The Footie Thread

[PaulMdj]

Yes I have seen the ref play on if there is an advantage

That wasn’t two players going in for a tackle- that was a player trying to block a shot and not getting the ball and taking the man out

But if you go in for a tackle and don’t get the ball and get the man then it’s a foul - that’s just basic football

I guess by your logic then the ref was right not to give Everton a penalty because Saliba made a genuine attempt at the ball ?

Yes in their opinion the Ref/VAR believe it was not a Pen, it’s irrelevant what I think, but by your logic, what should of Everton been given?

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Yes in their opinion the Ref/VAR believe it was not a Pen, it’s irrelevant what I think, but by your logic, what should of Everton been given?

They should have been given a penalty because Saliba missed the ball and kicked the player

 

[PaulMdj]

They should have been given a penalty because Saliba missed the ball and kicked the player

But the people that mattered on the day decided it wasn’t, a different Ref may of seen it as a pen.

Just like the VDV challenge, the ball going in the net is irrelevant if the Ref decides it’s a yellow or red card or if anywhere else on the pitch, a foul.

I don’t belive for one minute VDV had any other intention than to block the ball, what happened when they collided was awful, but an accident imo.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

But the people that mattered on the day decided it wasn’t, a different Ref may of seen it as a pen.

Just like the VDV challenge, the ball going in the net is irrelevant if the Ref decides it’s a yellow or red card or if anywhere else on the pitch, a foul.

Do you really think if someone catches a player late after they have kicked the ball it’s not a foul ?! Really ?

I don’t belive for one minute VDV had any other intention than to block the ball, what happened when they collided was awful, but an accident imo.

Not intending to take the player doesn’t mean when they do actually take the player it’s then not a foul

It’s a very basic rule in football


If that tackle happened anywhere else on the pitch then it’s blown as a foul and 99.9% of fans would be looking to see it blown as a foul - whether it’s a yellow or red will be determined on a number of other circumstances- lateness , force , height , studs showing etc

But at the very least it’s a foul all day long

 

[PaulMdj]

Do you really think if someone catches a player late after they have kicked the ball it’s not a foul ?! Really ?

Not intending to take the player doesn’t mean when they do actually take the player it’s then not a foul

It’s a very basic rule in football


If that tackle happened anywhere else on the pitch then it’s blown as a foul and 99.9% of fans would be looking to see it blown as a foul - whether it’s a yellow or red will be determined on a number of other circumstances- lateness , force , height , studs showing etc

But at the very least it’s a foul all day long

You’ve already stated of an example were a player kicks another one after the ball has gone and the Official waves play on. ie No Foul

VDV didn’t kick Isak, he attempted to block the ball, him and Isak collided due to momentum, the injury happened due his leg getting trapped

 

[Hobbit]

Look at Garyinderry’s video, VDV is not behind him, he’s coming across from the side to block the ball.
Plus my reply is in answer to Phil saying it’s definitely a foul if it happened outside the box.

It’s a late tackle, i.e. the ball had already gone when contact was made. The trailing leg goes into the back of Isak’s leg. It could be argued that it’s reckless because of the “consequence.” Note, not dangerous, but reckless.

From Law 12 -

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

Personally, I don’t think there is any intent nor disregard, but the defender is responsible for the “consequences.” I think the defender is unlucky with the consequence but it still happened. How many times have we seen a ref wait till a trainer has come on to determine the consequences before issuing a card? We’ve even seen refs change a yellow to a red because of a “consequence.” Refs have been praised for waiting.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

You’ve already stated of an example were a player kicks another one after the ball has gone and the Official waves play on. ie No Foul

VDV didn’t kick Isak, he attempted to block the ball, him and Isak collided due to momentum, the injury happened due his leg getting trapped

So he missed the ball and took the player

A referee can wave play on when a foul has been committed if there is advantage to be played




“When a player makes a tackle but misses the ball, the outcome depends on whether they make contact with the opponent instead.

Soccer (Association Football) Consequences

• Foul/Penalty: If the defender misses the ball and trips, kicks, or lunges at the opponent, a direct free kick or penalty kick is awarded.
• Card Potential: A slide tackle that misses the ball and hits the player is considered at least "careless". If it uses excessive force or endangers the safety of the opponent, it is considered "serious foul play" and warrants a red card.
• No Contact: Even if the defender misses the ball and the opponent, the act of lunging or a reckless challenge can still be penalized.

 

[Pin-seeker]

Isak’s legs do resemble uncooked spaghetti,so that could have played a factor.
Just saying

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

Saliba on the Everton player wasn’t a foul, VDV was a genuine attempt at a block his trail leg does not create a scissor motion. It’s just one of those unfortunate moments in football it can be argued all day long but ultimately it’s an accident it happens the world and sport over.

