Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tlw content

PODCAST: Leeds 0 Liverpool 3 - Match Reaction

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:


I didn’t say a word about consistency with the fucking idiots we have reffing games in this country.  

It’s not consistency with the refs i’m talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:


I know, neither was I. 

You’re wrong about the laws of the game too. 

How am I? I know what the law is (the one about endangering an opponent anyway) and it’s objective/open to interpretation.

 

Is there a law that a tackle that causes an injury is an automatic red card?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Brownie said:

How am I? I know what the law is (the one about endangering an opponent anyway) and it’s objective/open to interpretation.

 

Is there a law that a tackle that causes an injury is an automatic red card?


“Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play”. 
 


It’s a red card.
 

You can argue that it shouldn’t be, you can argue the law won’t be applied consistently, you can argue the law should be changed. 
 

But you can’t argue it was a red card. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:


“Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play”. 
 


It’s a red card.
 

You can argue that it shouldn’t be, you can argue the law won’t be applied consistently, you can argue the law should be changed. 
 

But you can’t argue it was a red card. 

 

Eh? I can argue it shouldn’t be but I can’t argue that it was? What are you on about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Brownie said:

Eh? I can argue it shouldn’t but I can’t argue that it was? What are you on about?


You can argue you don’t want it to be a red card. 
 

You can’t argue it is a red card under the laws of the game. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is one instance where the rule is probably best not followed consistently. It's about player protection more than cheating, football has a lot of margin for bending rules so there has to be some scope for a player who makes that challenge in a way that doesn't endanger their opponent (i.e. not jumping on their leg) to not be arbitrarily punished. 

 

When someone does get hurt the challenge will naturally be reconsidered. When the ref thinks the player is being reckless or using too much force, they will call it out regardless. But even then they won't pick up on everything (they ignore some pretty blatant ones at times if you play for Burnley or Stoke).

 

The real point these players and ex-pros should be debating is whether they have a duty of care to your fellow pros. To be diligent enough to know how to physically compete without risk of serious injury. I don't think he meant to, but the player fell way short of that and I think was right to be sent off as a result.

 

Between this and the Tanganga one though I do wonder why the referee in both cases didn't use the screen to have a proper look at the incident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:


You can argue you don’t want it to be a red card. 
 

You can’t argue it is a red card under the laws of the game. 

I can, because the law is open to interpretation. The law doesn’t say that the injury changes things.

 

The ref didn’t even give us a free kick and our lads didn’t even appeal for a foul.

 

When there’s a bad tackle, players go running over and start scuffling. Again that for me is very telling.

 

As I said the other day, people disagreeing on it is sound. All jokes aside it’s not a black and white situation.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pidge said:

I think this is one instance where the rule is probably best not followed consistently. It's about player protection more than cheating, football has a lot of margin for bending rules so there has to be some scope for a player who makes that challenge in a way that doesn't endanger their opponent (i.e. not jumping on their leg) to not be arbitrarily punished. 

 

When someone does get hurt the challenge will naturally be reconsidered. When the ref thinks the player is being reckless or using too much force, they will call it out regardless. But even then they won't pick up on everything (they ignore some pretty blatant ones at times if you play for Burnley or Stoke).

 

The real point these players and ex-pros should be debating is whether they have a duty of care to your fellow pros. To be diligent enough to know how to physically compete without risk of serious injury. I don't think he meant to, but the player fell way short of that and I think was right to be sent off as a result.

The only way you can truly protect a player is to eliminate the contact in the game, at which point it ceases to be what it is.

 

Every time a player dives into a tackle, there’s a chance someone will get hurt, that’s just how it is.

 

The tackles I don’t like, and think are reds all day, are the ones where there’s a good chance a player will get hurt because you’re being reckless. Obivously I don’t think this falls into that category and everyone else says that it’s only the injury that turned it into that, which just baffles me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Brownie said:

I can, because the law is open to interpretation. The law doesn’t say that the injury changes things.

 

The ref didn’t even give us a free kick and our lads didn’t even appeal for a foul.

 

When there’s a bad tackle, players go running over and start scuffling. Again that for me is very telling.

 

As I said the other day, people disagreeing on it is sound. All jokes aside it’s not a black and white situation.


In some cases it is open to interpretation. 
In this case it wasn’t. 
 

Was it a lunge? Yes. He jumped in with both feet off the ground. 
Did it endanger the safety of an opponent? Obviously, hence the dislocated ankle. 
 

Therefore it’s a red card. There is no grey area or interpretation. 
 

It’s a red card. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Brownie said:

The only way you can truly protect a player is to eliminate the contact in the game, at which point it ceases to be what it is.

 

Every time a player dives into a tackle, there’s a chance someone will get hurt, that’s just how it is.

 

The tackles I don’t like, and think are reds all day, are the ones where there’s a good chance a player will get hurt because you’re being reckless. Obivously I don’t think this falls into that category and everyone else says that it’s only the injury that turned it into that, which just baffles me.

I think it's his timing in jumping into the challenge that turned it into that. Increased the chance of something going wrong massively.

