Player Watch Player Watch: Cristian Romero

[Trent Crimm]

Amazes me how fans look for excuses and reasons why their own teams players have been completely reckless, whilst condemning those from other teams for exactly the same things. It was yet another idiotic moment from Romero, and 100% in my mind should have been a red card. It really is as simple as that. It wasn't Wilson's fault, it wasn't bad luck, or a case that "he just slipped" it was moronic and dangerous and that's all there is to it.

 

[idontgetit]

It wouldn't be a red under a lot of people's idea of what a red should and shouldn't be. For example, Cash's was much worse.

But under the law it is and the follow through is done to leave a little something on the opposing player.

I suppose if we want to wipe out violent conduct then you may need to give reds to anything deemed a little OTT

If the ref doesn't think it's intentional then I don't see where the red comes from.

 

[kd2000]

But he didnt get sent off and he's not missing 4 games, so it's irrelevant.

But you could apply that logic in all walks of life.
Its like saying someone drink drove and their driving could have resulted in someones death, but because the driver didnt lose control and plough into a group of school children its irrelevant.

whether it is irrelevant because the worst didnt happen, it was a stupid and unnecessary tackle which could have meant our best current defender was missing for another 4 games meaning we had to rely on Eric Dier, or worse.
Surely, that possible outcome makes it relevant?

 

[C0YS]

If the ref doesn't think it's intentional then I don't see where the red comes from.

Intentionality is irrelevant.

 

[Trent Crimm]

He was lucky this week. Bet your ass the refs are watching him like a a hawk in upcoming games, he’s his own worst enemy. There will be Moans aplenty when a ref books him / sends him off soon

Like a 12 year old kids report, very bright too easily distracted”.

 

[Trent Crimm]

But he didnt get sent off and he's not missing 4 games, so it's irrelevant.

But, but Ramos

 

[kd2000]

It wouldn't be a red under a lot of people's idea of what a red should and shouldn't be. For example, Cash's was much worse.

But under the law it is and the follow through is done to leave a little something on the opposing player.

I suppose if we want to wipe out violent conduct then you may need to give reds to anything deemed a little OTT

Do you really think Cash' tackle was much worse?
Or do we think its worse because of the actual outcome?
Late yes, possible even meant it, but so was Romero and yes, I definitely think he knew what he was doing.

Despite the actual outcome, I firmly believe Romeros had more potential for causing an injury when you look at the tackles objectively and removing the injury sustained by Bentancur (I still wish harm on Cash by the way)

 

[kd2000]

If the ref doesn't think it's intentional then I don't see where the red comes from.

I havent seen any angle, slow mo or in real time which doesnt make it look like an intentional act, in my very humble opinion

 

[C0YS]

Do you really think Cash' tackle was much worse?
Or do we think its worse because of the actual outcome?
Late yes, possible even meant it, but so was Romero and yes, I definitely think he knew what he was doing.

Despite the actual outcome, I firmly believe Romeros had more potential for causing an injury when you look at the tackles objectively and removing the injury sustained by Bentancur (I still wish harm on Cash by the way)

In fact Cash's tackle was much less worse and probably not a red, despite the outcome. Cash went in with speed but unlike Romero, studs did not make contact with the opposition player. It is the studs and potential avoidability (not intention) of making contact with studs that meant he risked being sent off.

Such tackles are extremely dangerous as can result in serious leg breaks if unlucky. Bentancur got a muscular injury and Cashs tackle unlikely to ever result in a breakage. Different types of tackles that tend to be viewed differently.

Right now we are at a time where a lot of these tackles do not result in sending offs. But, this is because it has been quite some time since we have had a major injury from a tackle of that type. The same why elbows and flailing arms are currently not as penalised as they have in the past. Inevitably we will have a major incident at some point soon. And once again refs will end up probably over penalising tackles of that type.

 

[Yid-ol]

I havent seen any angle, slow mo or in real time which doesnt make it look like an intentional act, in my very humble opinion

Think there is a video a page or two back (maybe more, this thread grows so quickly just now) as Romero starts to go for the ball Wilson rolls the ball forward.

Poorly timed, but I still say he went for the ball but got Wilson instead as he was late.

