+-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 953
Latest: Yorksref
New This Month: 21
New This Week: 3
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 75107
Total Topics: 5527
Most Online Today: 129
Most Online Ever: 17046
(Mon 29 Mar 2021 19:08)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 97
Total: 97

Author Topic: C PAWSON - Leeds v Liverpool  (Read 1674 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

robbie_scouse

  • RTR Veterans
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 131
    • View Profile
Re: C PAWSON - Leeds v Liverpool
« Reply #15 on: Sun 12 Sep 2021 22:44 »
Whistle went after the Liverpool physios raced on the pitch without permission.
Well spotted, definitely the most important point and hopefully they’ll get sanctioned accordingly 
Like Like x 1 Funny Funny x 1 View List

Joecphillips

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 295
    • View Profile
Re: C PAWSON - Leeds v Liverpool
« Reply #16 on: Mon 13 Sep 2021 00:57 »
I don’t think he would have been sent off if it wasn’t for the injury, whether the tackle deserved a red is a different conversation

Whistleblower

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,627
    • View Profile
Re: C PAWSON - Leeds v Liverpool
« Reply #17 on: Mon 13 Sep 2021 09:39 »
As I understand things ( and interpretations change so often it's hard to keep up ) intent now plays very little part in a decision to show a red card. It's about endangering safety. Well the unfortunate Elliott's safety was not only endangered it was breached in an horrific way. Now I suppose you could argue that every tackle has the potential to endanger safety so the question is, was this a freak result of the tackle or a logical consequence?  Henry Winter in the Times avers that a red card was the correct decision in response to the consequence of the tackle and I am usually content to go along with Winter's view.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

ARF

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 249
    • View Profile
Re: C PAWSON - Leeds v Liverpool
« Reply #18 on: Mon 13 Sep 2021 10:21 »
It's a lunge, from behind, off the ground. This isn't your normal 'trailing leg' foul - there's nothing to absorb any of the momentum, you've got the full force of the challenge being transferred into the back of Elliott's leg/ankle (which unfortunately for him was bearing nearly all of his weight).
Agree Agree x 2 View List

Microscopist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
    • View Profile
Re: C PAWSON - Leeds v Liverpool
« Reply #19 on: Mon 13 Sep 2021 11:02 »
Thing is.. if he's gone in and broken somone's leg in a tackle (as opposed to the opponent falling awkwardly etc) then by the LOTG definition, he has played in a dangerous manner/likely* to endanger an opponent.

*in this case, "did" endanger the opponent resulting in a broken leg.

That said, I have not seen the incident in question (had left the room for a moment) and have no desire to do so.
A theory that was greeted with scorn on here when applied to an illegal challenge that resulted in a broken nose and fractured eye socket.  Also, apparently, a goalkeeper having a tooth extracted by a flailing boot after making a save doesn't even warrant a stoppage in play. 
Like Like x 1 View List

Jackinthebox

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
Re: C PAWSON - Leeds v Liverpool
« Reply #20 on: Mon 13 Sep 2021 18:02 »
First of all Best wishes to Harvey Elliot and hopefully he's back playing sooner rather than later.
Looking at the replies it looks like I'm going to be in the minority here, Is it a foul? Possibly. Is it a YC? Debatable but I certainly don't think its SFP so no red card for me.
In commentary Martin Tyler said Craig was always going to give a RC, I find that hard to belive because he didn't even blow for a foul.
Very similar to the Son challenge on Andre Gomes last year, certainly no intent and not SFP just an unfortunate incident where the player on the receiving end has suffered a serious injury. If Leeds do appeal tge decison I think there's a very good chance of it being overturned.
Agree Agree x 1 Disagree Disagree x 1 View List

ajb95

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,391
    • View Profile
Re: C PAWSON - Leeds v Liverpool
« Reply #21 on: Mon 13 Sep 2021 22:30 »
First of all Best wishes to Harvey Elliot and hopefully he's back playing sooner rather than later.
Looking at the replies it looks like I'm going to be in the minority here, Is it a foul? Possibly. Is it a YC? Debatable but I certainly don't think its SFP so no red card for me.
In commentary Martin Tyler said Craig was always going to give a RC, I find that hard to belive because he didn't even blow for a foul.
Very similar to the Son challenge on Andre Gomes last year, certainly no intent and not SFP just an unfortunate incident where the player on the receiving end has suffered a serious injury. If Leeds do appeal tge decison I think there's a very good chance of it being overturned.

