Futbol Talk

[Its DJOver]

Okay, who had Ethan Horvath getting the first American goal in the Champions League this year?

[Pakuni]

Well, it was 2-1 when the red was issued.  I also have no problem giving Martial a red, but, if you're going to do that, there is no reason that Lamela shouldn't have gotten one as well.

Utter nonsense.
This bad take gets a red card.

[Its DJOver]

Utter nonsense.
This bad take gets a red card.

What about my post was incorrect?  It's undisputable that the score was 2-1 Spurs when the red card was issued.  It's also clear as day that Lamela made contact with Martial's throat/face before Martial made contact with Lamela's.  Contact was light by both, but if you're going to show red for one, you should show red to both.  It's cute watching you Spurs fanboys stick up for each other though.

[Pakuni]

What about my post was incorrect?  It's undisputable that the score was 2-1 Spurs when the red card was issued.  It's also clear as day that Lamela made contact with Martial's throat/face before Martial made contact with Lamela's.  Contact was light by both, but if you're going to show red for one, you should show red to both.  It's cute watching you Spurs fanboys stick up for each other though.

Suggesting that Lamela shoving Martial's chest (not face and throat, see below) while they jostled for position before a corner - when such contact is routine - is somehow the same as Martial intentionally popping him in the chin muy esutpido, amigo.

[Its DJOver]

Are you really trying to suggest that contact wasn't made with his neck, which still falls under "violent conduct"?  Careful Pak, your biases are showing

[Its DJOver]

https://www.facebook.com/ESPNFC/photos/a.403514944820/10158290776099821/?type=3&theater

https://www.the-sun.com/sport/premier-league/1579116/manchester-united-martial-sent-off-tottenham-lamela/

https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/anthony-martial-red-card-manchester-united-erik-lamela-tottenham-jose-mourinho-676935

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8804607/MARK-CLATTENBURG-Id-told-Anthony-Martial-Erik-Lamela-stop-behaving-like-children.html

[Pakuni]

Are you really trying to suggest that contact wasn't made with his neck, which still falls under "violent conduct"?  Careful Pak, your biases are showing

Look, you can see whatever you want to see. Makes no difference to me. Nobody in their right mind believes what Lamela did was deserving of a red card. That kind of thing happens regularly before corners.

[Its DJOver]

Look, you can see whatever you want to see. Makes no difference to me. Nobody in their right mind believes what Lamela did was deserving of a red card. That kind of thing happens regularly before corners.

I agree, if I were a ref in that game, I wouldn't have sent either off, my whole point was that neither action was more egregious than the other.  I think Clattenburg nails it, both should have been cautioned for their "childish behavior", and the game should have proceeded 11 a side.  I just think it's extremely biased to view the incident through the lens that you are (which is fine, you're a fan, fans are supposed to be biased).  Suggesting that someone's opinion that is different than yours is "utter nonsense" shows an aversion to objectivity in this situation.

[Pakuni]

I agree, if I were a ref in that game, I wouldn't have sent either off, my whole point was that neither action was more egregious than the other.  I think Clattenburg nails it, both should have been cautioned for their "childish behavior", and the game should have proceeded 11 a side.  I just think it's extremely biased to view the incident through the lens that you are (which is fine, you're a fan, fans are supposed to be biased).  Suggesting that someone's opinion that is different than yours is "utter nonsense" shows an aversion to objectivity in this situation.

It's not biased to say what Lamela did wasn't deserving of a red card. In fact, you just said what Lamela did wasn't deserving of a red card. We agree!
It's also not biased to say (as I did) the referee doesn't have much wiggle room on that call.
Here's the FA rule book definition of violent conduct:

"In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face* with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible."

It's textbook. Martial was not challenging for the ball and deliberately struck Lamela in the face with his hand. The only possible argument is whether it was negligible or not, but that's a tough call to ask an official to make after a player very intentionally pops another player in the face.
Again, suggesting their respective actions were no worse than the other is a bad take, with all due respect.

