2019-20 Carabao Cup

[maclean]

Wasn't that long ago we lost to Liverpool 5-0, so I'll take that crazy game against the best team in the league and please don't @ me about their respective ages

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

This has always (maybe not always) been a rule it’s just rarely enforced. If you make a reckless challenge that would result in a foul (or is just dangerous) but a player jumps out of the way to avoid it it’s supposed to be a foul, yea.

It’s almost always down to referee discretion obviously. If they consider a tackle careless/reckless whether there’s contact or not it’s meant to be a foul based on the attempt etc. I can link to the relevant rules but ultimately everyone will have differing opinions on what constitutes careless/reckless etc. which is part of why these debates always come up (and why it’s easy to justify in favour of your own team and not for others).

Source please.

 

[Savant]

EFL Quarter Final Draw

Oxford United X Manchester City
Manchester United X Colchester
Aston Villa X Liverpool
Everton X Leicester

City do it again. Gets the easiest team in a non-televised (radio only) draw. Don’t know how they always pull this off.

 

[hatterson]

Source please.

It’s definitely a rule. If YNWA hasn’t posted it in a couple hours when I get to the office, I’ll grab the relevant bits.

It’s not enforced uniformly, but it’s there.

 

[hatterson]

EFL Quarter Final Draw

Oxford United X Manchester City
Manchester United X Colchester
Aston Villa X Liverpool
Everton X Leicester

City do it again. Gets the easiest team in a non-televised (radio only) draw. Don’t know how they always pull this off.

Probably the worst draw for Oxford. Essentially guaranteed to go out and don’t get the advantage of a big away gate receipt or television money.

 

[Chimaera]

City's draws are crazy easy. They'd probably roll through most of the draws, but sheesh.

 

[robertmac43]

I have watched the highlights of the Pool v Arsenal game half a dozen times now, It had everything. What an amazing match of football, from an entertainment perspective.

The Willock goal was one of my favs thus far in the season.

 

[YNWA14]

Source please.

Yeah sorry I’m on mobile but this link has a good explanation and links to the relevant sections of the laws of the game.

Is it a foul if no contact is made during an attempted reckless tackle?

 

[hatterson]

To go back to the foul discussion. There are 10 things that can lead to a penalty:

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent
• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

As you'll note for 4 of those, contact isn't a requirement (3 contain attempts and 1 is "jumps at")

In those situations the referee must determine if the action was "careless", "reckless", or "using excessive force" If it is any of those, it's a foul.

Careless = no card
Reckless = yellow
Using excessive force = red

“Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution.
“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent.
“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.

Given the lack of card, the referee must have determined it was a "careless" act and not more.

 

[bluesfan94]

To go back to the foul discussion. There are 10 things that can lead to a penalty:



As you'll note for 4 of those, contact isn't a requirement (3 contain attempts and 1 is "jumps at")

In those situations the referee must determine if the action was "careless", "reckless", or "using excessive force" If it is any of those, it's a foul.

Careless = no card
Reckless = yellow
Using excessive force = red



Given the lack of card, the referee must have determined it was a "careless" act and not more.

Yeah, but the referee still f***ed up because it was an attempted tackle and that's not on the list. This is where people get confused. Attempting a tackle is not on the list, only attempting to trip (as in, without making a play on the ball).

Also, the laws of the game are unclear, because this is the law:

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• charges
• jumps at
• kicks or attempts to kick
• pushes
• strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
• tackles or challenges
• trips or attempts to trip

If an offence involves contact, it is penalised by a direct free kick.

 

[hatterson]

Yeah, but the referee still ****ed up because it was an attempted tackle and that's not on the list. This is where people get confused. Attempting a tackle is not on the list, only attempting to trip (as in, without making a play on the ball).

Also, the laws of the game are unclear, because this is the law:

The difference between attempted tackle and attempted trip is up to interpretation. (ie, there's no a hard and fast rule that just because you were going in the direction of the ball or near it, it's not a trip. or that the ball not being there automatically means it is).

There's an argument for calling it an indirect free kick under the later section

 impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made

or

Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.

However, it's been long standing interpretation and rulings that if a player takes evasive action to avoid a potentially dangerous challenge in the box and that action directly causes them to lose control of the ball, a penalty is a fair award. The general idea being that you shouldn't punish a player if they're simply trying to avoid being injured


I do agree the "if an offense involves contact bit" is poor wording in the rules given that it's directly contradicted by the "attempts to" in multiple places above it.

