out it needed to be at that height to get the ball. The excessive force was not being questioned.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

Maybe I should have highlighted the bit in your post I was questioning. You said the foot was high, I was just pointing out it needed to be at that height to get the ball. The excessive force was not being questioned.

Your wasting your time Neilds, if it was the other way round, it would be "what foul" and "that's an offside any day of the week"

 

[Swango1980]

Your wasting your time Neilds, if it was the other way round, it would be "what foul" and "that's an offside any day of the week"

In my defence in this particular debate, I have no bias to want an Everton player to be sent off versus Liverpool

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Well they didn’t as both the ref and VAR thought it wasn’t red

Well they both got it wrong

Can half explain why the ref got it wrong but the VAR Ref is completely incompetent and got it very wrong

There aren’t many people saying it shouldn’t have been a red

 

[Arthur Wedge]

The ball ended up at the other end of the pitch so he got it cleanly - this means his AoA, etc was right for the ball position. You can't be a defender and try to miskick it just because you might collide with the other player.

Getting the ball cleanly is irrelevant - if someone gets the ball cleanly with a high foot and kicks someone in the head after is that ok then because they got the ball ?

Your wasting your time Neilds, if it was the other way round, it would be "what foul" and "that's an offside any day of the week"

There is no other way round

Rules are very clear

They got it very wrong on one and got it right on the other

 

[Beezerk]

Well they both got it wrong

Can half explain why the ref got it wrong but the VAR Ref is completely incompetent and got it very wrong

There aren’t many people saying it shouldn’t have been a red

I was slightly taking the pee.
A couple of years ago fans of team x were discussing how a ref had got a particular decision wrong, you came on and said words to the effect of “that was the ref’s decision so it wasn’t wrong”.
Short memory my friend

 

[Steve Wilkes]

In my defence in this particular debate, I have no bias to want an Everton player to be sent off versus Liverpool

Same here, if the ref sends him off he's off, if not he's still on, end of, regardless of team.

 

[Pin-seeker]

Liverpool didn’t get a decision,hold the back pages

 

[Arthur Wedge]

I was slightly taking the pee.
A couple of years ago fans of team x were discussing how a ref had got a particular decision wrong, you came on and said words to the effect of “that was the ref’s decision so it wasn’t wrong”.
Short memory my friend

Couple years ago ?

 

[Beezerk]

Couple years ago ?

Yes, it was so outlandish it stuck with me

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Yes, it was so outlandish it stuck with me

umm ok

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Football's new phrase book - modern language or just jargon?

From low block to high press - are these new phrases or rebadged jargon? Phil McNulty speaks to Pat Nevin and Chris Sutton to find out.

www.bbc.co.uk

Discuss!!!

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Can we add 'number 10 role'. How often is anyone actually wearing the number 10 on the pitch, never mind the person actually playing that position? Does anyone below the age of 30 get the history of it, or of any of the 1-11 numbers?

 

[Swango1980]

Can we add 'number 10 role'. How often is anyone actually wearing the number 10 on the pitch, never mind the person actually playing that position? Does anyone below the age of 30 get the history of it, or of any of the 1-11 numbers?

Amorim plays two No. 10's. Ironically, our official No. 10 is currently playing at Villa