2019/20 Andre Gomes

[Tipp blue]

I see it like this.

Did Sons tackle directly snapped Gomes ankle? No
Did he contribute to it? Yes
Did he mean it? No
Was the tackle he made on Gomes a yellow card tackle? Yes
Was it the unfortunate landing body position that caused the ankle to break? Yes
If Gomes never fell awkwardly would we be having this debate? No

I’m judging it by the tackle not the injury

You forgot the most important question..
Did Son go in with intent to get the ball? NO he went in to get the man with a lunge from behind nowhere near the ball and got the man, red card every time.
Gomes did fall awkwardly and even if he didn't Son should still have been sent off.

 

[mahermi1]

Did Son make any attempt to win the ball? No.

That's the issue. It's not a mistimed challenge it's a deliberate trip on Gomes in retaliation. He's kicked out in frustration because he got hit in the face a few moments earlier. His act of petulance has caused a year long layoff.

Intent and how many times we see it every week are irrelevant purely because we don't see these type of injuries every week. Actions have consequences, sadly for us it's resulted in one of our players facing a lengthy lay off. For Son? He will be playing tomorrow safe in the knowledge that Coleman said it wasn't his fault and everybody is buzzing he's back smiling.

That's just what I thought, still out of character for Son, but the damage is done, one of our best players is out of action for up to a year.

 

[ossie_21]

All this talk of Son being the victim makes me fume. Once again we are on the poor end of a joke decision.

 

[PhilM]

I can only assume those who don't think it's a red agree that lunges on ankles away from the ball are acceptable to stop counter attacks?

Essentially you're saying you can launch in off your feet rather than shirt pulls or barges and it should still just be the same punishment - taking a yellow for the team.

I don't get the views here. Son went to do him. It wasn't a cynical professional foul. It was an attempt to leave one on Gomes.

There is a varying degree of what constitutes a yellow card and what doesn't. Unless we have a sin bin scenario, lesser 'crimes' will receive the same punishment.

Was it okay for him to tackle like that? No, hence why Atkinson was reaching for the yellow, but the point is does the initial challenge warrant a sending off?

Like @JLW mentioned, if he wasn't injured then we wouldn't even be talking about it. We would praise Garth Barry for cynical professional fouls every game.

Did he ever attempt to win the ball when teams were breaking against us on the half-way line? Did he heck, and rightfully he would be booked nearly each game.

Don't get me wrong, Son's was pretty rash, but personally I still don't think it constituted a red card as it wasn't violent conduct and no studs were showing etc.

If it were the other way around, I seriously doubt people on here would be saying our player would be worthy of a ban and would be calling it an accident. Pot, kettle.

 

[JLW]

Did Son make any attempt to win the ball? No.

That's the issue. It's not a mistimed challenge it's a deliberate trip on Gomes in retaliation. He's kicked out in frustration because he got hit in the face a few moments earlier. His act of petulance has caused a year long layoff.

Intent and how many times we see it every week are irrelevant purely because we don't see these type of injuries every week. Actions have consequences, sadly for us it's resulted in one of our players facing a lengthy lay off. For Son? He will be playing tomorrow safe in the knowledge that Coleman said it wasn't his fault and everybody is buzzing he's back smiling.

Agreed! he never it was a retaliation for what happened a couple of minutes before, if his ankle was snapped from the impact from Son then that’s a different story! Again mate I’m judging it on the tackle not the injury after the tackle

 

[magicjuan]

There are incredibly dangerous tackles that cause no injury.

And fairly innocuous tackles that lead to horrendous injuries.

This was clearly the latter. You can’t base the punishment on the extent of the injury, and thankfully that’s not how the authorities outside of Football work too.

innocuous
/ɪˈnɒkjʊəs/
adjective

1. not harmful or offensive.
   
   Your understanding of English isn't helping you is it?
   
   
   
   
   

 

[larbert toffee]

I don’t think it was a red card. That said Spurs an Son are a joke with the whole media nonsense poor broken Son.

I think they should have just took the Ban knowing it wasn’t a red but also knowing he played a massive part (because he was fuming about what he fought was a elbow) in Gomes getting his ankle broke an missed his three games an drew a line under it. Instead he had to cry like a little bitch an play the whole am the victim.

An am not going to debate it with anyone who feels different am a Everton fan I only care about Everton an Gomes. Spurs an that little crying fanny can go an suck a d**k.

 

[BernieH]

This is unfortunate.

You are confused, i agree.

 

[street end]

“A tackle from behind which endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play. Acts of serious foul play are punishable by a red card”. Just saying. Oh it’s against Everton they will be ok with it, forget the red card.

 

[Lanolin]

I understand your argument, however the glaringly obvious flaw in your argument is that the rules of the game aren't purely based on the consequence.

Like I said, whether it's the case in law in the criminal sense or not is irrelevant if it isn't as defined in the rules of the game. It really all boils down to balance.

