• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The Official 2021/22 Premier League Thread

Gray would've been useful for the money paid, what was it £1.5m? Always thought he was quick and skilful, maybe not a starter but a decent back up.
 
yiddo37 said:
Gray would've been useful for the money paid, what was it £1.5m? Always thought he was quick and skilful, maybe not a starter but a decent back up.
Click to expand...
We have wanted him for some time
But he does okay same role as Gil
And we now have a DOF who IMO doesn’t know the players in this league yet
 
DubSpur said:
Looks a horrible injury for Elliott.

Wasn't a red though, sent of for the injury rather than the tackle
Click to expand...

I don't know if this is correct about referees in general, but it is so wrong. Players shouldn't be punished for freak consequences and shouldn't be let off because a player wasn't injured. Even Elliott sees this when he is the victim.

By Peter Walton, former Premier League referee
Referees do take the seriousness of an injury into account when deciding how to penalise a challenge. In 2010, I was referee when Stoke’s Ryan Shawcross fouled Arsenal’s Aaron Ramsey. Had Ramsey jumped up from the challenge unhurt, I would have given a yellow card to Shawcross. But I could see it was a serious injury and that made it a red card. I suspect Craig Pawson went through a similar process yesterday, although in his case he had the assistance of VAR. Pascal Struijk’s tackle on Harvey Elliott looked fairly innocuous. Had Elliott emerged unscathed, it might not even have been a yellow card. But players have a responsibility not to endanger the safety of an opponent and intent does not matter. So players like Struijk and Shawcross have to be accountable for the injuries they have caused by being reckless in the way they approach these challenges.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/struijk-tackle-did-not-deserve-red-card-says-elliott-5trxq2mkm
Click to expand...
 
jts1882 said:
I don't know if this is correct about referees in general, but it is so wrong. Players shouldn't be punished for freak consequences and shouldn't be let off because a player wasn't injured. Even Elliott sees this when he is the victim.
Click to expand...
Walob. It would make make sense to red card a challenge that was approached in a way that could cause a serious injury rather then penalising the player based on the outcome. If the impact of the tackle is gong to influence the card colour it also encourages feigning injury. We saw it with the screaming to influence it when the stadiums were empty too.
In the case of Shawcross if he felt he was endangering the player with the tackle it’s a red before the impact on Ramsey is assessed (I can’t remember now but I do seem to remember it was a bad tackle but they may have been due to Whinger)
 
jts1882 said:
I don't know if this is correct about referees in general, but it is so wrong. Players shouldn't be punished for freak consequences and shouldn't be let off because a player wasn't injured. Even Elliott sees this when he is the victim.
Click to expand...


Compare the Liverpool one, accidentally broken leg, to zaha throwing punches, ones a red card and one isn't.
Madness.
 
glasgowspur said:
Compare the Liverpool one, accidentally broken leg, to zaha throwing punches, ones a red card and one isn't.
Madness.
Click to expand...
Was about to post the same thing.

By the justification above, swinging and missing a punch at another player should not receive a red but a tackle ending in injury where the tackling player makes a genuine (but unsafe) attempt for the ball should.

It's the kind of ridiculous reasoning that makes refereeing so poor across the board.
 
jts1882 said:
I don't know if this is correct about referees in general, but it is so wrong. Players shouldn't be punished for freak consequences and shouldn't be let off because a player wasn't injured. Even Elliott sees this when he is the victim.

By Peter Walton, former Premier League referee
Referees do take the seriousness of an injury into account when deciding how to penalise a challenge. In 2010, I was referee when Stoke’s Ryan Shawcross fouled Arsenal’s Aaron Ramsey. Had Ramsey jumped up from the challenge unhurt, I would have given a yellow card to Shawcross. But I could see it was a serious injury and that made it a red card. I suspect Craig Pawson went through a similar process yesterday, although in his case he had the assistance of VAR. Pascal Struijk’s tackle on Harvey Elliott looked fairly innocuous. Had Elliott emerged unscathed, it might not even have been a yellow card. But players have a responsibility not to endanger the safety of an opponent and intent does not matter. So players like Struijk and Shawcross have to be accountable for the injuries they have caused by being reckless in the way they approach these challenges.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/struijk-tackle-did-not-deserve-red-card-says-elliott-5trxq2mkm
Click to expand...

Every single tackle or action on a football has the potential to cause an injury even the most innocent challenge. It's a load of bull that the injury is taken into account.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
Didn't something similar happen to Son against Everton a couple of years back? Ref was originally going to give a yellow, then changed his mind after realising that Gomes was injured?
Click to expand...

And then the red was rescinded on appeal. Didn't do us much good in the actual match though with Everton's late equaliser.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
Didn't something similar happen to Son against Everton a couple of years back? Ref was originally going to give a yellow, then changed his mind after realising that Gomes was injured?
Click to expand...

Yeah, Son didn't actually touch the other player, but that's obviously irrelevant to refs when there's an injury. :rolleyes:
 
I see Leeds appeal against the Red card was rejected.

It makes absolutely no sense. Peter Walton's comments seem to imply that contact with another player is the only force that can cause an injury, whereas you have the players own momentum / angle or even a freak twist etc. that can sometimes cause an injury even when they are not touched at all.

I don't necessarily mind if the rules are stupid (if it's consistent), but when they spout absolute rubbish it's kind of annoying.
 
elyid said:
I see Leeds appeal against the Red card was rejected.

It makes absolutely no sense. Peter Walton's comments seem to imply that contact with another player is the only force that can cause an injury, whereas you have the players own momentum / angle or even a freak twist etc. that can sometimes cause an injury even when they are not touched at all.

I don't necessarily mind if the rules are stupid (if it's consistent), but when they spout absolute rubbish it's kind of annoying.
Click to expand...
It's just perfection! There was absolutely nothing wrong with the tackle. It wasn't even a foul. If the Liverpool player gets up afterwords, no one would bat an eylid. No one would claim it to be a free kick! It's just a freak accident, same as Son on Gomez.
Pathetic that the card isn't rescinded.
 
Kandi1977 said:
It's just my favourite buttplug! There was absolutely nothing wrong with the tackle. It wasn't even a foul. If the Liverpool player gets up afterwords, no one would bat an eylid. No one would claim it to be a free kick! It's just a freak accident, same as Son on Gomez.
Pathetic that the card isn't rescinded.
Click to expand...

Of course its a foul and red card, in fact he should consider himself lucky not to be banned for life.
I mean taking the ball off a Liverpool player, how disgusting is that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back