2019/20 Andre Gomes

[Lanolin]

I’m sure there are some others who say a red was fine but the overwhelming majority of people on social media and pundits have said they don’t think it’s a red.

To be fair, most people haven't actually seen it, because none of the TV channels will show it again. Half the people you're seeing on social media are just parroting what they've seen other people say, or going off media descriptions (Gomes landed awkwardly after a challenge...). I've said myself, I thought it was a yellow card challenge in everyday terms, but once I saw the reasoning the FA gave for making it a red I thought it made perfect sense. For them to backtrack on that, and suggest that they'd actually interpreted their own rules incorrectly, is absolutely crazy in my opinion.

 

[longers]

To be fair, most people haven't actually seen it, because none of the TV channels will show it again. Half the people you're seeing on social media are just parroting what they've seen other people say. I've said myself, I thought it was a yellow card challenge in everyday terms, but once I saw the reasoning the FA gave for making it a red I thought it made perfect sense. For them to backtrack on that, and suggest that they'd actually interpreted their own rules incorrectly, is absolutely crazy in my opinion.

Fair enough. I thought their reasoning was absolutely ludicrous because it’s basically saying injury level determines if it’s a red card. If Andre falls at a slightly different angle he doesn’t wreck his ankle and son gets a Yellow at most... this goes against their policy on red cards where if you do a two footer you get sent off regardless of the outcome. It seems we are now at a time where you can commit a yellow card foul but could then recieve a red because the player fell awkwardly from said foul.

Id say their initial ruling was flawed and illogical and potentially opened up a massive grey areas in the rules where injury level can now determine the punishment rather than the foul itself, the reversal of the decision is them coming to their senses imo.

 

[ToffeeTim]

No one (unsurprisingly) has responded to my previous point asking if they agree that lunges with no intent to go near the ball, are acceptable ways to stop a counter attack, and should be treated the same as pushes, shirt pulls, barges or clips, with the punishment of only a booking?

Any answers? Much appreciated.

 

[Mark barnett]

I’m sure there are some others who say a red was fine but the overwhelming majority of people on social media and pundits have said they don’t think it’s a red.

if It’s a red we have to change the rules so that if you ever play the man instead of the ball you get sent off as it could result in a freak accident like Sunday where a player gets their foot caught in the turf or whatever... or do we say it’s fine and only send them off when the outcome is a serious injury ? the injury level should not influence a decision, if someone goes in two footed and the players fine it’s still a red card.

The foul is a cynical challenge, the outcome of the foul was extremely unlucky, but it must be taken on board if there was no foul then gomes doesn't break his ankle, son should be held accountable for his needless challenge. If it where reversed I'd expect the same outvome for uor player.

 

[Lanolin]

Fair enough. I thought their reasoning was absolutely ludicrous because it’s basically saying injury level determines if it’s a red card. If Andre falls at a slightly different angle he doesn’t wreck his ankle and son gets a Yellow at most... this goes against their policy on red cards where if you do a two footer you get sent off regardless of the outcome. It seems we are now at a time where you can commit a yellow card fould could but could then recurve a red because the player fell awkwardly from said foul.

Id say their initial ruling was flawed and illogical and potentially opened up a massive grey areas in the rules where injury level now determines the punishment rather than the foul itself, the reversal of the decision is them coming to their senses imo,

It doesn't 'go against' their policy at all though does it? If you do a two footer you get sent off regardless because it's endangering an opponent. That doesn't mean it's the only way of endangering an opponent though. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that you can't also apply the same rule to a different situation, like when somebody gets kicked and it causes them to lose their balance and break their ankle for example.

As was said numerous times last night, there are clear precedents for this in criminal law and just everyday life. I can't sue my employer for leaving a marble at the top of the stairs, I can sue them if they leave a marble at the top of the stairs and I stand on it and fall down them. To suggest that it would somehow be unthinkable to take the consequences of an action into account when deciding what to do about it is just odd, it happens in all walks of life on a daily basis, including in the laws of football (for example had Mina handled the ball into the net on sunday a free kick would have been given, but because it was Alli defending with his hand it isn't). You can disagree with the opinion, but this suggestion that there's no basis for taking consequences into account makes no sense.

 

[davids]

Hate VAR as much as anyone, nothing like I imagined, yes we must have watched a different game, Son is a good player, who I enjoy watching.
That does not change the fact that was a bad challenge, with no intent to get the ball, in my view, he had no chance of getting the ball, with a lunge from behind with studs up.

What's made me more angry is that Spurs had the cheek to appeal, lack of humility and respect for Gomes. That's my fi nal word on the subject, think what you like.

So if the roles were reversed and the tackle had been Gomes on Son you'd have been ok will a yellow seconds later switched to a red. My point was it was a yellow all day and Coleman got the same only a few weeks ago for a far worse challenge at Burnley. Referees just seem to make it up as they go along.

 

[evisublue]

It doesn't 'go against' their policy at all though does it? If you do a two footer you get sent off regardless because it's endangering an opponent. That doesn't mean it's the only way of endangering an opponent though. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that you can't also apply the same rule to a different situation, like when somebody gets kicked and it causes them to lose their balance and break their ankle for example.

As was said numerous times last night, there are clear precedents for this in criminal law and just everyday life. I can't sue my employer for leaving a marble at the top of the stairs, I can sue them if they leave a marble at the top of the stairs and I stand on it and fall down them. To suggest that it would somehow be unthinkable to take the consequences of an action into account when deciding what to do about it is just odd, it happens in all walks of life on a daily basis, including in the laws of football (for example had Mina handled the ball into the net on sunday a free kick would have been given, but because it was Alli defending with his hand it isn't). You can disagree with the opinion, but this suggestion that there's no basis for taking consequences into account makes no sense.