* No mention of neck, I note.

[Its DJOver]

Both incidents happened while the ball was out of play, so I'm not sure that you can claim that Lamela was "challenging for the ball" and wasn't "deliberate" either.

And there lies part of the problem.  The FA rulebook has slightly different nomenclature than FIFA's rulebook, which is slightly different than the IFAB rulebook.  This is why common sense needs to be used.  Neither should have been sent off for "violent conduct" because neither's conduct was inherently violent.  Don't know if anyone saw it, but in the Leeds Wolves game, Raul Jimenez "could" have been sent off for a situation that looked very similar to what Son did to get sent off against Chelsea last year.  By the letter of the law he should have walked.  The Aguero situation with "contact with a referee" over the weekend has made quite a few headlines.  By the letter of the law he should have walked.  I think the correct decision was made in both situations.  If the ref followed the letter of the law 100% of the time, games would consistently end 9 a side.  Given the situation of the game, a caution to both players would seem to be the most appropriate action.

[jesmu84]

Both incidents happened while the ball was out of play, so I'm not sure that you can claim that Lamela was "challenging for the ball" and wasn't "deliberate" either.

And there lies part of the problem.  The FA rulebook has slightly different nomenclature than FIFA's rulebook, which is slightly different than the IFAB rulebook.  This is why common sense needs to be used.  Neither should have been sent off for "violent conduct" because neither's conduct was inherently violent.  Don't know if anyone saw it, but in the Leeds Wolves game, Raul Jimenez "could" have been sent off for a situation that looked very similar to what Son did to get sent off against Chelsea last year.  By the letter of the law he should have walked.  The Aguero situation with "contact with a referee" over the weekend has made quite a few headlines.  By the letter of the law he should have walked.  I think the correct decision was made in both situations.  If the ref followed the letter of the law 100% of the time, games would consistently end 9 a side.  Given the situation of the game, a caution to both players would seem to be the most appropriate action.

So players would continue to break laws even knowing they were being enforced 100% of the time?

[Its DJOver]

So players would continue to break laws even knowing they were being enforced 100% of the time?

Forgive me for answering a question with a question, but do you think it would be appropriate for all throw-ins to be taken exactly where the ball went out of play?  Do you think it would be appropriate for all free kicks to be taken exactly where the offense was committed, even if the foul was committed in the fouled teams half, and they want to proceed with the game?  By the letter of the law they have to be, however, it is generally accepted that stopping play and going back to make sure that play resumes exactly where it stops is unnecessary and disrupts the flow of the game.

You also again run into problems with different governing bodies.  The FA is only for England, once you get to international games, refs would have to switch to the FIFA rulebook, which is problematic since most referring clinics use the IFAB rulebook as a default.  It would be a step in the right direction of everyone used the exact same rulebook.

[Pakuni]

Both incidents happened while the ball was out of play, so I'm not sure that you can claim that Lamela was "challenging for the ball" and wasn't "deliberate" either.

And there lies part of the problem.  The FA rulebook has slightly different nomenclature than FIFA's rulebook, which is slightly different than the IFAB rulebook.  This is why common sense needs to be used.  Neither should have been sent off for "violent conduct" because neither's conduct was inherently violent.  Don't know if anyone saw it, but in the Leeds Wolves game, Raul Jimenez "could" have been sent off for a situation that looked very similar to what Son did to get sent off against Chelsea last year.  By the letter of the law he should have walked.  The Aguero situation with "contact with a referee" over the weekend has made quite a few headlines.  By the letter of the law he should have walked.  I think the correct decision was made in both situations.  If the ref followed the letter of the law 100% of the time, games would consistently end 9 a side.  Given the situation of the game, a caution to both players would seem to be the most appropriate action.

Last response and I'll let this die its much deserved death.

