GWT: PL Matchweek 11

[Gecklund]

I have no problem with a red there.

I think football fans are ridiculous. If anything there should be way way more yellow cards and red cards called, not less or whatever is orange card.

I hate technical/cynical fouls like going after the players to stop a clear counter attack. It should be a straight red. That should stop it. The best example is Choudry tackle on Salah. He never cared about the ball, he just wanted to stop a chance for Salah. He got a yellow and Salah got injured. That is just wrong. If you don't make an attempt at the ball it should be a straight red even if it is not a clear attempt to injure the other player.

There is no question that if Son does not trip Gomes, he does not break his leg. Players are responsible of their own action. Son has all the reasons to feel bad about his tackle. It is awful how people still defend it because they think the injury is the ONLY reason it is called a red card and not yellow. This should be a red card 100% of the time no mater of the injury.

I have zero problem with handling more red cards to similar foul to prevent these type of injuries.

While I agree with your premise here, I don’t agree with giving out a straight red for a tactical foul. I mean definitely a yellow but a red seems harsh for a little pullback to slow them down. I do think injury needs to play a part in the severity here.

@YNWA14

don’t feel like trying to multi quote and I’m on mobile so I’m just going to respond like this. I very very strongly disagree with suspending someone for the length of an injury for a few reasons. The first is who decides who’s at fault. Let’s look at the Mane-Ederson incident last season. Both were going 50/50 (if I remember right) and Ederson got the worst of it. So now Mane is suspended for a huge amount of time because he went for a 50/50. Just doesn’t make sense to me. The second reason is that what happens if a player suffers a setback. Say the timetable was originally 4 weeks and then they end up making it worse by training too early and now their suddenly out 4 months. The last major reason is what do you do about players who come back too early. Take Pogba for example. He injured his ankle, came back, the injury flared up again. So a player is allowed back for one game and then suspended again? I dunno maybe I’m crazy here and wrong but it just seems like it would be so hard to enforce in a sport that already has huge issues in enforcement.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

The circumstances here are that Son’s tackle was reckless, made no attempt at the ball, and directly led to a very significant injury to his opponent.

not sure why this is so hard for some to comprehend....

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

not sure why this is so hard for some to comprehend....

Pretty easy actually my team suffered so the ref got it wrong. Had my team befitted from the call the ref would've been obviously right in his decision.

 

[hatterson]

Absolutely.

What really should be instituted, and would be really easy to implement, is if you are found at fault of a foul and someone is injured because of it you should be suspended for the same amount of time as the injury.

I know people don’t like to take responsibility for any negative result of their actions but it would be a good step in eliminating cynical actions.

I don’t think this is an effective, or manageable, solution.

First, as @SJSharks39 mentioned, the duration of an injury, especially something involving a knee or ankle, is very fluid and you can easily have setbacks. Determining a reasonable duration an opponent is out for is impossible to do in a coherent manner. Also what if a player retires, how do you judge it then? Gomes is 26, so he’ll likely train hard and come back, but what if he was 32, there’d be a chance he’d recover and just call it a good career after an injury like that.

Second, there’s many times where the injury is such a freak occurrence that it’s absurd to punish someone for months and months for it.

The example I gave is one. A defender tries to toe poke the ball away as an attacker comes at him, the attacker sees it and quickly slides the ball to the side, as a result their knees briefly touch. In 99.999% of those challenges, the kind of which happen multiple times a game, the attacker either stays on his feet and continues or goes down and there’s a routine free kick. But what if on this freak occurrence, the attackers ACL blows, should the defender really be sitting for 9-12 months for that challenge? After all, the foul was his fault.

What about a situation where an attacker is chasing a defender into the corner. We can all picture what usually happens. The defender shields the ball, the attacker bumps into him a bit from behind, the defender falls over, and a free kick is awarded. What if instead of a routine fall over, his leg catches in a bit of a rut in the grass and the slight contact from behind causes his knee to buckle or his ankle to roll and it tears something. Should the attacker really be sitting for many months because of that? After all, he’s at fault for the foul.

It absolutely makes sense for the results of a tackle to be considered when addressing the color of the card handed out or how long a potential supplemental suspension may be, but you can’t reasonably directly tie recovery duration to suspension duration in a remotely coherent and consistent way.

 

[bluesfan94]

Yes it is true.

No it isn’t. Outcome determines consequences like all the time.

 

[spintheblackcircle]

 

[hatterson]

No it isn’t. Outcome determines consequences like all the time.

Even in football.

I recklessly swing my foot at a high ball. If no one is around likely nothing happens. If there's a defender there I don't see, it's a free kick. If I make contact, it's likely a yellow. If the contact injures him significantly there's a decent chance of a red.

 

[YNWA14]

While I agree with your premise here, I don’t agree with giving out a straight red for a tactical foul. I mean definitely a yellow but a red seems harsh for a little pullback to slow them down. I do think injury needs to play a part in the severity here.

@YNWA14

don’t feel like trying to multi quote and I’m on mobile so I’m just going to respond like this. I very very strongly disagree with suspending someone for the length of an injury for a few reasons. The first is who decides who’s at fault. Let’s look at the Mane-Ederson incident last season. Both were going 50/50 (if I remember right) and Ederson got the worst of it. So now Mane is suspended for a huge amount of time because he went for a 50/50. Just doesn’t make sense to me. The second reason is that what happens if a player suffers a setback. Say the timetable was originally 4 weeks and then they end up making it worse by training too early and now their suddenly out 4 months. The last major reason is what do you do about players who come back too early. Take Pogba for example. He injured his ankle, came back, the injury flared up again. So a player is allowed back for one game and then suspended again? I dunno maybe I’m crazy here and wrong but it just seems like it would be so hard to enforce in a sport that already has huge issues in enforcement.

