Tottenham vs Liverpool FC - EPL - Sept 30 [R]

I see the other side of the argument and thats why these types of calls are so subjective but once again I'll come back to the fact that football is still a contact sport and there will be occasions where players make contact incidental to the play with no malice or intent. These should be viewed as accidental contacts and not be punished with ejection from the match.

For example two players jumping for the ball and an errant elbow connects with an opponent, purely accidental -often not even called as a foul. Or when we see a keeper jumping for a high cross and literally cleaning out the attacker which can often be a seriously physical collision which rarely is a foul..

It's why 'intent' has always been a factor when deciding these calls so if the contact from Jones has been the result of his heel rolling over the ball then Curtis has never intended to nail Bissouma but he cannot avoid the laws of physics once his heel hits the ball.

 

Shitty ref .......what was it 7 yellows and 2 reds .

 

that's just dumb.

if Player A lifts his foot to try to block the ball and at that second is knocked off balance, and as a result his studs hit the opponent - how is he "responsible for where his studs end up"?

Jones' momentum caused his foot to roll over the ball. there was no intent whatso-bloody-ever.

 

more crap.

he went into the challenge with his FOOT off the ground (it's hard to lift your foot and not have your studs off the ground isn't it?).

his studs never faced the oppo guy until his foot rolled over the ball.

stop with this nonsense. watch the damn video!

 

see post 496.

and do try to keep up, eh?

 

Pedant

 

Looks like the guilty refs have been suspended (for now)

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMjmLwbTA/

 

Deadspin...the "Coup de Moron"

https://deadspin.com/premier-league-round-7-var-tottenham-liverpool-1850892270

 

Of course, that’s why I said the rugby TMO doesn’t map precisely onto football. For one thing you can grab the man with the ball and pound him into the ground. At present in football, only Manchester United players are allowed do this.

I suppose the point I was trying to illuminate here was that in rugby you can’t claim lack of intent as mitigation and there’s a duty of care to the opponent. I can see something like that coming into football - tailored to football obviously - and it’s kinda already there with high foot where contact is not necessarily required for a foul.

I think it’s very obvious that Curtis didn’t go in with intent, didn’t follow through to crunch the shin and by pretty much every yardstick was trying to win the ball and not injure his opponent. But the ref viewed that as dangerous play deserving of a red. Which is a stretch.

The ref doesn’t get there in my opinion under football rules, he would under rugby rules and I think football is going to move closer to the rugby standard than the present football one.

And then VAR f.ucked the whole thing up with their PowerPoint freezeframe presentation, but that’s a whole ‘nother story.

 

I don’t think the reference to rugby is meant to consider the ‘duty of care’ aspect, rather simply how transparent the officiating process is. Obviously would need to consider the differences in sport.

There was a point earlier in the thread around whether this would be feasible in the EPL given the general incompetence. I’d argue, by implementing a transparent system similar to rugby, match officials and VAR would actually improve, as they would need to talk through every significant decision. Yes - they may still get that wrong in the view of fans but would serve as an important training tool.

 

You’ve said it a lot more elegantly (and with fewer words!) than I ever could have! Precisely what I mean about rugby and how learning from their TMO/VAR could help us.

 

VAR tapes sent to Anfield.

 

In other news the Spurs victory parade has been set for 1:00pm Thursday and decorations are being set up across Tottenham.

 

Harry Kane’s even returning for the open topped bus.

 

Has he claimed the winning goal yet?

 

Can’t make it, but the Spurs shop says the DVD will be out on Monday.

 

Fortunately or Unfortunately I think this is exactly where we are. If your actions result in danger to the health of your opponent it can always be a red card in a VAR world. Basically I try think how would we react if it were the other way. I suspect we'd all be pointing to his foot on the ankle saying "doesn't matter how he ended up there that's a red card".

 

Several PGMOL luminaries have been invited to ride on the open topped bus.

 

But EVERY challenge could seriously injure someone.
Two players running full gas, one with the ball cuts and as the defender stops, his foot lands on his opponents foot . Red card because he COULD break his metatarsal if he stands on it?
The crowd drew a collective breath and Cisse's leg gave out. Red card because the defense was chasing him and forced him to use excessive force in his gait to escape them? Where does your logic end?

 

But isn’t this the exact problem? Except for the most one-eyed Spurs fans and the ref, pretty much everyone else didn’t see the Jones tackle as deserving of a red card. As I’ve said, in rugby, he’d be gone. But that’s rugby and we’re playing football.

But there is the question of intent and duty of care/responsibilty to the opponent. It’s difficult, but not impossible, to measure intent; equally it’s difficult, but not impossible, to measure duty of care/responsibilty. But both of those judgements in football are going to be largely subjective. How do you thread the needle of injury to an opponent versus a game where physical contact is allowed? Rugby gets it right, but not 100%, for its code. In its present form, football is a complete mess on this subject.

For every Fabinho/Ferguson tackle, there’s a Jones/Bissouma tackle. The game got both of them wrong.