The sending off
- Thread starter Rosco
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Plasters!!!! I mean fucking plasters. Way to overreact.
I like the Mane had that smiley face on one of his studs. Proper Watchmen shit.
Why not? You don't think it was awful?
If you molest an opponents face with your boot, flying in head high you'd at the very least expect a red card and a ban. 1 day, 3 days, 5 days, really doesn't matter. We should do like Ederson did, and take this one on the chin instead of making a right fool of ourselves..
BTW Just tried something similar the other day during training, as I did not only cut my teammates nose (one of the two cuts was pretty deep) with my boots he also broke it while at it. Luckily for me I guess, it wasn't because I was flying in like a Bruce Lee, but because he actually tried to bring me down after I nutmegged him and he then tripped and received the sole and studs of my brand new boots right in his face.. kinda bloody it was too.
A 3 game ban is warranted if it was done with intent. It wasnt. It was a close call between yellow and red imho. Which is showed by the large number of refs and pundits being on either side of the case.
Mane only had his eyes on the ball with no intent of hurting the keeper. Thats not 3 games. Its 1 or 2. End off, mate. 😉
Can you lift your foot that high at the age of 40? Christ on a bike. I'd tear my hamstring just trying to do that.
33 years and counting as a footballer and I'm close to having no flexibility at all....
I don't buy the 'he didn't see him coming' argument, as I am totally convinced he knew exactly where the keeper was. Even though you don't see him look at him for the past few meters up to the incident he's right in front of him all the time. He obv knew impact was coming why he also knew that raising his leg like that was a potential risk.
It took me a while to get used to playing footie again, but now it's okay actually. I didn't raise my leg that high though as I was simply running and trying not to fall over, why when I kicked back like, I caught him on the nose. Btw scored a hat-trick last week in an official game against an U19 team. That was nice. Not for them mind you..
I dont agree mate. I think he's only looking for the ball. Looking at the ball. I dont think he anticipates that the keeper would do that as most keepers probably wouldnt anyway.
Yeah, I'm enjoying my footy these days as well. Fitter than ever and not many injuries. We won our division last season and are in the league play offs again this season. Guessing I've got 1-2 more years and then its time to do something else. Like golf....
An almost identical incident happened on Sunday Newcastle game high arm instead of head was hit Yellow card. MoTD 2 They even compared them side by side. Intent not injury should be considered a major part.
Any studs up tackle that causes injury or makes an opponent back out should be a red imo but they are not the current rules as JJ has said about three times.
Any studs up tackle that causes injury or makes an opponent back out should be a red imo but they are not the current rules as JJ has said about three times.
Last edited:
I said "what I posted about the incident were facts". The incident itself. And they were facts. Yes, the last part was my opinion. I still don't see your point.
Mane's boot came into contact with Ederson's head. His boot was high. Was it accidental? Absolutely. But that's irrelevant according to the law of the game. So when you take the lack of intent out of the equation, a red card is the correct decision.
People in the media and elsewhere keep saying that bolded bit without actually looking up the law, but that's just wrong. One can argue (though I'm not sure I would) that intention should be irrelevant, but it isn't under the rules as they stand. The referee in the Newcastle game got the rules right. Moss didn't, not for the first time.
I think you're looking at an old set of rules. Intent is now only relevant to a handball. It's no longer relevant to incidents like this.
Well, I quoted Rule 12 earlier in the thread as it stands on the current FA website. If they've got an outdated version up there, fair enough, both I and they are wrong. Otherwise I stand by what I've said.
But intent isn't relevant JJ. That's the whole point. Whether the rule is right or wrong is an entirely different debate. High boot, studs showing, dangerous play, caught a man on the side of the head...a red card is the correct decision, even though we have established that wasn't intentional.
Having said that, I still think we are right to appeal. Not to get the card rescinded, but to lessen the punishment. A 3 match ban for an accidental collision is very extreme.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I haven't read the whole thread and didn't see your quote, but rule 12 is clear on 'serious foul play'.
“A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play. A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play.”
There used to be reference to intent in there, but is now removed.
I respect your view, neal mate, but I don't agree. Aside from the fact that the rule says different, various factors contributed to the incident and I don't think they can justifiably be swept aside by simply saying "High boot, hit on head = red card regardless of circumstances".
