2019/20 Andre Gomes

[mahermi1]

was it a red card ..

Yes

Fixed it for you Frank..

 

[JLW]

I don’t doubt it, but that’s not the point is it? All I’m saying is that there’s a rational argument that it’s a red, and making out that there isn’t is weird.

Mate we are going round in circles and we will never agree on this! I Respect your argument

 

[sageyefc]

Spurs absolutely taking the mick here as well, Southern kopites these lot.

Really looks distraught this feller doesn’t he, not a care in the world absolute scumbag

 

[magicjuan]

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.

So, because, surprise, surprise, journalists use the word incorrectly it makes it ok for you to do so?
You've gone from a mild irritation to full blown fungal crotch rot overnight.
Indeed we are learning

 

[Deleted member 38674]

Really looks distraught this feller doesn’t he, not a care in the world absolute scumbag

How should he look?

 

[bilyaletdinov_]

How should he look?

It’s not a case of how he should look. It’s more a case that it’s been widely reported that he is completely cut up about the situation, been offered counselling, etc - these photos of him looking almost jovial kind of contradict that narrative don’t they?

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

Frankly, I'm sick of FA's decisions going against Everton. An Everton would have been given a several games ban had it been the other way round. One rule for one and another rule for Everton. VARS a joke and the FA a joke.

I think the first step is create a thread where we can record all the corrupt decisions made by the FA and their Officials so that we can never forget their illogical decisions.

The first step to what?

 

[Deleted member 38674]

So, because, surprise, surprise, journalists use the word incorrectly it makes it ok for you to do so?
You've gone from a mild irritation to full blown fungal crotch rot overnight.
Indeed we are learning

Perhaps it’s not okay for me to use it. I’ll take it under advisement and be mindful how I use the phrase “innocuous challenge” in future.

I grew up on the likes of John Motson, Tony Gubba and Barry Davies using that phrase during commentary every week.

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

For me the club should be using this as an opportunity to instill that siege mentality, 17th in the league, everything is going against us, key players crocked. We need something to help us turn the corner. Politely getting on with it without kicking up a stink is only going to encourage these sorts of decisions and allow us to continue to be walked over.

Anyway, good news with the surgery and the prognosis of full recovery. Hope we see him back in blue asap as hes a key player for us and appears to be a genuinely top top bloke.

Agree with both parts, with the first, however, I would keep all this stuff internal. No point getting fines, touchline bans etc. But if we fume about this, players/staff must too/.

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

Can we now stop pretending that Son is anything other then an absolute bellend who acts like a child and weeps crocodile tears after he's caught doing somthing bad, then makes himself out to be the victim and is all smiles and laughter after he thinks its over and people have let it go?

Utter bellend of a man. I wish nothing but professional misfortune on Son and Spurs in general now.

 

[Deleted member 38674]

It’s not a case of how he should look. It’s more a case that it’s been widely reported that he is completely cut up about the situation, been offered counselling, etc - these photos of him looking almost jovial kind of contradict that narrative don’t they?

If you’re receiving counselling, you do still have fleeting moments of joy and can laugh and joke too.

Maybe it’s a lesson to learn for Spurs social media team, they should have taken some pictures of him looking pensive and staring into the distance.

Or taken some pictures of other players perhaps. What an odd thing to have to consider.

 

[PhilM]

If you knock someone off balance with a deliberate foul and they break a leg yes that should be punished with a red card

Whether it should be or not is not the matter at hand: is that the wording/interpretation of the rules and laws of the game? We should try and be objective.

I can see that you’re an intelligent bloke so I’m not sure if you’re being deliberately obtuse or I’m just not making myself clear.

Son’s tackle, in my opinion, can be deemed reckless. He’s left the ground, his studs are up, he’s lunging at a player with no intention of playing the ball. I think he intends to hurt him - not badly, just superficially - rather than making a tactical foul. It’s a yellow for the actual tackle, not for stopping a break. Because of the nature of the foul it is not unreasonable to say he has endangered a player, because he wasn’t in control of the situation.

