What's new

Let's All Laugh At... Let's all laugh at Liverpool thread

barry

Bring me Messi
May 22, 2005
6,505
15,345
In a tight game, if Kane was in Mane's situation ( only chance to beat the keeper to the ball is with a high foot) what would you want him to do?
 

Mr Pink

SC Supporter
Aug 25, 2010
54,776
99,340
There's a massive difference between going in to head the ball and flying in with your studs showing above waist height. Mane didn't mean to hit the keeper but any reasonable person would know that the keeper was coming out and so by doing that you're putting them in danger.

Either way, if someone goes in for a head recklessly then they can be sent off as well.

Not sure about that. A flick of a boot might not be as bad as a full blooded clash of heads. It's not like Mane was about to blast the ball with his foot, now that would be much different imo.
 

schwinebikkje

Member
Aug 31, 2012
23
46
Not a red for me. There is no intent at all, it's just an unfortunate collision.


Furthermore both players are instinctively acting quickly so it's difficult to judge either when the pace of the game is so quick.

If another player attempts an over head kick and catches someone in the face with their follow through, having only eyes for the ball, do they get sent off as well?
So waving your arms in an aerial duel, smashing somones face in with your elbow shouldn't warrant a red card?
 

HobbitSpur

The Voice of Reason
Jun 28, 2013
1,785
3,818
Had that red been for a smaller team I doubt any of the pundits would have said a damn thing. Since its Liverpool it is some kind of travesty.

What part of kicking someone in the face (studs first) isn't a red card?

"He was looking at the ball" - well perhaps as a pro footballer who is supposed to be aware of what is going on around him he should work on that particular skill?

"There was no intent" - doesn't need to be intentional if it is dangerous.

"the ref ruined the game" - no he applied the rules, when a player has broken the rules and in such a dangerous way that there was serious concern for the health of the GK,then the ref has no choice!

"I would go for that ball every time" - And you would get sent off every time you made contact with the keeper. You were a dirty wanker as a player Alan we all know that, but you can't seriously be suggesting there was nothing wrong with that challenge. Even if he had won the ball the ref could have still blown for a high dangerous foot next the the keepers head.

I am probably in the minority here but I don't think it was a Red Card. Your last comment sums this up imo. If he had won the ball it "may" have been a booking. He had every right to go for that ball, he was not looking at the keeper and should not have 100% expected him to be there that far outside the box. If Ederson had stayed on his line and Sane had raised his foot to bring the ball under control in acres of space should that be a booking.

If Ederson had got straight up again there woukd not be as much controversy surrounding it. Unfortunately he did have to go off the pitch but that isn't the reason to automatically declare it a red card.

Yes there are rules that are there to protect players, but they do include malicious and intent. Yes his boot was high but there is no direct rule against that. There was no intent and I would say it was an innocent attempt to get the ball. Hence should have been a yellow and not red.

It is similar to why we have murder and manslaughter charges in the UK. They both cover the same crime but mitigating circumstances reflect different (and normally appropriate) punishments.
 

LexingtonSpurs

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2013
13,456
39,042
Not a red for me. There is no intent at all, it's just an unfortunate collision.


Furthermore both players are instinctively acting quickly so it's difficult to judge either when the pace of the game is so quick.

If another player attempts an over head kick and catches someone in the face with their follow through, having only eyes for the ball, do they get sent off as well?
Intent not a factor.

Yes - an overhead kick, while exciting, is a dangerous play when done in a situation where you kick someone in the head.

Player safety is paramount here. Players must be aware of their surroundings.

Think of it this way - if the ball had been lower, and Ederson got there first with his foot, and then Mane came in late, studs showing, and smashed Ederson's shin - nobody would be debating an automatic Red. This play was even more dangerous...
 

heelspurs

Le filet mignon est un bastion de rosbif
Jul 25, 2012
4,270
5,105
I hate Liverpool with a passion, and laughed when he got sent off but that's massively ott. I acually agree with the motd pundits. If Kane had a chance to get a 50/50 ball in a similar situation what course of action would appease you. I know if he didn't even challenge I'd be dissapointed,
Mane knew he couldn't make it with his head so he took a gamble by trying to knock the ball past the keeper with his foot, if it had worked, it would of been brilliant forward play, as it didn't it looks bad, but aggravated assault...marone.
I'll say it now, I don't think it was a red. That's the game
Alli's was a petulent hack. Totally different
You are mixing argument and points all swirled inside flawed logic. Just because a player has a right to challenge for a ball does not entitle him to maim another player. It also doesn't protect them from any punishments resulting from the challenge.