It won’t be the first or last time and this debate like others will rage on as if as fans we can’t agree how the hell are you expecting referees who are also human to! Unless all contact is a foul this will never change.

 

[Hobbit]

Saliba on the Everton player wasn’t a foul, VDV was a genuine attempt at a block his trail leg does not create a scissor motion. It’s just one of those unfortunate moments in football it can be argued all day long but ultimately it’s an accident it happens the world and sport over.

It won’t be the first or last time and this debate like others will rage on as if as fans we can’t agree how the hell are you expecting referees who are also human to! Unless all contact is a foul this will never change.

Your last sentence is one that is right but, as you say, will be argued far and wide. Even the rules could be read several ways. Ultimately the ref has to make a judgement call. Is it careless, is it with intent, is it reckless, is it dangerous, is it violent? Pick the bones out of that lot.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Your last sentence is one that is right but, as you say, will be argued far and wide. Even the rules could be read several ways. Ultimately the ref has to make a judgement call. Is it careless, is it with intent, is it reckless, is it dangerous, is it violent? Pick the bones out of that lot.

I don’t think it’s a red card - maybe more an orange card but if it was given a red I could see why

If it happens elsewhere then I reckon it might have been a different outcome

You can see why some would see it as a scissor tackle but I don’t think it is

 

[PaulMdj]

It’s a late tackle, i.e. the ball had already gone when contact was made. The trailing leg goes into the back of Isak’s leg. It could be argued that it’s reckless because of the “consequence.” Note, not dangerous, but reckless.

From Law 12 -

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

Personally, I don’t think there is any intent nor disregard, but the defender is responsible for the “consequences.” I think the defender is unlucky with the consequence but it still happened. How many times have we seen a ref wait till a trainer has come on to determine the consequences before issuing a card? We’ve even seen refs change a yellow to a red because of a “consequence.” Refs have been praised for waiting.

But he wasn’t cautioned for the tackle, therefore the Ref at the time didn’t see it as reckless.

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

Your last sentence is one that is right but, as you say, will be argued far and wide. Even the rules could be read several ways. Ultimately the ref has to make a judgement call. Is it careless, is it with intent, is it reckless, is it dangerous, is it violent? Pick the bones out of that lot.

Exactly if we can’t agree how are we excepting anyone to.

But to answer all your questions my view is no to all of them it was genuine attempt at a block and sadly it’s Justine of those things but there my individual opinion ends and I don’t expect to be agreed with by all but some will

 

[PaulMdj]

So he missed the ball and took the player

A referee can wave play on when a foul has been committed if there is advantage to be played




“When a player makes a tackle but misses the ball, the outcome depends on whether they make contact with the opponent instead.

Soccer (Association Football) Consequences

• Foul/Penalty: If the defender misses the ball and trips, kicks, or lunges at the opponent, a direct free kick or penalty kick is awarded.
• Card Potential: A slide tackle that misses the ball and hits the player is considered at least "careless". If it uses excessive force or endangers the safety of the opponent, it is considered "serious foul play" and warrants a red card.
• No Contact: Even if the defender misses the ball and the opponent, the act of lunging or a reckless challenge can still be penalized.

You’re going round in circles, you’ve already disagreed with yourself.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

You’re going round in circles, you’ve already disagreed with yourself.

when did I disagree with myself

 

[PaulMdj]

when did I disagree with myself

You keep quoting the Laws and explanations about Foul/Penalty, ie post#91107, as if that’s all that matters, ie: then you know Saliba fits that definition and nothing was given.

Pretty pointless quoting them when you know Football at the top level isn’t that straightforward.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

You keep quoting the Laws and explanations about Foul/Penalty, ie post#91107, as if that’s all that matters, ie: then you know Saliba fits that definition and nothing was given.

Pretty pointless quoting them when you know Football at the top level isn’t that straightforward.

And Saliba was an error imo

And the Laws do matter

It’s very clear that if a player goes to tackle or block the ball and takes out the player instead it’s a foul

Not sure why anyone would think it’s not a foul

 

[PaulMdj]

And Saliba was an error imo

And the Laws do matter

It’s very clear that if a player goes to tackle or block the ball and takes out the player instead it’s a foul

Not sure why anyone would think it’s not a foul

Obviously loads do think it wasn’t a foul and all for the reasons they’ve stated.

That’s the beauty of the game, somethings are down to interpretation.

 

[AmandaJR]

Probably a good time to agree to disagree

 

[Pin-seeker]

Probably a good time to agree to disagree

You not enjoying the “great debate”?