If you handed out reds every time deliberate contact occurred as teams lined up for a corner (or any set piece), you'd literally be throwing out 4-5 players at a time. Yes, Lamela pushed Martial. That kind of jostling is commonplace. Smacking an opponent in the face is not. It's a key difference you continue to ignore.
And the FIFA rule book is irrelevant. The PL doesn't play under FIFA rules. It plays under FA rules.

[Its DJOver]

Last response and I'll let this die its much deserved death.

If you handed out reds every time deliberate contact occurred as teams lined up for a corner (or any set piece), you'd literally be throwing out 4-5 players at a time. Yes, Lamela pushed Martial. That kind of jostling is commonplace. Smacking an opponent in the face is not. It's a key difference you continue to ignore.
And the FIFA rule book is irrelevant. The PL doesn't play under FIFA rules. It plays under FA rules.

Then why are refs trained with the IFAB rulebook?  Because the top refs (which all aspire to be) ref outside England too.  Michael Oliver, who was part of the Merseyside Darby debacle is reffing a Champions League game tomorrow.  FA rulebook is irrelevant in the Champions League.

Edit: and I'm not ignoring Martial's misconduct, I'm just stating that IMO, it is the same level of "violent" as Lamela's elbowing him in the throat, which I believe your bias is preventing you from seeing.

[jesmu84]

Forgive me for answering a question with a question, but do you think it would be appropriate for all throw-ins to be taken exactly where the ball went out of play?  Do you think it would be appropriate for all free kicks to be taken exactly where the offense was committed, even if the foul was committed in the fouled teams half, and they want to proceed with the game?  By the letter of the law they have to be, however, it is generally accepted that stopping play and going back to make sure that play resumes exactly where it stops is unnecessary and disrupts the flow of the game.

You also again run into problems with different governing bodies.  The FA is only for England, once you get to international games, refs would have to switch to the FIFA rulebook, which is problematic since most referring clinics use the IFAB rulebook as a default.  It would be a step in the right direction of everyone used the exact same rulebook.

I didn't say anything about what calls are "appropriate."

I asked if fouls/cards were called based on the letter of the law, whether you think players behavior would change.

That's very different than spot of a throw or kick.

[Its DJOver]

I didn't say anything about what calls are "appropriate."

I asked if fouls/cards were called based on the letter of the law, whether you think players behavior would change.

That's very different than spot of a throw or kick.

Very minimally, if at all.  Things happen at a very fast pace.  There are so many examples in any game where a boot is raised while a head is simultaneously lowered, and both are going for the ball.  There may be no intent, but if the laws were followed to a T, "A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play" (IFAB laws of the game) and would therefore be a sending off.  The way players dive for headers, a foot wouldn't even have to be raised very high.

Similar, but not perfect example since I know you're a Spurs fan, regarding handball.  Newcastle was gifted a VAR stoppage time penalty against Spurs, and after converting tied the game 1-1.  Following the letter of the laws, it was absolutely 100% the correct call.  I didn't think it should be a penalty, a lot of others didn't think it should be a penalty.  The backlash was so severe that the FA announced that they would be softening the handball rules in the middle of the season, something that is rarely, if ever, done. 

So many laws are written so that they can be interpreted with common sense in mind, so common sense should be used.  Dier didn't commit a handball, and if Martial's offense was considered "violent" (it wasn't IMO), then so should have Lamela's.

[jesmu84]

Very minimally, if at all.  Things happen at a very fast pace.  There are so many examples in any game where a boot is raised while a head is simultaneously lowered, and both are going for the ball.  There may be no intent, but if the laws were followed to a T, "A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play" (IFAB laws of the game) and would therefore be a sending off.  The way players dive for headers, a foot wouldn't even have to be raised very high.

Similar, but not perfect example since I know you're a Spurs fan, regarding handball.  Newcastle was gifted a VAR stoppage time penalty against Spurs, and after converting tied the game 1-1.  Following the letter of the laws, it was absolutely 100% the correct call.  I didn't think it should be a penalty, a lot of others didn't think it should be a penalty.  The backlash was so severe that the FA announced that they would be softening the handball rules in the middle of the season, something that is rarely, if ever, done. 