I don’t think this is an effective, or manageable, solution.

First, as @SJSharks39 mentioned, the duration of an injury, especially something involving a knee or ankle, is very fluid and you can easily have setbacks. Determining a reasonable duration an opponent is out for is impossible to do in a coherent manner. Also what if a player retires, how do you judge it then? Gomes is 26, so he’ll likely train hard and come back, but what if he was 32, there’d be a chance he’d recover and just call it a good career after an injury like that.

Second, there’s many times where the injury is such a freak occurrence that it’s absurd to punish someone for months and months for it.

The example I gave is one. A defender tries to toe poke the ball away as an attacker comes at him, the attacker sees it and quickly slides the ball to the side, as a result their knees briefly touch. In 99.999% of those challenges, the kind of which happen multiple times a game, the attacker either stays on his feet and continues or goes down and there’s a routine free kick. But what if on this freak occurrence, the attackers ACL blows, should the defender really be sitting for 9-12 months for that challenge? After all, the foul was his fault.

What about a situation where an attacker is chasing a defender into the corner. We can all picture what usually happens. The defender shields the ball, the attacker bumps into him a bit from behind, the defender falls over, and a free kick is awarded. What if instead of a routine fall over, his leg catches in a bit of a rut in the grass and the slight contact from behind causes his knee to buckle or his ankle to roll and it tears something. Should the attacker really be sitting for many months because of that? After all, he’s at fault for the foul.

It absolutely makes sense for the results of a tackle to be considered when addressing the color of the card handed out or how long a potential supplemental suspension may be, but you can’t reasonably directly tie recovery duration to suspension duration in a remotely coherent and consistent way.

Very valid points in here I can't address right at the moment, but I agree that it wouldn't be necessarily a simplistic thing to implement and there would need to be a lot of considerations. I guess if I were to flesh out the idea more it would involve baselines, a certain standard of foul, etc. just like in most legal situations it's rarely black and white but I do believe there could be some kind of system in place that punishes more harshly than just a simple red for an act that causes someone to miss significant time.

It's kind of a moot point since there won't be such a drastic overhaul to the system anyway, but again your reasoning would have a big impact as to why it would be so hard to implement in the first place and may be unrealistic.

 

[VEGASKING]

Sanchez should have been sent off in the extra time for a last man foul as well. Everton was going to be in on a 2 on 0. Another botched VAR review that leaves you shaking your head.

 

[JeffreyLFC]

Sanchez should have been sent off in the extra time for a last man foul as well. Everton was going to be in on a 2 on 0. Another botched VAR review that leaves you shaking your head.

Also Guendouzi should have also been a straight red against Zaha.

These cynical fouls should be called red no mater what.

 

[AB13]

Christian Eriksen stats vs Everton

0 take ons
0 chances created
0 shots
0 interceptions
0 tackles
Lost possession 16 times
1 yellow card

Christian Eriksen is ridiculously sh*t right now, one of the worst statistical performances I can recall ever seeing in the PL.

 

[S E P H]

Also can we put end to the Ederson hype? He allowed another bogus goal and blokes here called him a top 10 goalkeeper, lol. Looney pills I guess, one of the most overrated players in the EPL easily.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Also can we put end to the Ederson hype? He allowed another bogus goal and blokes here called him a top 10 goalkeeper, lol. Looney pills I guess, one of the most overrated players in the EPL easily.

For real. He's got midtable(and that's a big stretch to me) goalkeeping skills and is constantly caught out of postion. He does the best on the ball skills of any goalie current on the planet though and that obviously is important for any Pep team.

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

For real. He's got midtable(and that's a big stretch to me) goalkeeping skills and is constantly caught out of postion. He does the best on the ball skills of any goalie current on the planet though and that obviously is important for any Pep team.

MAtS

 

[S E P H]

For real. He's got midtable(and that's a big stretch to me) goalkeeping skills and is constantly caught out of postion. He does the best on the ball skills of any goalie current on the planet though and that obviously is important for any Pep team.

As you said I mean get why they got him, his distribution is simply unmatched, but they reap what they sow in a goalkeeper who is as mid-table talented as you described him.

 

[The Abusement Park]

MAtS

I'm gonna disagree that Mats is better on the ball. He's an infinitely better goalie though.

 

[maclean]

Also can we put end to the Ederson hype? He allowed another bogus goal and blokes here called him a top 10 goalkeeper, lol. Looney pills I guess, one of the most overrated players in the EPL easily.

I don't think I've seen anyone hyping him, not on here anyway. I thought the fact that he was not one of the best but that his skill set is well suited to a Pep team was more or less a matter of consensus.

 

[Chimaera]

I mean, he's one of the best keepers handling the football. He helps create attacks with his feet and outlets. I'm not sure his shot blocking abilities are the best, but it's also a debate of what you want.

For what it's worth, he hasn't always gotten tons of help from defenders, and it's also harder to be a keeper knowing that you might have one or two chances against you in a game, and then 70 minutes of doing nothing.

I do think some of his uneven performances could be due to complacency.