Completely agree, this is the best post I've seen about this.

 

[longers]

It doesn't 'go against' their policy at all though does it? If you do a two footer you get sent off regardless because it's endangering an opponent. That doesn't mean it's the only way of endangering an opponent though. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that you can't also apply the same rule to a different situation, like when somebody gets kicked and it causes them to lose their balance and break their ankle for example.

As was said numerous times last night, there are clear precedents for this in criminal law and just everyday life. I can't sue my employer for leaving a marble at the top of the stairs, I can sue them if they leave a marble at the top of the stairs and I stand on it and fall down them. To suggest that it would somehow be unthinkable to take the consequences of an action into account when deciding what to do about it is just odd, it happens in all walks of life on a daily basis, including in the laws of football (for example had Mina handled the ball into the net on sunday a free kick would have been given, but because it was Alli defending with his hand it isn't). You can disagree with the opinion, but this suggestion that there's no basis for taking consequences into account makes no sense.

But it just opens up a can of worms where someone could do a relatively minor foul which results in the player falling awkwardly and breaking his leg, this player then gets sent off. Meanwhile someone else does a far worse challenge with statistically a higher probability of inflicting injury but because the player didn't suffer serious injury he only gets a yellow.

Injury level should not dictate whether someone is sent off or not.

 

[Lanolin]

But it just opens up a can of worms where someone could do a relatively minor foul which results in the player falling awkwardly and breaking his leg, this player then gets sent off. Meanwhile someone else does a far worse challenge with statistically a higher probability of inflicting injury but because the player didn't suffer serious injury so he only gets a yellow.

Injury level should not dictate whether someone is sent off or not

Obviously injury level alone shouldn't dictate the punishment, that would be absurd. I don't see why it can't be taken into account though. I think all matchgoing fans have seen a player get injured and thought 'uh oh, he could be in trouble for that' in a way that you don't if the player seems alright. It's pretty well established already that you're more likely to get a red for a bad tackle where you do catch someone than when you don't, it's just an extension of the same thing really.

 

[longers]

Obviously injury level alone shouldn't dictate the punishment, that would be absurd. I don't see why it can't be taken into account though. I think all matchgoing fans have seen a player get injured and thought 'uh oh, he could be in trouble for that' in a way that you don't if the player seems alright. It's pretty well established already that you're more likely to get a red for a bad tackle where you do catch someone than when you don't, it's just an extension of the same thing really.

I can see your argument and you've made some good points id not considered. I just think it's going to make things very messy and muddy the waters even more which will ultimately result in more controversial decisions and fans becoming more disillusioned with the sport. I think the negatives of such a policy outweigh the positives. I also feel like you if you are going down this route you may as well just make playing the man instead of the ball a red card offence, that way at least you're putting seeds of doubt into the players minds as to whether they make the challenge or not... as it stands the chances of a severe injury occurring from a son like tackle are extremely rare and thus players know the chances are heavily stacked in favour of them getting away with it.

 

[Lanolin]

I can see your argument and you've made some good points id not considered. I just think it's going to make things very messy and muddy the waters even more which will ultimately result in more controversial decisions and fans becoming more disillusioned with the sport. I think the negatives of such a policy outweigh the positives. I also feel like you if you are going down this route you may as well just make playing the man instead of the ball a red card offence, that way at least you're putting seeds of doubt into the players minds as to whether they make the challenge or not... as it stands the chances of a severe injury occurring from a son like tackle are extremely rare and thus players know the chances are heavily stacked in favour of them getting away with it.

I think it's a good debate. I said to someone last night I'm not saying my way of looking at it is right - and obviously according to the FA it isn't - I just think that it's something which maybe could be taken into account in future. It doesn't affect us either way really, but I can't help feeling like Son is getting away with one here. Ultimately he's responsible for a player getting seriously injured, whether he intended it or not, and i'm not sure i'm overly comfortable with the idea of him not having to serve some sort of punishment for his actions.

 

[d34noj]

But it just opens up a can of worms where someone could do a relatively minor foul which results in the player falling awkwardly and breaking his leg, this player then gets sent off. Meanwhile someone else does a far worse challenge with statistically a higher probability of inflicting injury but because the player didn't suffer serious injury he only gets a yellow.

Injury level should not dictate whether someone is sent off or not.

See thats the thing, it's the foul that caused him to fall awkwardly - Son didn't miss him, he caught him from behind, he puts his foot down and gets wiped out by Aurier. Son caused Gomes to land awkwardly, effectively removing his ability to defend or avoid the challenge by Aurier. That is the literal definition of reckless endangerment.

Gomes didn't fall awkwardly of his own accord - he was bundled into FROM BEHIND as retribution and ends up out for possibly a year.

 

[longers]

See thats the thing, it's the foul that caused him to fall awkwardly - Son didn't miss him, he caught him from behind, he puts his foot down and gets wiped out by Aurier. Son caused Gomes to land awkwardly, effectively removing his ability to defend or avoid the challenge by Aurier. That is the literal definition of reckless endangerment.

Gomes didn't fall awkwardly of his own accord - he was bundled into FROM BEHIND as retribution and ends up out for possibly a year.

Right but it's a pretty standard foul you see almost every match, if its deemed as reckless endangerment and thus a red card it should be a red card every time regardless of injury... not that I agree with that stance but that to me is the logical ruling you need to come to if you're going to enforce it.

 

[tommye]

just on the phone to sky to cancel and they won't let me, told them i won't pay for var and corrupt officials. They said no so im complaining and cancelling everything

Bernie.
Put the phone down and go change your sheets pal.
The must be saturated.


What a world we live in.
What a time to be alive.
We are so lucky

 

[Moomin]

I have cancelled my sky sports. Not paying for this BS that's going on with officiating.

I hope you don't have a Son because you might disown him now.