Premier League 2020/21

[Jimmy]

3 minutes ago, Colly said:

Honestly think that's incredibly harsh and I wouldn't be surprised to see it overturned. The contact on the leg looks awful but it's completely unintentional, and while obviously intent isn't the whole rule I can't see how accidentally running through a player can be seen as reckless. The law is woolly now in it's "endangering a player" (far too open to interpretation, no one should even challenge for headers by that) wording, but I'd be massively disappointed to lose a player for three games for that. Foul and a booking.

I think the context being that he's having a good nibble a couple of times and still trying to tackle from behind come into account, I cringed while watching it live because it looks nasty. The ref has also just let Bernard get away with one on KWP that probably should've been a second booking, which I feel like probably played a part too. 

[Colly]

But "looking nasty" can't be the criteria for a red card, no matter how many still images of studs on socks we see. At the risk of full dinosaur it's still a contact sport and accidents will happen at speed. The fact he's tried to foul him earlier in the run should make no difference whatsoever other than to reinforce the yellow card.

On another note my Virgin box is trying to entice me to "book now for Brighton v West Brom". Fucking hell, is this what we've come to?

[FestiveJack]

I think the attempted foul just before comes into things with regards to intent. Whilst I certainly don't think he intended to step on KWP, he has intended to foul him as evidenced by his previous attempts.

[DFF]

Looking at that replay I can see it both ways. It looks entirely accidental. However, in the rules of the game a player is repsonsible for their own actions and it was his responsibility to not run so close to him that that could happen. 

Feels to me that whatever the ref gives will stand - can't see the FA over ruling whichever way he went. 

[Adam]

54 minutes ago, MadJack said:

I think the attempted foul just before comes into things with regards to intent. Whilst I certainly don't think he intended to step on KWP, he has intended to foul him as evidenced by his previous attempts.

Does "intent" mean intent to foul though or does it mean intent to hurt? A few weeks ago Luke Shaw just fully booted Lucas Moura with the ball nowhere to be seen and he only got booked for it, but it was incredibly dangerous and a clear attempt just to take him out.

[Gazz]

'Intent' is a bit of a grey area in the FA rulebook. By the letter of the law, intent has no bearing on the application of the law, which is why Digne's foul was correctly judged to be a sending off offence, regardless of whether it was accidental or not.

Now, for me, Shaw's foul should have been a sending off too as I believe he intended to wipe Moura out as an act of petulance, but since it wasn't particularly dangerous play and intent can't be applied, it's only a booking.

[FestiveJack]

Fully agree with anything that gets Luke Shaw out of our team. 

[Colly]

1 hour ago, Gazz said:

'Intent' is a bit of a grey area in the FA rulebook. By the letter of the law, intent has no bearing on the application of the law, which is why Digne's foul was correctly judged to be a sending off offence, regardless of whether it was accidental or not.

Now, for me, Shaw's foul should have been a sending off too as I believe he intended to wipe Moura out as an act of petulance, but since it wasn't particularly dangerous play and intent can't be applied, it's only a booking.

You've lost me a bit here. The current wording of the law is below, so where is the line between the two incidents? If anything the wording is that woolly that any foul (or indeed any tackle) could be a red at this point.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

[Gazz]

I would assume in this case, it's the interpretation of 'endangers the safety of an opponent', which is another grey area, as you've pointed out. Digne has stood on the opponent's ankle whereas Shaw has 'only' taken the opponent's legs out from under them, so the ref has only treated the same as any other shit attempt at a tackle.

[Colly]

Games gone.

[lanky316]

Early blade job by "Tobes"

[Colly]

 

[Gazz]

Mike Ashley, voice of the voiceless.

[Lineker]

Lovely win.

[Jimmy]

Genuinely delighted to beat Burnley via a goal from a corner. Get it up ya. 

20 hours ago, Adam said:

Does "intent" mean intent to foul though or does it mean intent to hurt? A few weeks ago Luke Shaw just fully booted Lucas Moura with the ball nowhere to be seen and he only got booked for it, but it was incredibly dangerous and a clear attempt just to take him out.

I think it was pretty much recognised by everyone involved that that should've been a red and the ref was basically just taking pity at this point. 

[Colly]

The league's greatest love story. Kane, Son, and assists.

 

[Jimmy]

I love them. 

[Colly]

Squires is tremendous this week.

 

[Colly]

The game's not gone.

 

[Jimmy]

 

the king