 

[YNWA14]

You don’t have to explicitly state that attempting a tackle needs to be in the rules. It can still be classified as careless if you make a rash challenge with very little chance of getting the ball. To challenge in a careless manner is right in the law you quoted.

It really all comes down to each ref’s interpretation of what constitutes being careless, reckless or dangerous. You’d think there’d be mostly uniform instructions on that front but...

 

[bluesfan94]

However, it's been long standing interpretation and rulings that if a player takes evasive action to avoid a potentially dangerous challenge in the box and that action directly causes them to lose control of the ball, a penalty is a fair award. The general idea being that you shouldn't punish a player if they're simply trying to avoid being injured

Which is fine if the avoided tackle is truly potentially dangerous.

 

[hatterson]

Which is fine if the avoided tackle is truly potentially dangerous.

I actually haven't seen the play in question, so I'm not sure if it was or not. I was just commenting on the overall idea that contact is required for a pen.

 

[YNWA14]

Which is fine if the avoided tackle is truly potentially dangerous.

It doesn’t have to be potentially dangerous it just has to be careless. If you would get tripped/knocked over/hit because you didn’t jump out of the way it should be a foul. Even the most innocent looking knocks can roll an ankle, break bones, cause issues, etc. I can tell you getting stamped on the top of your foot with a cleat is pretty dang painful. Someone shouldn’t be rewarded defensively for your self preservation.

 

[S E P H]

Elliott was most definitely a dive, but that's what you get for a game without VAR. Torriera's goal would've been called back too.

Ox goal was superb though and Willock decided to out do him. Ox isn't as good as the Liverpool fans make him out to be, but I hate seeing him wear their kit.

 

[Savant]

Elliott was most definitely a dive, but that's what you get for a game without VAR. Torriera's goal would've been called back too.

Ox goal was superb though and Willock decided to out do him. Ox isn't as good as the Liverpool fans make him out to be, but I hate seeing him wear their kit.

When Chamberlain is 100% healthy is one of Liverpool’s best three midfielders and should be starting most games. I really think their best midfield is Wijnaldum-Fabinho-Chamberlain, especially when Henderson’s....skill set is not required (Chamberlain should have played at Old Trafford, Henderson should have played against Tottenham)

 

[bluesfan94]

It doesn’t have to be potentially dangerous it just has to be careless. If you would get tripped/knocked over/hit because you didn’t jump out of the way it should be a foul. Even the most innocent looking knocks can roll an ankle, break bones, cause issues, etc. I can tell you getting stamped on the top of your foot with a cleat is pretty dang painful. Someone shouldn’t be rewarded defensively for your self preservation.

In that case, every single tackle is careless.

 

[YNWA14]

In that case, every single tackle is careless.

Not when you get the ball.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

Elliott was most definitely a dive, but that's what you get for a game without VAR. Torriera's goal would've been called back too.

Ox goal was superb though and Willock decided to out do him. Ox isn't as good as the Liverpool fans make him out to be, but I hate seeing him wear their kit.

There was also a missed handball right before that penalty.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

At least our kids where brilliant, yours where not that impressive at all, besides the diver Elliot.

And yet they still lost. Not a good sign, if you ask me.

 

[AB13]

And yet they still lost. Not a good sign, if you ask me.

The kids played offensive roles and we scored 5 goals, that is a great sign. We drew in reality, losing a shoutout shows no worrying signs about the future. Our experienced defenders, 27 year old goalkeeper and clown of a manager let us down.

Our goalscorers from yesterday are aged 18, 20, 22 and 23, Liverpools are aged 24, 26 and 33.

 

[YNWA14]

The kids played offensive roles and we scored 5 goals, that is a great sign. We drew in reality, losing a shoutout shows no worrying signs about the future. Our experienced defenders, 27 year old goalkeeper and clown of a manager let us down.

Our goalscorers from yesterday are aged 18, 20, 22 and 23, Liverpools are aged 24, 26 and 33.

How old were the players that created the goals for Liverpool? Also are you claiming a tie in reality with an obvious offside goal and missed handball?

 

[AB13]

How old were the players that created the goals for Liverpool? Also are you claiming a tie in reality with an obvious offside goal and missed handball?

Obvious dive for Liverpools penalty to get them back in the game to begin with, without that we could have ran away with it. A 20 year old and an 18 year old had assists for Arsenal, and two 18 year old had an assist each for Liverpool, to answer your question. There is a lot more to it than goals and assists, but our youngsters clearly outshone yours yesterday, comfortably.

 

[Wee Baby Seamus]

I am not mad to lose if goals like Rashford's are the reason why. Wowee.