mu4c_20le
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2013
- Messages
- 46,746
Got to defend the drawWhy Amrabat and not Mount. I don’t get it. At least Mount can bring the ball forward.
Got to defend the drawWhy Amrabat and not Mount. I don’t get it. At least Mount can bring the ball forward.
Commentator asking Savage what it's like to play with 10 men.......cnut was usually the one that was sent off!
Commentator asking Savage what it's like to play with 10 men.......cnut was usually the one that was sent off!
Commentator asking Savage what it's like to play with 10 men.......cnut was usually the one that was sent off!
Commentator asking Savage what it's like to play with 10 men.......cnut was usually the one that was sent off!
The Copenhagen manager looks like a painter and decorator that fecks off mid-job after taking your money.
Commentator asking Savage what it's like to play with 10 men.......cnut was usually the one that was sent off!
Commentator asking Savage what it's like to play with 10 men.......cnut was usually the one that was sent off!
Their opinions are also matching what Preben Elkjær and Michael Laudrup said on Danish TV. Most former players don't see that as a red at all.
Really? Where were the other 5 in this first half? It was a clear red.
When you shield the ball and your studs go into someone's ankle, that's given as a red. That definitely does not happen dozens of times a game.
That's a blatant red (in the current year) and I'm shocked at so many people saying it's not.
Sending-off offences
A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:
- denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)
- denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)
- serious foul play
- biting or spitting at someone
- violent conduct
- using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or action(s)
- receiving a second caution in the same match
- entering the video operation room (VOR)
Violent conduct
Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.
In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.
Serious foul play
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.
We have 10 men.We desperately lack creativity in the middle of the park
Dayum!Commentator asking Savage what it's like to play with 10 men.......cnut was usually the one that was sent off!
Rashford was the only player that tried to shield the ball that half?
The outcome is what's decided this, and that shouldn't be the case.
No it isn't.
Here are the reasons a referee can issue a red card:
Rashford didn't deny a goal or obvious goal-scoring opportunity, didn't bite or spit, didn't use offensive language, didn't receive a second yellow, and didn't enter the video operation room.
That leaves us with it being either violent conduct or serious foul play.
Here's the definition of violent conduct:
And it clearly wasn't that.
So that leaves serious foul play:
Firstly, it wasn't even a tackle or challenge. He had possession of the ball and was shielding it. However he was challenged by the opponent.
Secondly, as I pointed out, that exact motion to shield the ball will happen many times a match. The only way it "endangers the safety of an opponent" is if an opponent is simply incredibly unlucky in how their own challenge positions their leg in relation to the player shielding the ball. It's a massive, massive stretch to try and fit shielding the ball into this definition of serious foul play.
It's there to stop players flying into tackles and then going "I won the ball" after glancing it slightly. Not punish a player because an opponent happened to stick his leg under their studs.
As for the rest of it, it wasn't "excessive force or brutality" and it wasn't a lunge.
Both our midfielders scared of turning with the ball to progress it. We’re not gonna create a lot.
Oh that explains it then. I turned the match on as Højlund scored his second. Just assumed it was down to more VAR nonsense.A pitch invader.
3 goals
A sending off
And a guy nearly dying in the crowd!
Wow, thanks for that insightful update. I'm not sure how that invalidates what I said. Or are you delighted with our middle of the park creativity?We have 10 men.
We have 10 men.
No, we are shite. Clearly creative in the first 40 mins however.Wow, thanks for that insightful update. I'm not sure how that invalidates what I said. Or are you delighted with our middle of the park creativity?
So much whiners on here, it’s red in 10 out of 10 cases. Pen is „soft“ but also ok.
Problem is the collapsing, no need to collapse after a red card against Kopenhagen
Obviously.Yeah, we're losing this game.
Only question is will it be 3-2 or 4-2Yeah, we're losing this game.
People were attacking Spurs, with how they played on Monday with 9 men.Struggling to get ball out of defence. Also they’re getting past our attackers and midfield too easily
Donatas Rumsas