 

[spurs mental]

But you could apply that logic in all walks of life.
Its like saying someone drink drove and their driving could have resulted in someones death, but because the driver didnt lose control and plough into a group of school children its irrelevant.

whether it is irrelevant because the worst didnt happen, it was a stupid and unnecessary tackle which could have meant our best current defender was missing for another 4 games meaning we had to rely on Eric Dier, or worse.
Surely, that possible outcome makes it relevant?

Drink driving is a far worse offence than a bad tackle in football, so your hypothetical and the circumstances that follow are not exactly in line with a bad tackle on a football pitch.

 

[kd2000]

Drink driving is a far worse offence than a bad tackle in football, so your hypothetical and the circumstances that follow are not exactly in line with a bad tackle on a football pitch.

I think maybe you are missing the point of the post rather than concentrating on the content.
My point was simply that it doesn't become irrelevant, just because the worst doesn't happen.

differing levels of severity do not make things different levels of relevant

 

[idontgetit]

Intentionality is irrelevant.

So what is relevant? If he didn't mean it then it removes violent conduct and only leaves dangerous or excessive force. It wasn't excessive force so that leaves the question of whether it was dangerous? Which again I don't think it was.

Or have I missed something?

 

[BorjeSpurs]

Intentionality is irrelevant.

I actually don't know how much intention should be taken into account, but the media definitely used that argument to poor Curtis Jones who rolled over the ball before he took out Bissouma.

 

[dirtyh]

The main issue now is that his head is above the parapet and refs will undoubtedly have an extra close eye on him due to his growing 'reputation' now so anything from here on in will be far more under the microscope, meaning he needs to be extra careful.

Personally think he's just missing vdv and the safety net he provides.

 

[fishhhandaricecake]

But you could apply that logic in all walks of life.
Its like saying someone drink drove and their driving could have resulted in someones death, but because the driver didnt lose control and plough into a group of school children its irrelevant.

whether it is irrelevant because the worst didnt happen, it was a stupid and unnecessary tackle which could have meant our best current defender was missing for another 4 games meaning we had to rely on Eric Dier, or worse.
Surely, that possible outcome makes it relevant?

Such a good post!

 

[muppetman]

This all feels like when there is an International break and there isn't enough to talk about.

 

[Yid-ol]

This all feels like when there is an International break and there isn't enough to talk about.

It seems to have gone round in circles more than Scott Parker in this thread over the last few days.

 

[Joshua shepherd]

But you could apply that logic in all walks of life.
Its like saying someone drink drove and their driving could have resulted in someones death, but because the driver didnt lose control and plough into a group of school children its irrelevant.

whether it is irrelevant because the worst didnt happen, it was a stupid and unnecessary tackle which could have meant our best current defender was missing for another 4 games meaning we had to rely on Eric Dier, or worse.
Surely, that possible outcome makes it relevant?

Surely in this instance the correct comparison would be the driver losing his license because of the drink driving and the school children being ploughed into comparative to Wilson breaking his leg.

 

[newbie]

There where a few orange cards, like the pull back on son, wasn’t a red but

In fact Cash's tackle was much less worse and probably not a red, despite the outcome. Cash went in with speed but unlike Romero, studs did not make contact with the opposition player. It is the studs and potential avoidability (not intention) of making contact with studs that meant he risked being sent off.

Such tackles are extremely dangerous as can result in serious leg breaks if unlucky. Bentancur got a muscular injury and Cashs tackle unlikely to ever result in a breakage. Different types of tackles that tend to be viewed differently.

Right now we are at a time where a lot of these tackles do not result in sending offs. But, this is because it has been quite some time since we have had a major injury from a tackle of that type. The same why elbows and flailing arms are currently not as penalised as they have in the past. Inevitably we will have a major incident at some point soon. And once again refs will end up probably over penalising tackles of that type.

Cashes tackle was bad, and he would have known bents had been out for 9 months.

Funny how bents was running the game and cash takes him out?

Not condoning Romeros tackles and idiocy but cash got away with an orange tackle there was intent to injure.

I hope Romero cuts it out, it’s stopping him from being world class