In your example, Mina would be in control of the situation, making a tactical foul Is different, it’s only a yellow because you stopped the attack, not for the foul. Tugging a shirt cannot ever really be seen as reckless. A better example would be if Mina shoved him in the back, and the player went over the advertising hoardings, collided with another player or the post, getting hurt in the process. In that case yes, I think a red would be justified.

Genuinely, I am not wanting to appear obtuse (or be it) and I do understand your point, however my issue is that people are directly jumping to the consequence.

You talked about drink driving, so if you would let me put it into another context for you regarding law, where in each case a man dies, my point may be clearer:

1. A defendant takes a knife and in a pre-mediated attack stabs someone causing death.
2. A defendant takes a knife and in an unplanned attack stabs someone causing death.
3. A defendant in a pre-mediated attack repeatedly punches a defenceless victim, including when on the ground, causing death.
4. A defendant in an unplanned attack (confrontation etc.) punches the victim once causing the victim to collapse, bang their head and die.

The first three would be pushed for murder because the wording under common law is an intention "to cause either death or serious injury unlawfully.'

Big custodial for the first two, but the second while having no intent carries the likelihood that you will cause serious injury by acting in a manner.

That would either be murder or manslaughter - the push would be for the former and rightly. By using a knife, you must expect to cause serious injury or death.

The fourth, while causing death, would in many cases be involuntary manslaughter due to reduced mens rea - a reduced intention to do wrong and cause harm.

Basically, would all four actions justify the same punishment? All would likely to endanger the person and have ultimately caused the same result.

However, quite rightly the consequence is not the deciding factor and rather intent and many other mitigating factors are brought into a complex process.

I think where it boils down to is our perspective of the first challenge; personally while I have said it was rash, I simply do not think it meets the threshold for a red.

Did he in making the tackle, with reasonable forethought, have the intent to cause serious injury or did the tackle itself show a likelihood of causing serious injury?

For me, it's again a no because so many similar tackles happen in football all the time, where injury does not occur and if so no where near to that extent.

Why I mentioned the Mina scenario is simple: the offence and the consequence are not intrinsically linked, which has been my point throughout.

If I genuinely believe Son had committed a terrible tackle knowing it could injure and he did so, then rightfully I would demand that he'd get a lengthy, lengthy ban.

If I genuinely believe Son had committed a terrible tackle knowing it could injure but hadn't injured him, then rightfully I would demand that he'd get a ban.

But because the first aspect is in my humble opinion not of that sort, then I don't feel that he is deserving of a ban. That's me trying to be objective.

 

[toffee-L]

Interesting precedent the FA have layed down with this one, Martin Atkinson brandished the red card purely because of the injury - I'm sure there must have been a law floating around in his mind that he believed gave him justification for doing so. So the FA have now determined the a challenge that causes serious injury is no different in isolation to any other challenge of the same type.

My initial feeling at the time was that the challenge was no more than a yellow card. I get what people are saying with regards to the challenge coming from behind, but to be honest I believe that law was only brought in to outlaw 'scissor' challenges where players were bringing one leg around around the front and the other from the back which had a locking effect on an opposing players standing leg, making the risk of serious injury far worse. In real terms, that particular law is virtually never considered. How many times have you seen a striker, trying to shield the ball when a pass is played into him, get totally wiped out from behind by a centre back?

If you want to get yourself a straight red card, in my mind there are 3 pretty standard prerequisites:

1. Lead with the studs. I know people having been posting that freeze frame to try and claim Son did that - but he didn't. To lead with the studs, you have to actually catch the guy with your studs, or make an attempt to - which Son does not appear to do. Son catches the side of Gomes' leg with the side of his boot, causing him to lose balance.
2. Straight leg. The impact is far worse as much more force is generated if your leg goes in straight, which is deemed a 'lunge'. Referees will often deem that you're completely out of control if you fly in with a planted, straight leg. The leg Son leads with in his attempt to take Gomes out appears to always be bent at the knee.
3. Leaving the floor. Think that horrible little goblin, Dirk Kuyt, on Phil Neville - or perhaps not as he got away with that one bizarrely. If you leave the floor with both feet, under normal circumstances then you'll be going for an early bath. Again, Son does not 'jump' off the floor, he falls into the tackle off his standing leg.

