Hugo Lloris

[chancer]

We don't know that he didn't do that. At the time there was someone talking in his ear (can't remember who though), who could have been relaying a message fed back by the medical team. The bottom line is, no one aside from AVB, the medical team and Lloris knows what actually went on. If it was a case of AVB over-ruling the medical guys then we'll never know but I'd say we can be pretty sure it won't happen again if that was the case.

Regarding the Lukaku comments, the ref booked Lukaku after it, so I assume he felt there was something in it. Would be interesting to see his match report.

I think we do Millsy. Otherwise by now AVB would have said: "I asked the docs and they said it was ok". But I don't think he has said that - AVB's line is that Lloris said he was ok.

At least, that's as far as I'm aware, I could be mistaken.

 

[Jurgen the German]

He'd better not be playing tonight. AVB said yesterday that he had made up his mind but wouldn't announce it, that leads me to believe he intends to play Lloris, hope I'm wrong.

 

[jts1882]

Here are AVB's comments from after the game:

Villas-Boas said: "Hugo still doesn't recall everything about the incident. It was a very difficult moment for us and I am happy he is well.

"I made the call to keep him on the pitch because of the signs he was giving. He was determined to continue and looked concentrated, driven and focused enough for me not to make the call to replace him. The saves he did after the incident proved that right."

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/nov/03/tottenham-villas-boas-goal-record-everton

No mention of the medical staff saying he was fit to continue. From the video, it's hard to argue that they weren't trying to get Lloris off and that he was resisting. AVB clearly says Lloris wanted to continue and he gave approval. The official line now seems to be the medical staff judged him fit to continue (the club statement after the tests) but why didn't AVB say so at the time. It seems to me that they acquiesced to AVB's decision or didn't object too strongly, which is very different from approving it.

Edit: A BBC article from the Monday adds this:

"It was a big knock, but he looked composed and ready to continue," said Villas-Boas.

"Hugo seemed assertive and determined to continue and showed great character and personality. We decided to keep him on based on that. The call always belongs to me."

That decision was backed by Tottenham's head of medical services.

"Once the relevant tests and assessments were carried out, we were totally satisfied that he was fit to continue playing," said Wayne Diesel.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24797343

So at least on the Monday, the Medical staff are backing AVB. However, Wayne Diesel is a Physiotherapist with expertise in exercise physiology.

 

[indianspur]

I think AVB is right to ask questions about Lukaku, as I've said in other threads I don't quite understand why people think it's fine for him to thunder into Lloris like that so late. No one would think it's fine to clatter an outfield player like that after the ball has been played, why is it ok when the goalkeeper is first to the ball? Would like to hear someone defend this right for strikers against goalkeepers that doesn't exist between outfield players when goalkeepers will by nature be more vulnerable.

Why is there no right to "go for the ball" when the last man is playing a pass and you have a chance to win it as a striker that carries over into a right to be late into the situation and clatter him?

Raphael Hoenigstein (I think) raised the same question on the football weekly pod, but the other pundits disagreed with him. Hoenigstein thought it was only in England that "he has a right to go for the ball" would be used as an excuse for a player doing that.

look at the incident again...its a pure accident, at the speed both were travelling there was always going to be a collision.

Lukaku had a chance of getting to the ball, and there are not many keepers as quick as Lloris in getting to the ball. Completely unfortunate what happened and AVB is out of order in questioning Lukaku.

 

[Jurgen the German]

look at the incident again...its a pure accident, at the speed both were travelling there was always going to be a collision.

Lukaku had a chance of getting to the ball, and there are not many keepers as quick as Lloris in getting to the ball. Completely unfortunate what happened and AVB is out of order in questioning Lukaku.

Yeah, it's nowhere near as bad as what Stephen Hunt did to Peter Cech.

 

[Baleforce]

he is actually trying to get out of the way, there is a definite step to the right but Lloris has such momentum he didn't adjust enough

don't think Lukaku has a case to answer myself

 

[THFC6061]

he is actually trying to get out of the way, there is a definite step to the right but Lloris has such momentum he didn't adjust enough

don't think Lukaku has a case to answer myself

I saw it as an unavoidable accident at the time.

And what I've seen since then has only re-enforced by opinion.