Mane's part in the challenge was reckless and endangered another player's safety. What is it about placing your foot 6 feet (yes, 6 feet as he jumped up) in the air going 20mph while approaching another player does not seem reckless? You don't think it was a red? Fine, perhaps you don't understand actions and consequences. Perhaps you reading comprehension is poor and you don't understand the difference between "must" (according to the rule copied here) and other words that would allow some leeway for the referee. Perhaps you are the type of person that thinks football should be played that way because that is the way it used to be. Perhaps you are in possession of all these things (or none). But know you are wrong and this is not a gray area.

Regardless of what prominent person (those with conflicted interests paid to keep the 'debate' going) spouts shit in its defense you are still wrong. You are wronger than wrong. You are also come down on the same side of the argument as Robbie Savage and Alan Shearer. How long before Stan Collymore writes an article also saying it wasn't a red? Were I to find myself on the same side of a contentious situation with that trifecta of stupidity I would take a second to reassess my position. Perhaps you should take a moment to reassess yours.

Mane coulda, woulda, shoulda won that challenge but didn't. So it was red and it is not 'the game'. It is what cowardly cretins do and the hooligan hordes want to see. It happens in no other league but the PL and that is because baying crowds want to see it. What does that say about them (and you if you think it is only a booking). If a player did that to me on the field I would consider it 'aggravated assault' and would not worry about what the courts would do as I would adjudicate that particular situation immediately.

Edit: Attempted to edit as @riggi suggested but it's fine.
 
Last edited:

heelspurs

Le filet mignon est un bastion de rosbif
Jul 25, 2012
4,270
5,105
Not a red for me. There is no intent at all, it's just an unfortunate collision.


Furthermore both players are instinctively acting quickly so it's difficult to judge either when the pace of the game is so quick.

If another player attempts an over head kick and catches someone in the face with their follow through, having only eyes for the ball, do they get sent off as well?
Usually love your post...this is not one of them. Please explain to me how you judge a man's intent? Before you waste any time trying to conjure up anything the answer is 'you can't'. You can look for proxies but you can never tell what is in a man's mind. Mane has form for leaving a little in challenges. Think of how many times he did it to Danny last year at the lane. He probably should have been sent off twice that game. I am NOT saying he intended to foot him in the face. I AM saying that he was reckless and endangered another player so it was a red. All the other stuff you write is immaterial to the referees decision.

Answer a question for me: Why are children told to not run with scissors? Also the reason why you shouldn't raise your studs 6 feet high while approaching another player. You may laugh and think it's silly to bring in a child's lesson but the reasoning of the 'Not a red for me, jeff' gang is about at that level.
 

Phantom

Well-Known Member
Jun 6, 2005
5,856
3,212
I am probably in the minority here but I don't think it was a Red Card. Your last comment sums this up imo. If he had won the ball it "may" have been a booking. He had every right to go for that ball, he was not looking at the keeper and should not have 100% expected him to be there that far outside the box. If Ederson had stayed on his line and Sane had raised his foot to bring the ball under control in acres of space should that be a booking.

If Ederson had got straight up again there woukd not be as much controversy surrounding it. Unfortunately he did have to go off the pitch but that isn't the reason to automatically declare it a red card.

Yes there are rules that are there to protect players, but they do include malicious and intent. Yes his boot was high but there is no direct rule against that. There was no intent and I would say it was an innocent attempt to get the ball. Hence should have been a yellow and not red.

It is similar to why we have murder and manslaughter charges in the UK. They both cover the same crime but mitigating circumstances reflect different (and normally appropriate) punishments.

Who suggested it was a red card just for a high boot with nobody around him? So you agree it may have been a booking even if he won the ball? Not sure I understand what point you are trying to make.

There does not need to be malicious intent to be an offence:
  • Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
  • 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
I certainly am not suggesting he should have been sent off because of the resulting injury, he was correctly sent off for gambling with the safety of another player. If his foot was lower and caught him on the knee it would have been a red card. The fact he did not check where the goalie is, is immaterial. Unless he is under some kind of illusion that he is the only person on the pitch he must understand that there was a chance someone was going to be challenging for the ball, his ignorance of where the goalie was does not matter. I don't think there is any chance he had not checked at some point to see whether the GK was coming out for it.