 

I don't think you can eliminate risk, it's mitigation. What I'm saying is that - for the game to work - the player's have to take some responsibility for it. The refs step in when they feel that hasn't happened. They try to do that proactively, but sometimes have to react to things instead. In that kind of setup you can't guarantee consistency (that's not really possible in sport anyway).

 

Basically, it's the same as my view about throwing yourself in front of a shot. If the ball hits your hand, don't complain if you get punished, you made the choice to do that because of previous mistakes leaving you exposed.

 

Similarly, if you tackle someone from behind, you might get punished for it.

 

More than anything, I think the debate has been really unhelpful for the guy as the complaints have had a Streisand effects on the whole issue and he didn't ask for it. The chairman especially should shut the fuck up and let his players move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:


In some cases it is open to interpretation. 
In this case it wasn’t. 
 

Was it a lunge? Yes. He jumped in with both feet off the ground. 
Did it endanger the safety of an opponent? Obviously, hence the dislocated ankle. 
 

Therefore it’s a red card. There is no grey area or interpretation. 
 

It’s a red card. 

“Lunges at an opponent” is open to interpretation. I made the point on the pod that he actually dived in to the side of him to go round and hook the ball back, it was the trailing leg which followed through and caught Harvey’s leg, which had moved because these things happen quickly and at pace due to the variables I mentioned. 
 

You have no control over whether a trailing leg is going to hit an opponent because a lot of that depends on how the opponent moves, which you can’t cater for at that speed.

 

From time to time things like this will happen, it’s just really unfortunate.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the opponent has the ball, how they move is their prerogative, the defender has to account for the risk that they do something unexpected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Brownie said:

“Lunges at an opponent” is open to interpretation. I made the point on the pod that he actually dived in to the side of him to go round and hook the ball back, it was the trailing leg which followed through and caught Harvey’s leg, which had moved because these things happen quickly and at pace due to the variables I mentioned. 
 

You have no control over whether a trailing leg is going to hit an opponent because a lot of that depends on how the opponent moves, which you can’t cater for at that speed.

 

From time to time things like this will happen, it’s just really unfortunate.


He lunged. 
He endangered an opponent. 
It’s a red. 
 

Should the law be changed? Yes I think it should. 
Was it a nasty shithouse challenge? Far from it. 
Will the law be applied consistently all season? No fucking chance. 
Was it very unfortunate and sheer bad luck Elliot got injured? Yes, absolutely.

Was it a red under the current laws of the game? 100%. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consequences matter when it comes to offences. Hundreds of drivers speed through towns every days. Mostly nothing happens. Sometimes they'll get a speeding fine. Occasionally they'll kill someone and maybe end up in prison. The same offence but vastly different outcomes. It's a risk you take if you break the law.

If you lunge into a tackle without full control of what you might do to the opponent then mostly you'll get away with it but don't complain if you hurt him. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, aws said:

Consequences matter when it comes to offences. Hundreds of drivers speed through towns every days. Mostly nothing happens. Sometimes they'll get a speeding fine. Occasionally they'll kill someone and maybe end up in prison. The same offence but vastly different outcomes. It's a risk you take if you break the law.

If you lunge into a tackle without full control of what you might do to the opponent then mostly you'll get away with it but don't complain if you hurt him. 

I like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, aws said:

Consequences matter when it comes to offences. Hundreds of drivers speed through towns every days. Mostly nothing happens. Sometimes they'll get a speeding fine. Occasionally they'll kill someone and maybe end up in prison. The same offence but vastly different outcomes. It's a risk you take if you break the law.

If you lunge into a tackle without full control of what you might do to the opponent then mostly you'll get away with it but don't complain if you hurt him. 

He was driving 30mph in a 30mph zone, and someone still got hurt (which happens).

 

I doubt Harvey would be telling him he shouldn’t have been punished for hitting him at 50 in a 30 zone *shrugs*
 

Not a great analogy tbf as you’re comparing a clear cut stat based rule with an interpretation.

 

Either way, probably time to move on as no-one is gonna change their mind, I agree with the boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one area where I think football could learn from the AFL. AFL had issues with players getting concussions from bumps (examples of great bumps below). What they did was opposed to eliminating or banning bumps altogether, they made it so that players are still allowed to do it but if you chose to bump when you could tackle and you hit someone on the head you’d get an automatic suspension. 

 


To go back to the incident on the weekend, if we applied similar ruling as AFL, Struijk’s tackle would only be a red card if he hit and/or hurt the player, otherwise play on. I think that’d work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Brownie said:

He was driving 30mph in a 30mph zone, and someone still got hurt (which happens).

 

I doubt Harvey would be telling him he shouldn’t have been punished for hitting him at 50 in a 30 zone *shrugs*
 

Not a great analogy tbf as you’re comparing a clear cut stat based rule with an interpretation.

 

Either way, probably time to move on as no-one is gonna change their mind, I agree with the boy.

 

Ah the old "let's leave it now" while ensuring you get the last word trick. Nice.

 

You're wrong though, but I agree, let's put it to bed now (that I've had the last word).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dave u said:

 

Ah the old "let's leave it now" while ensuring you get the last word trick. Nice.

 

You're wrong though, but I agree, let's put it to bed now (that I've had the last word).

Haha.

 

Get me and Monty on a pod to discuss Naby, immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×