So many laws are written so that they can be interpreted with common sense in mind, so common sense should be used.  Dier didn't commit a handball, and if Martial's offense was considered "violent" (it wasn't IMO), then so should have Lamela's.

If players won't change their own behaviors knowing how the rules are called, then that's on them. So what? They could, and perhaps should, call rules to the letter.

Just so you're clear on my stance with Martial/Lamela - no, I don't think it should have been red. But it was clear Martials infraction was incontrovertibly intentional vs Lamelas.

[Its DJOver]

If players won't change their own behaviors knowing how the rules are called, then that's on them. So what? They could, and perhaps should, call rules to the letter.

Just so you're clear on my stance with Martial/Lamela - no, I don't think it should have been red. But it was clear Martials infraction was incontrovertibly intentional vs Lamelas.

How about this then; ball gets sent long, two players go up for it, knock heads, go down.  Both challenging for the ball, the fact that they knock heads and get injured would by default be endangering an opponent.  By the letter of the law, they have both committed an act that would be punishable by red card. 

You want players to start wearing helmets?  Stop going up for headers? Stop playing long balls?  Or maybe, refs use common sense, see that both players were going for the ball, and there was clearly no intent to endanger an opponent.  Why can't this common sense be used everywhere? 

The laws were not written to be followed as strictly as you are suggesting.  Case and point, the "field of play" section gives the dimensions that field must be.  The dimensions that they give are a range.  Fields can be anywhere from 100 to 130 yards long, and anywhere from 50 to 100 yards wide.  Think about that; they're giving you a range of 50 yards for acceptable width.  If they had wanted everything to be followed as strictly as you are suggesting you would not get that kind of flexibility.

[jesmu84]

How about this then; ball gets sent long, two players go up for it, knock heads, go down.  Both challenging for the ball, the fact that they knock heads and get injured would by default be endangering an opponent.  By the letter of the law, they have both committed an act that would be punishable by red card. 

You want players to start wearing helmets?  Stop going up for headers? Stop playing long balls?  Or maybe, refs use common sense, see that both players were going for the ball, and there was clearly no intent to endanger an opponent.  Why can't this common sense be used everywhere? 

The laws were not written to be followed as strictly as you are suggesting.  Case and point, the "field of play" section gives the dimensions that field must be.  The dimensions that they give are a range.  Fields can be anywhere from 100 to 130 yards long, and anywhere from 50 to 100 yards wide.  Think about that; they're giving you a range of 50 yards for acceptable width.  If they had wanted everything to be followed as strictly as you are suggesting you would not get that kind of flexibility.

If rules are enforced differently, in any way, players adapt or get left behind. That's how it is and how it should be.

You're nuts to believe otherwise.

[Its DJOver]

If rules are enforced differently, in any way, players adapt or get left behind. That's how it is and how it should be.

You're nuts to believe otherwise.

So you want the laws to be enforced much more strictly, but not all the laws, just some of them. That's never gonna happen, and no offense at this point it just sounds like you're complaining just to complain. Subjectivity is always going to be a part of the game as long as refs are human.

[jesmu84]

So you want the laws to be enforced much more strictly, but not all the laws, just some of them. That's never gonna happen, and no offense at this point it just sounds like you're complaining just to complain. Subjectivity is always going to be a part of the game as long as refs are human.

Go back and re-read. You seem to be confused about my position as I never said I wanted them to be enforced any differently than they are now.

[Its DJOver]

So you're really digging in this hard over a hypothetical?  Okay

[MUfan12]

I think we can all agree that Pickford and Richarlison should be jailed.

[JWags85]

I think we can all agree that Pickford and Richarlison should be jailed.

Pickford should rightly have his leg amputated below the knee.  Its only fair

[shoothoops]

The Vessel in Hudson Yards was ready for El Clásico today: