GWT: PL Matchweek 11

Blender

Registered User
Dec 2, 2009
51,425
45,314
Tackle was bad, it was through the back and a bit high, but it didn't cause the horrific injury.
 

AB13

Registered User
Apr 29, 2019
6,998
2,605
And here I thought with how Spurs were doing we’d be spared of this nonsense again.

Son is one of the most likeable players out there. Horrible. :(

Son is probably the easiest to hate player in world football, dives non stop, complains about everything to the refs, plays incredibly dirty and is disrespectful towards most opponents. Never ever seen such a diver. Horrible what happened though, that probably was not his intention. But the tackle was inexusably dangerous.

Son is not the one to feel sorry for here.
 

Blender

Registered User
Dec 2, 2009
51,425
45,314
I went back and watch a replay because the broadcast wasn't showing it. It wasn't a stonwall red on it's own, but it was a hack at the back leg.

It wasn't the challenge itself that broke the ankle, but was how he landed after it.
Yea the way he went down into Aurier was brutal.
 

CapitalsCupReality

It’s Go Time!!
Feb 27, 2002
64,677
19,518
Aggressive tackle, certainly a foul combined with the opponent in a unfortunate vulnerable spot.

Terrible luck all around.
 

Baxterman

Registered User
Aug 27, 2017
6,939
1,499
how does it not lol?

You should get punished for the act not the result.

If I tap you on the leg and you fall awkwardly and break your leg I shouldn't get punished because you feel awkwardly. The punishment should be on the act not whether a player gets hurt or not because of it.
 

hatterson

Registered User
Apr 12, 2010
35,353
12,689
North Tonawanda, NY
How does that make any sense?

There's a clear difference between a routine challenge that happens to have brutal results and a kick at a guys back leg that wasn't remotely close to the ball that ends up destroying his ankle.

If you're putting in a cynical or reckless challenge, you bear a certain responsibility for the results.
 

Blender

Registered User
Dec 2, 2009
51,425
45,314
There's a clear difference between a routine challenge that happens to have brutal results and a kick at a guys back leg that wasn't remotely close to the ball that ends up destroying his ankle.

If you're putting in a cynical or reckless challenge, you bear a certain responsibility for the results.
Agreed, it was a terrible tackle that could have caused an injury. He took that risk when he made it, and that the injury wasn't directly from the tackle doesn't matter, it was still reckless and resulted in an injury.
 

Jersey Fresh

Video Et Taceo
Feb 23, 2004
26,226
9,167
T.A.
Yeah, looking at the result to determine the penalty doesn't make a lot of sense to me and has it's own set of problems.

Players have to go off because of yellow card challenges all the time and sometimes have long layoffs that you have no idea about at the time. Because in this case you can openly diagnose it it's a red, but in cases where only scans after the fact determine the scope of damage it's okay to keep at a yellow? In cases where players are forced off because of a challenge, should they always be upgraded to red?
 

Baxterman

Registered User
Aug 27, 2017
6,939
1,499
There's a clear difference between a routine challenge that happens to have brutal results and a kick at a guys back leg that wasn't remotely close to the ball that ends up destroying his ankle.

If you're putting in a cynical or reckless challenge, you bear a certain responsibility for the results.

That's a terrible way to ref but I understand that with emotions involved it is the way that it goes.

If Aurier isn't there and Gomez just falls and that is called a yellow card it seems stupid to give a red card just because Aurier happened to be there for Gomez to hit when Son made the exact same play in each case. Unless you think that he made the play hoping that Gomez would hit Aurier which I think we all agree was not what happened.
 

hatterson

Registered User
Apr 12, 2010
35,353
12,689
North Tonawanda, NY
That's a terrible way to ref but I understand that with emotions involved it is the way that it goes.

If Aurier isn't there and Gomez just falls and that is called a yellow card it seems stupid to give a red card just because Aurier happened to be there for Gomez to hit when Son made the exact same play in each case. Unless you think that he made the play hoping that Gomez would hit Aurier which I think we all agree was not what happened.

Aurier made it look awkward, but his presence didn't actually do anything. It was due to how he landed on it before he even got to Aurier.

Son tried to break up the play a few seconds before, the Everton player rode it out and passed forward to Gomes. Son made a terrible challenge on Gomes to try to break up the play. It was on the high end of yellow as it was. The contact from Son kicking Gomes back leg caused him to twist awkwardly in the air and then his ankle landed bad under him and clearly broke. Then Gomes rolled into Aurier.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad