Sky Analysis -- SW6.doc

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Monday, January 20, 10:25:33pm [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Monday, December 30, 08:14:23pm
Author: AC
Author Host/IP: 2e40d84f.skybroadband.com / 46.64.216.79
Subject: Sky Analysis

I honestly cannot believe the analysis from the pundits on Sky in that the Brighton player who made no contact with the Brentford player after deliberately ‘pulling’ his elbow so he did not make contact with the Brentford player was deemed a clear red card offence by thee ‘experts’, whereas the studs showing lunge on Robinson by the Bournemouth player which made contact and could have seriously injured Robinson was agreed unanimously not to be a red card offence.

I don’t agree with Silva’s Cairney comparison because Cairney was nowhere near the ball and the tackle against the Spurs player was a red card offence but how many players have we had sent off over the years for studs showing lunges.?

The Bournemouth player should have without doubt been red carded.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play. Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, side or behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play. Contact on foot only is typically considered reckless = Yellow card. High + Forceful contact on ankle or above is considered dangerous = Red card (NT) -- AC, Monday, December 30, 08:45:34pm (2e40d84f.skybroadband.com/46.64.216.79)
- Extracted from Premier League website (truncated to fit message limitations). (NT) -- AC, Monday, December 30, 08:51:06pm (2e40d84f.skybroadband.com/46.64.216.79)
The foul on Diop for the Bournemouth equaliser wasn’t even checked by VAR that tackle was a Red Card …therefore the goal should of been disallowed (NT) -- Ffc, Monday, December 30, 08:46:59pm (host86-170-118-217.range86-170.btcentralplus.com/86.170.118.217)
- Completely agree. It was similar to tc's, but nothing. (NT) -- Jim © (The Devon IP), Monday, December 30, 09:24:27pm (host86-156-235-143.range86-156.btcentralplus.com/86.156.235.143)
  - It was checked and deemed that it was the momentum that caused the contact. TC was a deliberate action. (Was attempting to trip rather then stamp) I would have felt extremely annoyed if we had one disallowed for that. (NT) -- Me, Monday, December 30, 09:44:53pm (host51-14-232-84.range51-14.btcentralplus.com/51.14.232.84)
    - Doesn't cut it as an argument for me. Loads of elbows that make contact are down to momentum. (NT) -- Jim © (The Devon IP), Monday, December 30, 10:21:36pm (host86-156-235-143.range86-156.btcentralplus.com/86.156.235.143)
    - Read the definition of the rules as published by the premier league. Momentum does not come into it. (NT) -- AC, Tuesday, December 31, 01:23:27am (2e40d84f.skybroadband.com/46.64.216.79)
      - Football isn’t a non contact sport. It can’t be played making sure you avoid the other player. Momentum isn’t mentioned but it didn’t meet any of the requirements that are mentioned as it was the momentum that caused the coming together. Momentum was what was used by the VAR as it was checked which was confirmed live at the time by the commentators. (NT) -- Me, Tuesday, December 31, 09:45:06am (host51-14-232-84.range51-14.btcentralplus.com/51.14.232.84)
        But here's the issue. You could argue that TC's tackle was pure momentum as Kulusevski cut across in front of him. There's no way, after watching TC for 10 years, that he meant that, just like the Bournemouth player couldn't avoid doing what he did, it's still a foul. (NT) -- Jim© The Devon IP, Tuesday, December 31, 10:24:18am (62-64-192-58.virtual1.co.uk/62.64.192.58)
        Stone bonker red.Entirely reckless following on from another iffy challenge. (NT) -- HemelRog, Tuesday, December 31, 01:39:43pm (5ec0f8a7.skybroadband.com/94.192.248.167)
It's only Fulham, if that tackle was against one of the 'big' clubs, red card would have been out in a shot. TV presenters not worth the space they occupy. (NT) -- onwards, Tuesday, December 31, 10:51:46am (host86-153-178-227.range86-153.btcentralplus.com/86.153.178.227)
- That is precisely the point I was inferring. (NT) -- AC, Tuesday, December 31, 11:02:03am (2e40d84f.skybroadband.com/46.64.216.79)

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums^(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.