There are other examples of cause, such as the speed you rush into challenges to or going in with both feet for example, but in general, 1 or a combination of the 3 examples above is what will get you your red card. I don't believe Son is guilty of any of the three. I think the only case you can make for the red card is that Son intended to hurt Gomes, and I just don't believe that's an argument you can make. He wanted to foul him, of course he did - and that's why he deserves his yellow, but any further than that I just can't personally make a case for it.

I take major issue with that tweet from Spurs though. There is a time and a place, and in a Champions League squad you have 24 others you can take a few poser pictures of, but in your tweet of just 4 images you include the guy who's most under the microscope front and centre in all four!? I know they will turn round and say "it's the Champions League, he was eligible to play anyway" but surely some common sense and some sensitivity could have been shown here? I actually thought the red card was a good thing for Son, it gave him the opportunity to clear his head, if he is truly remorseful that is, and he could have gotten away from the spotlight for a few games so the fact they even appealed it in the first place surprises me.

I guess we'll see how much this has affected him looking at his upcoming performances...

 

[Deleted member 38674]

Whether it should be or not is not the matter at hand: is that the wording/interpretation of the rules and laws of the game? We should try and be objective.

Genuinely, I am not wanting to appear obtuse (or be it) and I do understand your point, however my issue is that people are directly jumping to the consequence.

You talked about drink driving, so if you would let me put it into another context for you regarding law, where in each case a man dies, my point may be clearer:

1. A defendant takes a knife and in a pre-mediated attack stabs someone causing death.
2. A defendant takes a knife and in an unplanned attack stabs someone causing death.
3. A defendant in a pre-mediated attack repeatedly punches a defenceless victim, including when on the ground, causing death.
4. A defendant in an unplanned attack (confrontation etc.) punches the victim once causing the victim to collapse, bang their head and die.

The first three would be pushed for murder because the wording under common law is an intention "to cause either death or serious injury unlawfully.'

Big custodial for the first two, but the second while having no intent carries the likelihood that you will cause serious injury by acting in a manner.

That would either be murder or manslaughter - the push would be for the former and rightly. By using a knife, you must expect to cause serious injury or death.

The fourth, while causing death, would in many cases be involuntary manslaughter due to reduced mens rea - a reduced intention to do wrong and cause harm.

Basically, would all four actions justify the same punishment? All would likely to endanger the person and have ultimately caused the same result.

However, quite rightly the consequence is not the deciding factor and rather intent and many other mitigating factors are brought into a complex process.

I think where it boils down to is our perspective of the first challenge; personally while I have said it was rash, I simply do not think it meets the threshold for a red.

Did he in making the tackle, with reasonable forethought, have the intent to cause serious injury or did the tackle itself show a likelihood of causing serious injury?

For me, it's again a no because so many similar tackles happen in football all the time, where injury does not occur and if so no where near to that extent.

Why I mentioned the Mina scenario is simple: the offence and the consequence are not intrinsically linked, which has been my point throughout

If I genuinely believe Son had committed a terrible tack knowing it could injure and he did so, then rightfully I would demand that he'd get a lengthy, lengthy ban.

If I genuinely believe Son had committed a terrible tack knowing it could injure but hadn't injured him, then rightfully I would demand that he'd get a ban.

But because the first aspect is in my humble opinion not of that sort, then I don't feel that he is deserving of a ban. That's me trying to be objective.

Excellent post.

 

[billyblue80]

What happened to players being banned for a stretch of matches if they break someone's leg? Saying he didn't mean it is irrelevant but of course, he plays for Spurs and cried a bit and 'isn't that type of player' so even a red is rescinded.