Lukaku was only doing his job, as was Lloris.

 

[Mr_B]

lukaku has tree trunks for legs, he's a big lad, more of an impact than say running into defoe

 

[braineclipse]

look at the incident again...its a pure accident, at the speed both were travelling there was always going to be a collision.

Lukaku had a chance of getting to the ball, and there are not many keepers as quick as Lloris in getting to the ball. Completely unfortunate what happened and AVB is out of order in questioning Lukaku.

I don't see how this answers my question at all.

Accepting (for the sake of argument) that it was a 100% pure accident, why the right for the striker to be so clearly second best to the ball against the goalkeeper? No such right against outfield players? What gives? What is different?

"There was always going to be a collision" - alright. But Lloris was clearly first to the ball. In all other situations the players that is first to the ball has the right and the player that doesn't get any of the ball and gets just about all of the man is punished. For not playing the ball.

I honestly just don't get it...

 

[Spursalot]

I don't see how this answers my question at all.

Accepting (for the sake of argument) that it was a 100% pure accident, why the right for the striker to be so clearly second best to the ball against the goalkeeper? No such right against outfield players? What gives? What is different?

"There was always going to be a collision" - alright. But Lloris was clearly first to the ball. In all other situations the players that is first to the ball has the right and the player that doesn't get any of the ball and gets just about all of the man is punished. For not playing the ball.

I honestly just don't get it...

Lloris was clearly first to the ball. However from that gif it doesn't actually look like lukaku is trying to play the ball. He actually makes a definite move to his right to try and avoid the collision, what makes the collision occur is lloris' momentum as he comes charging through to claim the ball.

In outfield terms it would be like a player sliding, getting the ball cleanly, and then taking the other player out afterwards due to his momentum. It would be a bit bizarre to claim the player that gets taken out has just committed a foul.

 

[braineclipse]

Lloris was clearly first to the ball. However from that gif it doesn't actually look like lukaku is trying to play the ball. He actually makes a definite move to his right to try and avoid the collision, what makes the collision occur is lloris' momentum as he comes charging through to claim the ball.

In outfield terms it would be like a player sliding, getting the ball cleanly, and then taking the other player out afterwards due to his momentum. Which wouldn't be considered a foul in my book, as long as he didn't lunge or go in two footed.

But Lloris is actually holding on to the ball as they collide. Comparable to an outfield player winning the ball cleanly and being in control of the ball before a collision occurs.

Two players running full on to get to a 50/50 ball, one of them gets to the ball first to take a touch and move the ball past the other player and then the collision. Who gets the free kick? Who committed the foul? Who gets a yellow card for being late?

 

[Spursalot]

But Lloris is actually holding on to the ball as they collide. Comparable to an outfield player winning the ball cleanly and being in control of the ball before a collision occurs.

Two players running full on to get to a 50/50 ball, one of them gets to the ball first to take a touch and move the ball past the other player and then the collision. Who gets the free kick? Who committed the foul? Who gets a yellow card for being late?

Lloris may have control of the ball, but he doesn't have control of his body. So you can't compare it to an outfield player who is in control of his body, it just doesn't fit.

It looks completely accidental to me, it did at the time and it still does. Lukaku is unlucky in the point that if he hadn't tried to get out of the way, he'd probably have ended up nowhere near lloris's head.


For me the collision is due to lloris, not due to lukaku. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, as it's his job to throw himself down to claim that ball. Just wondering how we can start punishing strikers for goalkeepers throwing themselves at the ball around their feet.

 

[DeanoAustin]

F**king dumb comments from AVB. It was an accident and Lukaku's booking was an absolute joke.

In fairness to him, the second it happened, it seemed to me that he was waving for attention for Lloris.

 

[metalgear]

i think lukaku left it in late and i think he knew he did bad and i suspect he feigned his injury.
but i don't fault anyone seeing it as an accident or not; it looked 50:50...but if lukaku couldn't anticipate the collision - then he wouldn't have the reactions of a pro footballer.

 

[Stenno]

Agreed, upon first viewing I didn't think Lukaku needed to leave his leg in at all, I think it was very wreckless and he probably should have gone for it.. His reaction looked like one of guilt in my mind.

