First red card...

[Greasy Chap Butty]

Maybe it's absurd, but if you set a precedent in a game for one side, is it right to then go against it for the other side?

You've let one go, let the other one go. Whether the lad has got injured or not makes no odds, it doesn't make it any more or less of a foul.

The second red is an utter joke.

For some reason you're sticking up for a ref that was giving just about everything in their favour. I don't understand it

He's not though.
He's not seen or or thought McC one was. He did for Soumare.
Bearing in mind the ref is a known bell end it will happen.
The whataboutery is just that.
Injury isn't in the rules, but he's potentially got a bust ankle so most people would expect a red.

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

Maybe it's absurd, but if you set a precedent in a game for one side, is it right to then go against it for the other side?

You've let one go, let the other one go. Whether the lad has got injured or not makes no odds, it doesn't make it any more or less of a foul.

The second red is an utter joke.

For some reason you're sticking up for a ref that was giving just about everything in their favour. I don't understand it

I'm not sticking up for the ref. I've already said the macallum one was a bad decision. Not seen the tanganga one on slow motion, but it looked soft at the time. But to me he got it it right for the Soumare card. You seem to think he should make two wrong decisions just for the sake of balance.

I doubt whoever is reviewing his performance from a professional POV will be going "Ah well, Soumare's probably broke the guys ankle, but the refs just evening things up because he dropped a bollock earlier in the game". They'll just see two bad decisions.

 

[Slim Man]

I'm not sticking up for the ref. I've already said the macallum one was a bad decision. Not seen the tanganga one on slow motion, but it looked soft at the time. But to me he got it it right for the Soumare card. You seem to think he should make two wrong decisions just for the sake of balance.

I doubt whoever is reviewing his performance from a professional POV will be going "Ah well, Soumare's probably broke the guys ankle, but the refs just evening things up because he dropped a bollock earlier in the game". They'll just see two bad decisions.

Injury should make not a jot of difference to the decision.

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

Injury should make not a jot of difference to the decision.

That fact that the injury was caused by Soumare standing on the geezers ankle is quite relevant.

 

[Back post bob]

We are talking about the same player who fouled mcallum and got away with it obviously a player who likes to get stuck in.
Has they say live by the sword die by the sword.

 

[CrookesBlade]

My earlier post offers some justification as to why i didnt think it was a foul. He hasn't gone to make contact with Knibbs. His action was purely to rectify his poor first touch and play the ball across to McCallum, which (when you view the footage and look at the stills provided above posted by Bergen) he effectively does prior to both players momentum bringing them together and, in unfortunate circumstances for Knibbs, with his apparent attempt at a partial slide tackle results in his leg being in a position where it ended up exactly where Soumare's foot landed. Soumare never actually enters into a "tackle" or "challenge. He plays a pass of a ball that was 12 inches off the floor. He didnt use excessive force or brutality.

That is my view/analysis of it and it is fine for others to have differing views. I can respect and understand their viewpoint and reasoning without agreeing to it.

I remember (unfortunately) the Newcastle Prem home game a few seasons ago where they destroyed us. Jack Robinson was pulled up for a "foul" whilst making a tackle/clearance. It was similar in some ways in that he made clear contact with the ball, sending it 40 metres away. Their player, making an attempt to intercept the ball, coming from the opposite direction, was caught by Robinson's follow through. the referee gave a foul, yellow card and they scored from the resulting free kick. At the time, I argued that it was not a foul as he clearly sent the ball to safety, well before any contact was made with their player. it is impossible to do something like this and then stop any further forward motion to prevent any risk of contact with another player in a coming together.

I wonder if Soumaré had been a split second slower to react whether we’d be having this discussion the opposite way round. Both were going for the ball stretched with feet off the ground as the ball had bobbled. Who knows….

I think it’s all open to interpretation personally but some of the arguments I’ve seen for the Red are based entirely on the outcome I.e. he’s been injured therefore it must have been reckless. But then you have other scenarios on the pitch like a clash of heads where no blame is attached if one party comes off injured. These are 50/50s contested all the time but nobody would ever suggest a player pulls out of one lest it be seen as endangering an opponent. Is it possible you can end up standing on somebody’s ankle by accident in a game….i’d say yes but others would maybe disagree.

This is me having watched it over and over though. The ref has seen it from one angle once, seen studs on ankle and given him a red….hard to criticise for that really.
I don’t think VAR would ever over turn that decision either.

 

[Slim Man]

That fact that the injury was caused by Soumare standing on the geezers ankle is quite relevant.

The 'geezer' being injured or not, shouldn't influence whether it's a red, yellow or just a foul.

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

The 'geezer' being injured or not, shouldn't influence whether it's a red, yellow or just a foul.

You are looking at the outcome, i am looking at the thing that led to the outcome, that thing being Soumare standing on the guys ankle.

 

[Bladesman]

I wonder if Soumaré had been a split second slower to react whether we’d be having this discussion the opposite way round. Both were going for the ball stretched with feet off the ground as the ball had bobbled. Who knows….

I think it’s all open to interpretation personally but some of the arguments I’ve seen for the Red are based entirely on the outcome I.e. he’s been injured therefore it must have been reckless. But then you have other scenarios on the pitch like a clash of heads where no blame is attached if one party comes off injured. These are 50/50s contested all the time but nobody would ever suggest a player pulls out of one lest it be seen as endangering an opponent. Is it possible you can end up standing on somebody’s ankle by accident in a game….i’d say yes but others would maybe disagree.

This is me having watched it over and over though. The ref has seen it from one angle once, seen studs on ankle and given him a red….hard to criticise for that really.
I don’t think VAR would ever over turn that decision either.

I expect if it was the other way around the ref would have waved play on like he did with Paul Coutts.

 

[100% part time blade]

You are looking at the outcome, i am looking at the thing that led to the outcome, that thing being Soumare standing on the guys ankle.

What if that moment (Soumare standing on the guy’s ankle) was the result of a genuine challenge, and actually an accidental collision based on a normal defensive action (which just happened to result in a broken ankle)?

It seems there IS - behind everything - somewhere the idea of a ‘reckless’ act, or an ‘accident’ brought into every challenge, alongside the idea of a ‘foul’ or a ‘normal’ action, when deciding on the punishment.



Should Isak injury tackle be red card?