The mitigating circumstances in this case could see a reduced suspension however there is absolutely no way that he should have stayed on the pitch.
 
Last edited:

luRRka

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2008
3,502
15,158
Not sure about that. A flick of a boot might not be as bad as a full blooded clash of heads. It's not like Mane was about to blast the ball with his foot, now that would be much different imo.
That wasn't a flick of the boot, it was studs up flying kick. There may not have been intent but he was running full pelt and jumped with an extended leg to get the ball
 

LexingtonSpurs

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2013
13,456
39,042
The mitigating circumstances in this case should see a reduced suspension however there is absolutely no way that he should have stayed on the pitch.

I think he is more likely to see an enhanced suspension than a reduced suspension. In addition to the seriousness of the offense, Mane also lingered on the pitch a while before one of his teammates escorted him off the pitch.

The fact that Ederson's injuries look not to be severe, probably keep this as a 3-match suspension - as it would for any straight red.
 

Phantom

Well-Known Member
Jun 6, 2005
5,856
3,212
I think he is more likely to see an enhanced suspension than a reduced suspension. In addition to the seriousness of the offense, Mane also lingered on the pitch a while before one of his teammates escorted him off the pitch.

The fact that Ederson's injuries look not to be severe, probably keep this as a 3-match suspension - as it would for any straight red.

I don't disagree at all, I think a 3 match ban is completely deserved in this case. However I was looking for where mitigating circumstance could come into it, if it is decided it was harsh it "should" reduce the ban. I don't however think that is or should be the case. Apologies for not making that clear, I have changed it to "could" to make that clearer.
 

rossdapep

Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2011
21,907
78,647
Who suggested it was a red card just for a high boot with nobody around him? So you agree it may have been a booking even if he won the ball? Not sure I understand what point you are trying to make.

There does not need to be malicious intent to be an offence:
  • Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
  • 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
I certainly am not suggesting he should have been sent off because of the resulting injury, he was correctly sent off for gambling with the safety of another player. If his foot was lower and caught him on the knee it would have been a red card. The fact he did not check where the goalie is, is immaterial. Unless he is under some kind of illusion that he is the only person on the pitch he must understand that there was a chance someone was going to be challenging for the ball, his ignorance of where the goalie was does not matter. I don't think there is any chance he had not checked at some point to see whether the GK was coming out for it.

The mitigating circumstances in this case could see a reduced suspension however there is absolutely no way that he should have stayed on the pitch.
Exactly! The reason he had his foot so high was due to the fact that he knew he had to get that high to beat the GK to the ball, therefore he knew the risk and knew exactly where Ederson was.
 

HobbitSpur

The Voice of Reason
Jun 28, 2013
1,785
3,818
Who suggested it was a red card just for a high boot with nobody around him? So you agree it may have been a booking even if he won the ball? Not sure I understand what point you are trying to make.

There does not need to be malicious intent to be an offence:
  • Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
  • 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
I certainly am not suggesting he should have been sent off because of the resulting injury, he was correctly sent off for gambling with the safety of another player. If his foot was lower and caught him on the knee it would have been a red card. The fact he did not check where the goalie is, is immaterial. Unless he is under some kind of illusion that he is the only person on the pitch he must understand that there was a chance someone was going to be challenging for the ball, his ignorance of where the goalie was does not matter. I don't think there is any chance he had not checked at some point to see whether the GK was coming out for it.

The mitigating circumstances in this case could see a reduced suspension however there is absolutely no way that he should have stayed on the pitch.

If the tackle had been lower, and Ederson had run into Mane as he was trying to control the ball which is what happened it woukd not have been a red card either.

If mane had gone in aggressively, leading with his foot then yes that would be a red card. No matter where on the body it was.

Some things in football, is sport, in life generally are completely fair yet unfortunate. Thi
You are mixing argument and points all swirled inside flawed logic. Just because a player has a right to challenge for a ball does not entitle him to maim another player. It also doesn't protect them from any punishments resulting from the challenge.

