Leeds without 1st Choice Keeper for 3

[ekke287]

After Casilla was sent off today he's looking at a 3 match ban for the dangerous tackle, meaning he should miss the following games:

Home v Millwall
Away v Birmingham
Away v Preston

I was surprised at how often the defence went back to him today, so I wonder if it will be huge miss for them and potential dropped points, if I remember rightly their backup keeper is a young lad who's prone to a mistake, so it could be beneficial to us in more ways than one the red card today.

What do you think? There's a couple of big games in there against Brum and Preston Away.

Ironically we have Bristol at home, Preston away and Brum away...should be an interesting next 3 for us both!

PS - This is related to our run of games so should be in General Blades Chat

 

[Foxy]

1 match

 

[Harry's Game]

One game ban

 

[ekke287]

1 match

I thought it was 3 for a straight red with regard to a dangerous foul?

 

[BladeInIreland]

Why one match?

 

[Liaminho9]

I thought it was 3 for a straight red with regard to a dangerous foul?

Wasn’t dangerous play. It was a professional foul.
1 match ban.

 

[Deleted member 1486]

1 match

Missed that rule change, that seems a little BS, how is a red for a professional foul 1/3 of the crime of a reckless (and not particularly dangerous) foul? (such as Madine's). Doesn't seem right to me.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

That fucking cunt (get in the ground an hour before Pontas) will be out for a while with a bit of luck.

 

[Harry's Game]

Why one match?

Professional foul = red card and one match ban

Dangerous play = red card and three match ban

 

[BladeInIreland]

Professional foul = red card and one match ban

Dangerous play = red card and three match ban

That’s mad, had it been 0-0 he could have saved Leeds a loss just for a 1 match ban. Doesn’t seem harsh enough.

 

[Harry's Game]

That’s mad, had it been 0-0 he could have saved Leeds a loss just for a 1 match ban. Doesn’t seem harsh enough.

Thems the rules.

 

[Corkblade]

Depending on refs report the rules state that if its considered a proffesional foul then its a 1 match ban, hope that hells tl clear it up. Btw we do our own stuff it wont matter a toss what Leeds do.

 

[gavtheblade]

Boooooooooo

 

[Stretch]

At worst though that means young Peacock-Flapper, or whatever his name is, against possibly the most direct team in the league in Millwall.

Cross, long ball, cross, long ball.....and repeat.

 

[Toronto Blade]

Have to wonder if that goal Sharp would have scored since he was around the keeper will mean anything at the end of the season.It would have added one to us and added a goal against to them. Was it worth it for a 1 match ban the keeper knew it was a wide open net and it would be a red card.

 

[DI36O]

1 match ban well worth the risk for Casilla

 

[Bruce Wayne]

He's shit anyway, that Peacock ain't much better. The best keeper they have is recovering from a broken leg, get well soon Jam, you are better than that shit.

 

[ZoneManWilf]

Missed that rule change, that seems a little BS, how is a red for a professional foul 1/3 of the crime of a reckless (and not particularly dangerous) foul? (such as Madine's). Doesn't seem right to me.

It's not a rule change, it's always been like that. Always surprised by how little it's understood.

For straight reds, it's 1 match for a professional foul, 3 for violent conduct.

 

[mancunianblade]

Be interesting to see if Pontus Jansson is out for any period of time

 

[Deleted member 1486]

It's not a rule change, it's always been like that. Always surprised by how little it's understood.

For straight reds, it's 1 match for a professional foul, 3 for violent conduct.

Still seems daft. Why a lesser punishment when there is intent (compare with Madine, clumsy as fuck, but was there intent?).

 

[ZoneManWilf]

Still seems daft. Why a lesser punishment when there is intent (compare with Madine, clumsy as fuck, but was there intent?).

It makes sense to me to be honest. Violent conduct is putting another player in danger of a serious injury (intent can be argued all day long ), and therefore attracts a greater punishment. A professional foul is more akin to 2 bookings in my eyes. Like if a player handballs it on the line, it's not putting other players in harms way, it's being cynical, rather than dangerous.

 

[KoppedOff]

I get the rules and different classification, but in real terms there was far more chance of Billy getting hurt from that than the Brentford player getting his sock tickled by Madine.

 

[Ginger Gnome]

Anyone defending that Madine tackle is an idiot. It was clearly worse than just a regular foul on someone who is clean through on goal.

Should Maguire get a 3 match ban for Leicester just because he clipped somebody's heels when he was the last man?

 

[ChemEngBlade]

Be interesting to see if Pontus Jansson is out for any period of time

A mate of mine who’s a Leeds fan was telling me apparent Jansson has been known to feign injury and limp off when things aren’t going right for them. That being said today, it did look like he’d done some real damage. Just a shame Norwood’s free kick couldn’t beat the wall

 

[Deleted member 1486]

Anyone defending that Madine tackle is an idiot

Assume that's aimed at me. I didn't defend it. It was clumsy, and he asked the referee to make a decision. He was in the wrong. But no way he intended a foul (why would he? The player was at the half-way line and running towards his own goal). Stupid tackle for sure, but not a deliberate act intended to injure a player, and not an intention to gain an advantage.

Keeper today made a decision to deliberately foul a player, which on another day could have easily resulted in an injury.

I'm just asking why the latter is a one game ban (in the eyes of the law) compared to the former? To me it makes no sense.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Assume that's aimed at me. I didn't defend it. It was clumsy, and he asked the referee to make a decision. He was in the wrong. But no way he intended a foul (why would he? The player was at the half-way line and running towards his own goal). Stupid tackle for sure, but not a deliberate act intended to injure a player, and not an intention to gain an advantage.

Keeper today made a decision to deliberately foul a player, which on another day could have easily resulted in an injury.

I'm just asking why the latter is a one game ban (in the eyes of the law) compared to the former? To me it makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. Madine didn't have to intend to injure the player, he had to commit a foul which in its nature was dangerous. Studs up is considered dangerous. The keeper taking Billy out was not in itself dangerous. Of course it could have been and had it injured Billy in the process, I've no doubt that the referee's report would then list it as dangerous and it could then have been 3 games. But since it didn't, it won't be. Otherwise, you could argue that every foul could be dangerous.

 

[Bill Johnson]

Fuck me it's 1 game.
Stfu and get over it.

 

[Deleted member 1486]

Fuck me it's 1 game.
Stfu and get over it.

It would be better it was 3 though, no?

 

[Deleted member 1486]

you could argue that every foul could be dangerous.

Glad we agree

 

[Guesty]

It's not a rule change, it's always been like that. Always surprised by how little it's understood.

For straight reds, it's 1 match for a professional foul, 3 for violent conduct.

Aye, I said that in another thread. It's being treated like it's a recent development, like the 'triple threat' red card being done away with. But it's not, it's been the case forever and it always surprises me how often people get it wrong.