I don’t know how anyone could say this is anything other than a red card. I love a tackle as much as the next man, but it’s a scissor challenge from behind onto the guy’s ankle. It’s not like he has played the ball and accidentally caught the man. Intent- probably not but clear red card whether Craig was going to give it or not or relied on VAR; or 4th official. Correct decision was made
Agree Agree x 1 View List

bruntyboy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
    • View Profile
Re: C PAWSON - Leeds v Liverpool
« Reply #22 on: Tue 14 Sep 2021 01:29 »
On the basis that he wasn't going to award a free kick in the first place (as play continued) why didn't he go to the monitor to check before deciding it was a RC?

ARF

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 249
    • View Profile
Re: C PAWSON - Leeds v Liverpool
« Reply #23 on: Tue 14 Sep 2021 08:15 »
On the basis that he wasn't going to award a free kick in the first place (as play continued) why didn't he go to the monitor to check before deciding it was a RC?
Presuming that the fourth official has told him it's a red. If he leaves it to VAR to check then he would get marked down for a missed KMD.

nemesis

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,277
    • View Profile
Re: C PAWSON - Leeds v Liverpool
« Reply #24 on: Tue 14 Sep 2021 08:20 »
On the basis that he wasn't going to award a free kick in the first place (as play continued) why didn't he go to the monitor to check before deciding it was a RC?
Presuming that the fourth official has told him it's a red. If he leaves it to VAR to check then he would get marked down for a missed KMD.

I hope you're not saying he was more concerned with his marks than getting the right decision ?

Joecphillips

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 295
    • View Profile
Re: C PAWSON - Leeds v Liverpool
« Reply #25 on: Tue 14 Sep 2021 12:15 »
First of all Best wishes to Harvey Elliot and hopefully he's back playing sooner rather than later.
Looking at the replies it looks like I'm going to be in the minority here, Is it a foul? Possibly. Is it a YC? Debatable but I certainly don't think its SFP so no red card for me.
In commentary Martin Tyler said Craig was always going to give a RC, I find that hard to belive because he didn't even blow for a foul.
Very similar to the Son challenge on Andre Gomes last year, certainly no intent and not SFP just an unfortunate incident where the player on the receiving end has suffered a serious injury. If Leeds do appeal tge decison I think there's a very good chance of it being overturned.

I don’t know how anyone could say this is anything other than a red card. I love a tackle as much as the next man, but it’s a scissor challenge from behind onto the guy’s ankle. It’s not like he has played the ball and accidentally caught the man. Intent- probably not but clear red card whether Craig was going to give it or not or relied on VAR; or 4th official. Correct decision was made

There’s been similar and worse challenges unpunished as it didn’t result in injuries including last night the difference being no injury, if it wasn’t for the result it would have been a yellow at most

sastley

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
    • View Profile
Re: C PAWSON - Leeds v Liverpool
« Reply #26 on: Tue 14 Sep 2021 12:31 »
Harvey Elliott on twitter yesterday. "Wasn't his fault whatsover! Neither was it a red card just a freak accident but these things happen in football."

 The tackle by Brownlea last night was just as bad but only a free kick no card. Where is the consistency? It appears that if there is a bad injury it's a red card, but with no serious injury not even a card for similar tackles, This cannot be right. Confusing.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Ashington46

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 831
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Ashington, Northumberland
    • View Profile
  • Referee Level: Retired for years!
Re: C PAWSON - Leeds v Liverpool
« Reply #27 on: Tue 14 Sep 2021 13:44 »
It was Brownhill who made the tackle and won the ball, however, Richarlisson was in his usual multi-sulk mood and did his best to convince everyone that he was really badly injured.
Fear not, we are not far away from every contact being penalised one way or another.
We have been having a slight respite recently which has been most welcome, however, those running the game, the PL elite, will soon get together and things will start to go backwards again. I wish that I was wrong, however..................................
Referee's decision used to be final!
Agree Agree x 1 View List

ARF

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 249
    • View Profile
Re: C PAWSON - Leeds v Liverpool
« Reply #28 on: Wed 15 Sep 2021 09:57 »
On the basis that he wasn't going to award a free kick in the first place (as play continued) why didn't he go to the monitor to check before deciding it was a RC?
Presuming that the fourth official has told him it's a red. If he leaves it to VAR to check then he would get marked down for a missed KMD.

I hope you're not saying he was more concerned with his marks than getting the right decision ?
No, I'm saying that if it's left to VAR to check and turns out to be a red then he would get marked down for a missed KMD. Which is a moot point as one of the officials has correctly informed the referee that it was a sending off offence with no VAR involvement necessary.

Of course, after having gone red before VAR looked at it, if it had subsequently turn out to be the wrong decision then he'd also have been marked down for it. Making your comment about worrying about his mark redundant.