Yes, I heard him on the radio. He just has an agenda and basically talks rubbish to suit that agenda
Bournemouth v Newcastle
- Thread starter Paul_10
- Start date
I'm with you on that. Yes, there is some contact with the neck but the pulling action is more with the chest. Just looks reckless to me so a caution is fine.No. I'm not filling in spaces based on outrage or how clumsy it looked.
For me, as can be seen in the slo-mo, the "leverage" is downwards (as you correctly state) and that comes in the main from the arm and hand over the shoulder and chest.
No more to add to this thread now from me. ...
Cool, I look forward to this being repeated often as a legitimate 'taking one for the team', as we're bound to see if it's only a yellow.
I thought reckless can only be used when attempting to play the ball?
The keeper holding the ball makes him unchallengeable surely?
What makes you think this? Nothing in the laws supports this. For example if you throw an object at someone, which let's face it, there is never really a justification for you still have to judge careless, reckless, excessive.
Yes, but it starts at indirect free kick and sanctions based upon CRUEF.
There is not a world where because the contact shouldn't happen it automatically becomes excessive and a red card. You have to judge the level/severity of the contact using the definitions given for each of the severity levels.
How do you recklessly clothes-line a goalkeeper in possesion of the ball?
What was the attacker's reason for doing what they did? Was he challenging for the ball - no. You can only make the decision it was an attempt to hurt the keeper.
While I consider the act was both brutal and endangering the GK's safety, the laws do only require 'exceeds the necessary use of force' so I don't see a valid argument to suggest that a red is not warranted where contact shouldn't happen. By definition that is unnecessary use of force. The interpretation that contact always has to be especially forceful to justify a red is only cultural, and we would do better to not set an artificial threshold.
See video of Joelinton incident on goalkeeper in yesterdays game for the answer to this question
His reason is very obvious - he’s absolutely not challenging for the ball, his sole intention is stopping the goalkeeper from releasing the ball quickly and starting a counter attack
It's broken logic.
By this logic had the keeper been stood still with the ball in his hands and joelinton pushed him with one hand in the back with very little force, but more than negligible force its a red?
Whenever 2 players push each other aggressively squaring up? Red card.
In all of these scenarios the force is technically exceeding the necessary use of force.
There are examples in the laws of the game that support my view as throwing an object has to be judged as CRUEF... Guess what the only time an object can legitimately be thrown is a throw in or keeper release.
It's ok if you think that Joelintons actions were genuinely excessive force, you're not alone, but not on the basis that any contact in this scenario is excessive. I'm sorry but that is plain wrong interpretation of law
Agree both of those are exceeding the necessary use of force, so the Laws of the Game expect those scenarios to be red cards. The fact that football is a contact sport is not meant to justify contact that is not a footballing action, at least as far as the Laws are concerned. Deviation from that is cultural.
The force took the keeper to the floor in a scenario where he's not supposed to be challenged or impeded.
This was not a challenge for the ball either.
How much more would Linton have to do, in your opinion, to cross the line to a red then if you deem this as "reckless"?
“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent. • A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned.
“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring 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.
Totally disagree given there are clear examples in the LOTG that don't support this view.
But also leaving it there.
These fouls happen 100s of times across a weekend. It's a clear case of a) stopping a promising attack, and b) in this case additionally disregarding the danger to/consequence for the opponent.
When we get to a world where cynical fouls are red cards, then this will move into that category. For now it's a clear caution for me.
Sorry but you are ignoring the fact the keeper was taken to the floor. How much force does that need?
If the keeper could no longer continue (injured) after this action would that make the event any more serious to you?
You also ignored the question of what more would Linton need to do to go from yellow to red.
I think you are wrong and this type of behaviour isn't needed on tv or in my local game.
With all due respect what sort of argument is this? Players are taken to the floor all the time by fair, careless, reckless and excessive challenges.
No
Higher degree of force and point of contact.
You can think what you like. I semi agree it's not needed but it doesnt change my opinion, which incidentally matches that of the ref and the VAR did not see a clear and obvious error. And I assume the other 3 match officials weren't banging down the mic for a red either... But I can accept you think that I am wrong.
That's a flawed argument as we know that players are coached from the age of 8 or 9 at professional clubs to fall to the floor if they feel any contact. It needs zero force to make a player go to the floor.
one
RefChat Addict
So would many other fair (or careless) tackles in football, carried out on a public street would be considered assault. Really comparing apples and oranges. Pretty much every good rugby tackle is an assault of high degree in a public street.
I haven't seen the incident in the game btw, so can't comment on it specifically.
For excessive force the LOTG says 'exceeds' not 'far exceeded', and also says 'and/or' not 'and'.
Therefore it is not necessary for the foul to endanger the opponent to warrant a red if the necessary use of force is exceeded (though as I have said I believe it did endanger the GK's neck in this case anyway).
Book does not state this. Not Law