Ironically this is underlined when you consider the question of an appeal because, if lack of intent is irrelevant, why should it be taken into account in determining the length of the ban? The truth is of course that it IS relevant and that justice isn't done if the question is ignored.
Ironically this is underlined when you consider the question of an appeal because, if lack of intent is irrelevant, why should it be taken into account in determining the length of the ban? The truth is of course that it IS relevant and that justice isn't done if the question is ignored.
I 100% agree with JJ ... but I did just look at Rule 12 (http://www.thefa.com/football-rules.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct) and it states that "serious foul play" incurs a red card, and defines serious foul play as follows :
Doesn't seem to be any mention of intent, and the bolded but does sort of describe what happened.
But I love to be corrected, so please do show me how I am wrong, so I can continue 100% agreeing with the good Judge, with total integrity
Doesn't seem to be any mention of intent, and the bolded but does sort of describe what happened.
But I love to be corrected, so please do show me how I am wrong, so I can continue 100% agreeing with the good Judge, with total integrity
My point is that when certain posters want to claim that their argument is ineluctable, they'll speciously 'back it up' by declaring that 'everyone would say the opposite if it happened to our team,' and that's just lazy, manipulative and dishonest. If you think it, fine, but don't claim to know the judgements of others ahead of time.
Rule 12 starts off by differentiating between "careless/reckless" and "intentional" and the rest of Rule 12 therefore has to be read in the light of this difference. The beginning section of Rule 12 goes on to say:
"Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned" [my italics].
Two things follow from this. One: under the rules there IS a difference between "careless/reckless" and "intentional" and it's a mistake of fact to claim otherwise. Two: the section you quote is governed by the earlier bit and has to be read in that light. Hence, if Mane's tackle was reckless rather than intentional (and almost everyone seems to accept that it was), the correct response to it under the rules (and, I would argue, in terms of justice as well) would have been a yellow card.
Like I said, I'm all for appealing the length of the ban. As far as I'm aware there's nothing to suggest that intent or lack of intent shouldn't play a part in the punishment. I'm only saying that lack of intent is only irrelevant as far as the red card itself goes.
By the way, I agree that intent or lack of intent SHOULD be considered when a referee is thinking about giving a red card. But as it stands, that's not the case. And I'm basing my thoughts around how the current ruling is worded.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The next definition in rule 12 explains the sending off:
- Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
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.
Intent doesn't come into it
I think we need Dantes
Ross: How do you reconcile that bit with the opening section of the Rule quoted above, other than by saying that intent does come into it? Isn't the Rule all of a piece, so that sections of it can't be interpreted separately? Genuine questions.
Ok then. Let's just for the time being forget about the part where I said (whatever it was I said, I'm on my phone and can't be arsed going back to find it). My point still stands. According to the letter of the law it's a red card offence. Sure, he didn't mean to do it, but that's irrelevant.
Macca, you're one of my favourite posters on 6CM, an all-round good guy I would gladly share a beer with, and I usually find myself agreeing with pretty much everything you say. But I can't help but feel you needlessly arguing a minor secondary point I made, which has little or no significance to my main point.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I do see where you're coming from but i don't read it that way.
Once the referee decides that Mane used excessive force and endangered the safety of the player - its a sending off.
Neither part of 'excessive force' or 'endangering the player' require intent or even suggest a mental element is required. I don't think its possible to argue that a kick in the head as happened to Ederson doesn't satisfy both parts of the definition.
If Mane didn't make solid contact with Ederson, then i think it falls into the reckless category and is a booking - like the incident in the Swansea game.
As for the appeal, it should be posaible to argue that a three match ban is a disproportionate punishment given the nature of the incident and the reactions from all involved - nobody thought there was any malice, its just one of those things that can happen in a fast paced game.
Not unexpected. I'd be interested to know what arguments we used to try and put a figure on what the length of the ban ought to be, especially if the matter was decided on the basis of intent not being relevant. IMO if you accept that you've pretty much cooked your goose as far as any appeal is concerned.
Time to put the whole darn thing behind us and move on now. Hopefully it will leave Mane champing at the bit to get back into things when the time comes.
Time to put the whole darn thing behind us and move on now. Hopefully it will leave Mane champing at the bit to get back into things when the time comes.
The time comes tomorrow night 🙂
We should put two fingers up to the FA and tell them we wouldn't have played him in the league cup anyway. Which is probably true.
- Status
Similar threads
