Premier League 2021/22 Thread

[st albans fox]

2 hours ago, StanSP said:

I have no way of proving it but if it was one of Klopp's players that get sent off I feel like the appeal would have been accepted... 

as do we all ……

[Dan LCFC]

4 hours ago, Fox in the North said:

 

Can only conclude they can't be arsed with the inevitable Liverpool and Klopp backlash.

[Dahnsouff]

 

 

[Spudulike]

4 hours ago, StanSP said:

I have no way of proving it but if it was one of Klopp's players that get sent off I feel like the appeal would have been accepted... 

 

1 hour ago, Dan LCFC said:

Can only conclude they can't be arsed with the inevitable Liverpool and Klopp backlash.

The ref didn't blow for a foul initially and only seemed to change his mind when the big soft German got in his face. 

[RobHawk]

5 hours ago, Fox in the North said:

 

The games gone! What a ****ing awful decision that is. I'd love to know the reasoning behind that because the only word I can think to describe the tackle is unfortunate. 

 

It wasn't reckless, intentional or even forceful. It was unfortunate, nothing more.

[los dedos]

Nice of the PFA, wonder if they wish all young players who suffer an horrific injury well . 🤔

[jammie82uk]

1 hour ago, RobHawk said:

The games gone! What a ****ing awful decision that is. I'd love to know the reasoning behind that because the only word I can think to describe the tackle is unfortunate. 

 

It wasn't reckless, intentional or even forceful. It was unfortunate, nothing more.

 

[Phil Bowman]

2 hours ago, RobHawk said:

The games gone! What a ****ing awful decision that is. I'd love to know the reasoning behind that because the only word I can think to describe the tackle is unfortunate. 

 

It wasn't reckless, intentional or even forceful. It was unfortunate, nothing more.

I don’t think it was malicious, but it was dangerously careless. Looked to me like he left the ground and then went through his ankle with his back leg.

[Phil Bowman]

2 hours ago, Spudulike said:

 

The ref didn't blow for a foul initially and only seemed to change his mind when the big soft German got in his face. 

I can’t stand Klopp, but isn’t it just as likely the ref changed his mind when the VAR told him it was a bad challenge?

[RobHawk]

21 minutes ago, Phil Bowman said:

I don’t think it was malicious, but it was dangerously careless. Looked to me like he left the ground and then went through his ankle with his back leg.

Look at the picture above. I get he was out of control as both feet were off the ground, but I think that's bullshit as you can be out of control with feet on the floor. 

 

Fact is, if you look above it is not in my opinion dangerous, he's reaching for the ball and the injury is purely unfortunate, which happens at times in a contact sport.

[foxile5]

8 minutes ago, RobHawk said:

Look at the picture above. I get he was out of control as both feet were off the ground, but I think that's bullshit as you can be out of control with feet on the floor. 

 

Fact is, if you look above it is not in my opinion dangerous, he's reaching for the ball and the injury is purely unfortunate, which happens at times in a contact sport.

It's also very difficult to tackle over distance staying entirely in contact with the floor. There needs to be some nuance applied here. 

 

I think most fans and pundits would consider that a good tackle with unfortunate consequences. 

 

 

[Phil Bowman]

8 minutes ago, RobHawk said:

Look at the picture above. I get he was out of control as both feet were off the ground, but I think that's bullshit as you can be out of control with feet on the floor. 

 

Fact is, if you look above it is not in my opinion dangerous, he's reaching for the ball and the injury is purely unfortunate, which happens at times in a contact sport.

It certainly does, and you can get horrendous injuries from total accidents, but when I saw this tackle it looked to me like his trailing leg slid right through and made nasty contact. I don’t reckon reaching for the ball (which I agree he was doing) and having no vicious intent (I don’t think he had any) exonerates you from what happens immediately afterwards. And if you come scything through someone’s leg in your follow through then it’s dangerous.

[ARM1968]

It’s the drip drip effect of the constant whining by Klopp, Pep etc. The authorities just buckle under it and operate, effectively, a two tier system 

 

However I’m not sure this incident was all that clear cut. The guy left the floor completely and lunged in from behind. I don’t think he had any other intent than to reach the ball, but I can see why the decision was upheld. 
 