Mane's part in the challenge was reckless and endangered another player's safety. What is it about placing your foot 6 feet (yes, 6 feet as he jumped up) in the air going 20mph while approaching another player does not seem reckless? You don't think it was a red? Fine, perhaps you don't understand actions and consequences. Perhaps you reading comprehension is poor and you don't understand the difference between "must" (according to the rule copied here) and other words that would allow some leeway for the referee. Perhaps you are the type of person that thinks football should be played that way because that is the way it used to be. Perhaps you are in possession of all these things (or none). But know you are wrong and this is not a gray area.

Regardless of what prominent person (those with conflicted interests paid to keep the 'debate' going) spouts shit in its defense you are still wrong. You are wronger than wrong. You are also come down on the same side of the argument as Robbie Savage and Alan Shearer. How long before Stan Collymore writes an article also saying it wasn't a red? Were I to find myself on the same side of a contentious situation with that trifecta of stupidity I would take a second to reassess my position. Perhaps you should take a moment to reassess yours.

Mane coulda, woulda, shoulda won that challenge but didn't. So it was red and it is not 'the game'. It is what cowardly cretins do and the hooligan hordes want to see. It happens in no other league but the PL and that is because baying crowds want to see it. What does that say about them (and you if you think it is only a booking). If a player did that to me on the field I would consider it 'aggravated assault' and would not worry about what the courts would do as I would adjudicate that particular situation immediately.

Edit: Attempted to edit as @riggi suggested but it's fine.

So running down the wing in acres of space not another player within 30 meters and you raise your foot to control the ball. Is that a foul/card? Obviously not.

So using that logic it just depends on how close the other player is to you before it becomes an offence.

2 meters maybe? 5 meters?

No one (no normal person) wants to see people get injured playing football. But accidents do happen.

I am all for protecting players, but we need to be careful not to over react.
 

rossdapep

Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2011
21,907
78,647
I am probably in the minority here but I don't think it was a Red Card. Your last comment sums this up imo. If he had won the ball it "may" have been a booking. He had every right to go for that ball, he was not looking at the keeper and should not have 100% expected him to be there that far outside the box. If Ederson had stayed on his line and Sane had raised his foot to bring the ball under control in acres of space should that be a booking.

If Ederson had got straight up again there woukd not be as much controversy surrounding it. Unfortunately he did have to go off the pitch but that isn't the reason to automatically declare it a red card.

Yes there are rules that are there to protect players, but they do include malicious and intent. Yes his boot was high but there is no direct rule against that. There was no intent and I would say it was an innocent attempt to get the ball. Hence should have been a yellow and not red.

It is similar to why we have murder and manslaughter charges in the UK. They both cover the same crime but mitigating circumstances reflect different (and normally appropriate) punishments.
If that was the case Mane would have had no reason to lift his foot so high, he simply would have anticipated where the ball was going to bounce and taken a touch or header much lower. Also, it wasn't that far out, it was just on the edge. If you're not expecting a GK to come for that then you've never been in that one on one position before - which I'd be very surprised if Mane hadn't.

Anyone who's played football before will tell you that you don't need to look directly at a player to know or anticipate a challenge, you see it out of the corner of your eye or you just sense it from experience. Mane saw him in the corner of his eye, tried to nick the ball past him, missed and dangerously connected with his face. That's the risk you take, it's the same as rushing into a tackle with force or jumping with an elbow dangling out - you now that there's a chance you don't take the ball and connect with the man.
 

aliyid

Well-Known Member
Dec 28, 2004
6,944
19,929
Can't quite believe what I'm reading from some of you. Studs up into the players face breaking his jaw and it shouldn't be a red o_O
 

Phantom

Well-Known Member
Jun 6, 2005
5,856
3,212
If the tackle had been lower, and Ederson had run into Mane as he was trying to control the ball which is what happened it woukd not have been a red card either.

If mane had gone in aggressively, leading with his foot then yes that would be a red card. No matter where on the body it was.

Some things in football, is sport, in life generally are completely fair yet unfortunate. Thi

.

An analogous comparison would be Ederson clearing the ball and being caught on the knee. Would be a very clear red, honestly not seeing how anyone can argue otherwise to be quite honest.

"If mane had gone in aggressively, leading with his foot then yes that would be a red card. No matter where on the body it was."

maxresdefault.jpg


Looks like Mane is channelling Jackie Chan, looks like he led with his foot, high (potentially dangerous) and aggressive to me.
 
Top