|
Post by mcw on Jun 29, 2021 23:12:25 GMT
Come off it mate it’s a shocking tackle It wasn’t even a foul. Things are getting beyond ridiculous. His eyes are on the ball as he stretches to clear it and he has no intent to injure the other player. It is pure misfortune that the other player arrives as he has cleared the ball and his momentum carries him into the player. If that was a red, then so was the incident later on when the Ukrainian player slid studs first into the Swedish player’s chest in their box. However that was correctly determined as just a coming together. Don’t get me started on Portugal’s penalty where Lloris came as he had to to punch the ball, got it and then was penalised for dangerous play for connecting with the defenders head afterwards
|
|
|
Post by musik on Jun 30, 2021 0:31:07 GMT
The tv host had the referee manual in the studio, and read the text applied in the specific debated situation.
Danielsson was apparently "responsible for his own body, and it doesn't matter if he had no intention to give the other player an injury or if he hit the ball first."
"The player is responsible for his own body"
🤔
|
|
|
Post by musik on Jun 30, 2021 0:33:10 GMT
Sweden vs Ukraine in Euro 2020 Fingers crossed. My nightmare is a red card. I'm psychic
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jun 30, 2021 3:01:13 GMT
Sorry your boys got knocked out musik Had to work after England game so missed it, but a last minute goal's always a gut punch.
|
|
|
Post by thehoof on Jun 30, 2021 8:33:16 GMT
If it's dangerous play it's a red card regardless of intent This isn't a new rule. The only discussion to be had here is do you consider that to be dangerous play or not In my view every ref would send him off No. Not in a million years is that dangerous play, and it should never be classed that way either. It’s not dangerous play, but the guy on the receiving end is now ruled out of the tournament? The defender didn’t intend to injure him, but the end result shows that it was dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jun 30, 2021 8:36:48 GMT
No. Not in a million years is that dangerous play, and it should never be classed that way either. It’s not dangerous play, but the guy on the receiving end is now ruled out of the tournament? The defender didn’t intend to injure him, but the end result shows that it was dangerous. Or the guy who got injured was very late to the tackle ? All seems a bit Shawcross/Ramsey and we all backed Shawcross on that one didn't we ?
|
|
|
Post by thehoof on Jun 30, 2021 8:40:31 GMT
It’s not dangerous play, but the guy on the receiving end is now ruled out of the tournament? The defender didn’t intend to injure him, but the end result shows that it was dangerous. Or the guy who got injured was very late to the tackle ? All seems a bit Shawcross/Ramsey and we all backed Shawcross on that one didn't we ? Read the post- I said he didn’t mean it, but it was dangerous. That was clearly the case with the Shawcross tackle which arose due to the fact that he was held back by the danish centre forward. Your leg doesn’t break without contact, however much we’d like to pretend it does.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2021 8:47:34 GMT
red for me, high and dangerous but unlucky. Phillips was lucky with one I thought. Ukraine decent going forward, won't be a stroll. Sweden would have been a tougher task though, weren't too bad a side but red card killed them
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Jun 30, 2021 11:46:10 GMT
I was gutted for musik and also for our band of Swedish Stokies. It was like Stoke losing to me. ;(
OS.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2021 12:14:01 GMT
No. Not in a million years is that dangerous play, and it should never be classed that way either. It’s not dangerous play, but the guy on the receiving end is now ruled out of the tournament? The defender didn’t intend to injure him, but the end result shows that it was dangerous. So we are sending players off these days then on the basis that the opponent got injured? That's not right surely?
|
|
|
Post by thehoof on Jun 30, 2021 17:38:36 GMT
It’s not dangerous play, but the guy on the receiving end is now ruled out of the tournament? The defender didn’t intend to injure him, but the end result shows that it was dangerous. So we are sending players off these days then on the basis that the opponent got injured? That's not right surely? We are sending them off for dangerous play Vincent- I know you don’t agree, but even the defender’s trailing foot was off the ground when he made the challenge. It’s not a new rule- defender’s know this, and as Musik himself said, even the Swedish commentators saw it as a straight red. Not too many people get ruled out of games as a result of fair tackles, but if you can name some, then I’ve no reason to disagree with you.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2021 17:50:17 GMT
So we are sending players off these days then on the basis that the opponent got injured? That's not right surely? We are sending them off for dangerous play Vincent- I know you don’t agree, but even the defender’s trailing foot was off the ground when he made the challenge. It’s not a new rule- defender’s know this, and as Musik himself said, even the Swedish commentators saw it as a straight red. Not too many people get ruled out of games as a result of fair tackles, but if you can name some, then I’ve no reason to disagree with you. It wasn't a challenge or a tackle.
|
|
|
Post by thehoof on Jun 30, 2021 17:55:53 GMT
We are sending them off for dangerous play Vincent- I know you don’t agree, but even the defender’s trailing foot was off the ground when he made the challenge. It’s not a new rule- defender’s know this, and as Musik himself said, even the Swedish commentators saw it as a straight red. Not too many people get ruled out of games as a result of fair tackles, but if you can name some, then I’ve no reason to disagree with you. It wasn't a challenge or a tackle. What was it then- and how did he make such contact?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2021 18:35:54 GMT
It wasn't a challenge or a tackle. What was it then- and how did he make such contact? It was a clearance, that if any defender in a team of mine didn't go for, I'd go fucking ape shit at. Then because he had stretch for it and go to ground his follow through (which it's impossible to stop) caught an onrushing player. Completely unfortunate accident that can happen at any given time during a "contact" sport such as football.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Jun 30, 2021 18:36:25 GMT
Further discussed today and even if Lineker thought it wasn't a red card, and I had a gut feeling myself saying it wasn't a red initially,
they apparently followed the referee manual, which says: the player is responsible for his own body, so it really doesn't matter if he hits the ball first if the other player is in danger.
That rule is a new one to me. Anyway, that's why he was sent off.
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Jul 1, 2021 11:00:13 GMT
First time I'd seen it was this morning and can see what the rule is trying to achieve but this sending off surely wasn't that? What they're trying to get rid of there is where the old skool defender got a stud on the ball and the other nine on the attacker. The other thing was surely the Ukrainian was just as culpable arriving a week late - if the Swedish defender had been injured too in the same incident would the Ukrainian have had to go too?
Another glaring issue is what was the Swedish guy meant to do just let it bounce and chase it when he had a legitimate chance of getting his foot to it?
The other thing is this rule could easily be exploited - all it takes is for a defender to be stretching and an opposition player to stage manage a screaming triple salchow after the ball is long gone.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Jul 1, 2021 11:05:45 GMT
What was it then- and how did he make such contact? It was a clearance, that if any defender in a team of mine didn't go for, I'd go fucking ape shit at. Then because he had stretch for it and go to ground his follow through (which it's impossible to stop) caught an onrushing player. Completely unfortunate accident that can happen at any given time during a "contact" sport such as football. I've actually changed my mind on this one the slow mo didn't do the challenge justice and I agree the attacker was late and connected with the defender rather than the other way round . Its a tough one but the rule "in control of your body" must apply to both not just the "defender" clearing the ball.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Jul 1, 2021 22:43:20 GMT
What was it then- and how did he make such contact? It was a clearance, that if any defender in a team of mine didn't go for, I'd go fucking ape shit at. Then because he had stretch for it and go to ground his follow through (which it's impossible to stop) caught an onrushing player. Completely unfortunate accident that can happen at any given time during a "contact" sport such as football. Absolutely correct. This decision is just worrying. The defender volleyed the ball and the attacker ran into him and injured himself. Terrible decision. But my question is... why was the Ukraine goalscorer wearing a bra?
|
|