Still doesn’t alter the fact the rules are slightly different for the big boys. Fergie was the master at it. His constant moaning probably gained Utd 9-12 points over a season. 

[Hoopla10]

2 hours ago, jammie82uk said:

 

Just so I'm up to speed, it's like snooker, you MUST always have one foot on the ground at all times? What does "not in control" mean? Are sliding tackles out now? 

[RobHawk]

33 minutes ago, Phil Bowman said:

It certainly does, and you can get horrendous injuries from total accidents, but when I saw this tackle it looked to me like his trailing leg slid right through and made nasty contact. I don’t reckon reaching for the ball (which I agree he was doing) and having no vicious intent (I don’t think he had any) exonerates you from what happens immediately afterwards. And if you come scything through someone’s leg in your follow through then it’s dangerous.

 

Not sure where you expect his trailing leg to go? 

 

I'll leave it there anyway, definately not a red in my book but as I say the games gone in my eyes and you are just further proving that for me. 

 

[Lambert09]

Maybe my interpretation is wrong, but to overturn the decision it has to be that the panel feel it’s completely incorrect. They may not think it’s a red card but because of the written law they can’t turn around and say the ref is absolutely wrong. 
 

if they are looking at it in real time and thinking it should be a red then that’s ludicrous. 

Edited 15 September 2021 by Lambert09

[jammie82uk]

50 minutes ago, Hoopla10 said:

Just so I'm up to speed, it's like snooker, you MUST always have one foot on the ground at all times? What does "not in control" mean? Are sliding tackles out now? 

Effectively yes but you can still slide tackle but you can’t precede the tackle with a “jump”  

 

edit: just to point out I don’t think it’s a red card tackle just saying how I think the laws/rules seem to be interpreted 

Edited 15 September 2021 by jammie82uk

[Phil Bowman]

48 minutes ago, RobHawk said:

as I say the games gone in my eyes and you are just further proving that for me

Well gosh, you’re welcome.

[Phil Bowman]

51 minutes ago, RobHawk said:

Not sure where you expect his trailing leg to go?

Exactly. Which is what makes it a bad challenge.

[Hoopla10]

14 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

Effectively yes but you can still slide tackle but you can’t precede the tackle with a “jump”  

 

edit: just to point out I don’t think it’s a red card tackle just saying how I think the laws/rules seem to be interpreted 

Yeah I'm just trying to understand where the ruling is. It feels slightly arbitrary in terms of ruling unless there's something you can technically point at. Feet off the ground would make sense. The "in control" seems very open for interpretation. The injury to Van Dijk wasn't punished because Pickford had a foot on the ground but was out of control? It feels like if Struijk's trailing leg was at least in contact with the ground (even though it was still a passenger in the tackle) he would have just got a yellow. 

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, Hoopla10 said:

Just so I'm up to speed, it's like snooker, you MUST always have one foot on the ground at all times? What does "not in control" mean? Are sliding tackles out now? 

They aren't out but you have to do it like a scalextrix car from now on

[Corky]

I feel for Struijk in the respect that he genuinely went for the ball and unfortunately the angle of the challenge helped cause the injury. It's the pre-meditated, take one for the team tackles that need clamping down on when there is no attempt to play the ball.

[jammie82uk]

1 hour ago, Hoopla10 said:

Yeah I'm just trying to understand where the ruling is. It feels slightly arbitrary in terms of ruling unless there's something you can technically point at. Feet off the ground would make sense. The "in control" seems very open for interpretation. The injury to Van Dijk wasn't punished because Pickford had a foot on the ground but was out of control? It feels like if Struijk's trailing leg was at least in contact with the ground (even though it was still a passenger in the tackle) he would have just got a yellow. 

Nothing technical there is just this law 12 

“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.”

 

 

[jmono84]

9 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

Nothing technical there is just this law 12 

“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.”

 

 

I’d argue it wasn’t excessive. The ref didn’t think so at the time so that should say a lot! I think it was a reasonable honest attempt to win the ball not like Pogba’s challenge against Neves few weeks back. Pogbas challenge was a lot lot worse and nothing happened. The rules isn’t the issue here, it’s the officials and FA who only seem to punish the lesser teams in the league.

[jammie82uk]