There's a huge difference between a tackle that is overtly dangerous, where injury is likely, and a tackle that is not overtly dangerous but causes injury.

If he hadn't caught him would it have warranted a red? Does that not remove the issue of intent and whether the tackle was, in the general context, dangerous?

"I know I went in two footed, high and at pace and nearly snapped his leg, but luckily I only skinned him so and wasn't injured so no red" That's the same logic.

For me, it was a cynical tackle from behind to deliberately stop play like so many others are, but not to the degree of a red; yet, unfortunately Gomes was injured.

Was it serious foul play? Was it violent conduct? That's the letter of the law (go and check the FA) and unless it can be proven, then it's a yellow.

The laws of football are subject to interpretation. You’re saying the laws aren’t purely down to consequence and claiming that is a ‘glaringly obvious flaw’ in what I’m saying, conveniently ignoring that at no point have I said or even suggested that’s the case. So it’s not a flaw at all really is it? Its just you constructing a straw man argument.

The law says you can be sent off for endangering an opponent. I’m saying that it’s hardly outlandish to say that a player ending up seriously injured as a direct result of your tackle means that you endangered them, and therefore a red card can easily be justified.

You’re welcome to disagree with my conclusion, but you’re not welcome to suggest that there’s a logical flaw to my argument because there isn’t. You can interpret the law differently but don’t try to put what you’re saying across as a fact, it isn’t.

 

[TheBigIguana]

There is a varying degree of what constitutes a yellow card and what doesn't. Unless we have a sin bin scenario, lesser 'crimes' will receive the same punishment.

Was it okay for him to tackle like that? No, hence why Atkinson was reaching for the yellow, but the point is does the initial challenge warrant a sending off?

Like @JLW mentioned, if he wasn't injured then we wouldn't even be talking about it. We would praise Garth Barry for cynical professional fouls every game.

Did he ever attempt to win the ball when teams were breaking against us on the half-way line? Did he heck, and rightfully he would be booked nearly each game.

Don't get me wrong, Son's was pretty rash, but personally I still don't think it constituted a red card as it wasn't violent conduct and no studs were showing etc.

If it were the other way around, I seriously doubt people on here would be saying our player would be worthy of a ban and would be calling it an accident. Pot, kettle.

But he was injured. There's no point in discussing what would have happened if he wasn't injured because that isn't what happened.

In ice hockey a high stick that draws blood is a more severe penalty than one that doesn't. It's the same concept here. Maybe if Andre is fine we can say the challenge didn't endanger his safety but that didn't happen. He was injured badly so clearly he was endangered and it should have been red.

 

[Tipp blue]

There is a varying degree of what constitutes a yellow card and what doesn't. Unless we have a sin bin scenario, lesser 'crimes' will receive the same punishment.

Was it okay for him to tackle like that? No, hence why Atkinson was reaching for the yellow, but the point is does the initial challenge warrant a sending off?

Like @JLW mentioned, if he wasn't injured then we wouldn't even be talking about it. We would praise Garth Barry for cynical professional fouls every game.

Did he ever attempt to win the ball when teams were breaking against us on the half-way line? Did he heck, and rightfully he would be booked nearly each game.

Don't get me wrong, Son's was pretty rash, but personally I still don't think it constituted a red card as it wasn't violent conduct and no studs were showing etc.

No studs were showing.. I count 8

 

[TheBlueGibbon]

There are incredibly dangerous tackles that cause no injury.

And fairly innocuous tackles that lead to horrendous injuries.

This was clearly the latter. You can’t base the punishment on the extent of the injury, and thankfully that’s not how the authorities outside of Football work too.

This is literally what happens in (for instance) GBH cases in England and Wales:

Factors indicating greater harm

• Injury (which includes disease transmission and/or psychological harm) which is serious in the context of the offence (must normally be present)
• Victim is particularly vulnerable because of personal circumstances
• Sustained or repeated assault on the same victim

Factors indicating lesser harm

• Injury which is less serious in the context of the offence

It's a standard condition of (most) justice systems that the severity of the injury inflicted upon the victim plays a role in determining the sentence.

 

[Deleted member 38674]

innocuous
/ɪˈnɒkjʊəs/
adjective

1. not harmful or offensive.
   
   Your understanding of English isn't helping you is it?
   
   
   

An “innocuous challenge” is a common phrase in sports journalism mate.

In fact, a quick google search brings up several articles using that phrase to describe this very incident.

“The South Korean was left distraught and has been offered counselling after the seemingly innocuous challenge.....”

Good effort mind, at least we’re all learning.

 

[JLW]

You forgot the most important question..
Did Son go in with intent to get the ball? NO he went in to get the man with a lunge from behind nowhere near the ball and got the man, red card every time.
Gomes did fall awkwardly and even if he didn't Son should still have been sent off.

Sorry mate I disagree, if Gomes got up in no way was that red card