 

[braineclipse]

Lloris may have control of the ball, but he doesn't have control of his body. So you can't compare it to an outfield player who is in control of his body, it just doesn't fit.

It looks completely accidental to me, it did at the time and it still does. Lukaku is unlucky in the point that if he hadn't tried to get out of the way, he'd probably have ended up nowhere near lloris's head.


For me the collision is due to lloris, not due to lukaku. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, as it's his job to throw himself down to claim that ball. Just wondering how we can start punishing strikers for goalkeepers throwing themselves at the ball around their feet.

Not all outfield players are in control of their body at all times I think, or at least they are not in control of their bodies any more than Lloris was for that situation.

It might have been completely accidental, that doesn't mean it's not punishable. "I went for the ball, it was just an accident" is no excuse when it's two outfield players coming together, why is it different when one of the players is a goalie?

Players get punished all the time for being second to the ball. Most free kicks are honest attempts to get the ball, but the tackler is just not quick enough and fouls the player without getting any of the ball. Why is the collision due to Lloris, yes he thrown himself, but he throws himself into the situation and is first to the ball. He gets the ball. Once again, I don't think anyone would be saying this about two outfield players coming together.

 

[Spursalot]

Not all outfield players are in control of their body at all times I think, or at least they are not in control of their bodies any more than Lloris was for that situation.

It might have been completely accidental, that doesn't mean it's not punishable. "I went for the ball, it was just an accident" is no excuse when it's two outfield players coming together, why is it different when one of the players is a goalie?

Players get punished all the time for being second to the ball. Most free kicks are honest attempts to get the ball, but the tackler is just not quick enough and fouls the player without getting any of the ball. Why is the collision due to Lloris, yes he thrown himself, but he throws himself into the situation and is first to the ball. He gets the ball. Once again, I don't think anyone would be saying this about two outfield players coming together.

Being accidental is fine.


Being second to the ball yes. The collision is due to lloris because it's his momentum that makes it occurs, other than having the ability to let other human beings phase through him there was zero that lukaku could have done.

It would be silly to book someone for this as an outfield player too. The analogy would be, player A (Lloris) slides for the ball (out of control), he wins the ball and his momentum carries him into player B (Lukaku) who was also going for the ball. Player B gets booked.

It would be madness.

 

[braineclipse]

Being accidental is fine.


Being second to the ball yes. The collision is due to lloris because it's his momentum that makes it occurs, other than having the ability to let other human beings phase through him there was zero that lukaku could have done.

It would be silly to book someone for this as an outfield player too. The analogy would be, player A (Lloris) slides for the ball (out of control), he wins the ball and his momentum carries him into player B (Lukaku) who was also going for the ball. Player B gets booked.

It would be madness.

Is Lloris any more out of control than Lukaku is? Neither player is capable of stopping by the looks of things?

At which point is it up to the player that is second to the ball to realize that they will be second to the ball and pull out a little bit earlier to avoid creating a very dangerous situation? To me at least Lukaku is at the very least close to that limit.

Both players were going for the ball, for your comparison to work both outfield players have to either be running to get the ball or sliding in. If two players slide in to get the ball and one is first to the ball and then there's a collision I'm going for the one that's second to the ball being to blame.

If we still aren't any closer to agreeing at this point I think I give up as we're going nowhere.

 

[Spursalot]

Is Lloris any more out of control than Lukaku is? Neither player is capable of stopping by the looks of things?

At which point is it up to the player that is second to the ball to realize that they will be second to the ball and pull out a little bit earlier to avoid creating a very dangerous situation? To me at least Lukaku is at the very least close to that limit.

Both players were going for the ball, for your comparison to work both outfield players have to either be running to get the ball or sliding in. If two players slide in to get the ball and one is first to the ball and then there's a collision I'm going for the one that's second to the ball being to blame.

If we still aren't any closer to agreeing at this point I think I give up as we're going nowhere.

Why? Lukaku was on his feet, Lloris wasn't. It would be a faulty analogy.


You're right, we're not. In my mind it's clearly not a bookable offence, it's not even an offence and we should probably leave it.

 

[Baleforce]

say that ball goes straight through Hugo's hands but the collision still occurs, who gets booked then?