• 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

Son Heung-Min

Raziel said:
Mate, this is nothing more than usual PL protecting their own.

VAR did not review the decision, Atkinson simply fell for the pressure by Everton players and the emotion of seeing an injured player and reversed a decision he had already made (correct one) with no real justification.

Already some bs rumours that they are considering extending Son's red card ban ..

No doubt if we appeal, we will get a few more "unfortunate" decisions against us.
Click to expand...

Exactly this. There is no way they'll reverse the red card coz they've circled the wagons already.

However, the only person that should be asked to explain himself is Atkinson. I can't fathom how he can give a yellow and change it to a red without reviewing the incident. The only thing that's changed his mind is the injury and the pressure from Everton players and that sets a very dangerous precedent.

I have a view on Son's role in this but the challenge wasn't a red card and Atkinson is wrong in how he handled the situation.
 
Robbo said:
Copied from this website:

The Premier League released a statement after the match, which read: "The red card for Son was for endangering the safety of a player which happened as a consequence of his initial challenge."

Oh my. If this is the new standard, we should see plenty red cards from now on. Because surely you can endanger the safety of a player without him getting injured? If Gomez had simply slipped and taken a knock, he would still have been endangered, I presume? What if he had twisted his ankle and had to be subbed? Is there any difference?

An elbow to the face surely won't be judged more endangering if the player suffers a concussion than if he doesn’t? A tough tackle can't possibly be punished harder if the tackled player lands awkwardly and dislocates his shoulder, than if he walks away unharmed? Are you endangering a player more if your initially perfectly legal shoulder barge causes a fall and a subsequent arm break?

This is not a can of worms I'd open if I was the PL.
Click to expand...
I don't understand how they will handle situations in the future after making this statement. They either have to retract the statement, or referees have to start giving red cards for every single tackle and physical altercation on a football pitch. Do they even realize what they are saying? It's an absolutely incredible statement to make. It seems like they were in too much in a hurry to defend the decision after the match and came up with a statement without thinking about what they were actually saying.
 
"The red card for Son was for endangering the safety of a player which happened as a consequence of his initial challenge."

I keep reading that and I'm not sure it even makes sense. It smacks of something hastily thrown together.
Post match yesterday, and again today, I don't think I've seen a single pundit/commentator/journalist agree that it was a red card. I'd say it's pretty unusual to have that level of consensus.
According to the Evening Standard, we are going to appeal, which I'd be pleased about.
It's hard to imagine the powers that be backing down on this one but I wonder if the fact the PL have admitted that VAR wasn't used might be the technicality that leads to the decision being overturned? (VAR being supposed to check red card offences, right?).
 
Glenda's Legs said:
"The red card for Son was for endangering the safety of a player which happened as a consequence of his initial challenge."

I keep reading that and I'm not sure it even makes sense. It smacks of something hastily thrown together.
Post match yesterday, and again today, I don't think I've seen a single pundit/commentator/journalist agree that it was a red card. I'd say it's pretty unusual to have that level of consensus.
According to the Evening Standard, we are going to appeal, which I'd be pleased about.
It's hard to imagine the powers that be backing down on this one but I wonder if the fact the PL have admitted that VAR wasn't used might be the technicality that leads to the decision being overturned? (VAR being supposed to check red card offences, right?).
Click to expand...
You would think that, when there seems to be a 100 % consensus amongst knowledgable football people around the world that it wasn't a red card, they would consider rescinding it. Unfortunately it's an old boys club where everybody protects and defends one another, and they are too arrogant and too proud to admit having made a mistake.
 
King of Norway said:
You would think that, when there seems to be a 100 % consensus amongst knowledgable football people around the world that it wasn't a red card, they would consider rescinding it. Unfortunately it's an old boys club where everybody protects and defends one another, and they are too arrogant and too proud to admit having made a mistake.
Click to expand...

Keith Hackett, former head of the Professional Game of Match Officials Limited, told BBC 5 Live Breakfast that the decision to send Son off was "100 per cent incorrect".

"The trip was deliberate and warranted a yellow card", he said. "Referees have to show a little bit of compassion at times like this, Martin Atkinson's a very experienced referee, he's produced the yellow card, he was correct and VAR unnecessarily suggested to him that it should be red which was almost like, 'Let's cover our back on this one' and I think that's unfortunate."
​
 
"The red card for Son was for endangering the safety of a player which happened as a consequence of his initial challenge."

So from the PGMPOL startment one of only 3 things can have occurred (according to them).

1. Atkinson gave the red and has seen himself that it was a subsequent action (foot in turf) that caused the break and provided the above reason.

2. VAR has intervened and instructed a red after seeing replay of the subsequent action.

3. Atkinson gave a hasty red which they are now trying to justify in some way.


For clarity - I think 1. is hugely unlikely. 2. is possible but wrong even if true. That leaves 3.
 
Pretty amazing that in an age of VAR we're talking about red cards being rescinded. They should have taken far longer to sort that out. Sheer incompetence. Thats why I dont think it will be rescinded - it will be admitting fault.

The only window open for a rescinding (imo) is the PL saying that Atkinson was misunderstood and thought that Son's tackle done the damage, but the PGMOL statement seems to have closed that door.
 
How much longer can Atkinson be allowed to demonstrate his incompetence? two weeks running his decisions have been shown to be wrong yet the powers that be continue to allow him to go on ruining games.
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
How much longer can Atkinson be allowed to demonstrate his incompetence? two weeks running his decisions have been shown to be wrong yet the powers that be continue to allow him to go on ruining games.
Click to expand...

I actually think general refereeing is really hard. The game moves at a ridic pace nowadays and players are trying things on all over the pitch. The advent of VAR should have been to say to a ref, "thats a real howler, go and have a look at the monitor, you probably want to reconsider", hence giving referees the protection needed. The PL's implementation of VAR is shambolic and has only made things worse.

On the face of it his handling of yesterdays situation looks bad (I thought he acted hastily). But if we are to believe that VAR told him to amend the yellow to a red then its kinda VARs fault.
 
If (or should I say when) our appeal is unsuccessful I think we should send a video of every single challenge virtually identical to Son's that occurs in every single game and ask for full clarification of why the foul did not result in a red card. It might be petty, but I feel it is completely necessary.
 
Benny_Lad said:
I actually think general refereeing is really hard. The game moves at a ridic pace nowadays and players are trying things on all over the pitch. The advent of VAR should have been to say to a ref, "thats a real howler, go and have a look at the monitor, you probably want to reconsider", hence giving referees the protection needed. The PL's implementation of VAR is shambolic and has only made things worse.

On the face of it his handling of yesterdays situation looks bad (I thought he acted hastily). But if we are to believe that VAR told him to amend the yellow to a red then its kinda VARs fault.
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough I thought that Atkinson got just about everything in the game right other than the Son sending off. I think he should've taken more time with decision, stayed with the yellow as he felt warranted initially and then allowed a full VAR review to take place to inform him of whether a red was instead deserved. Had he done this he also would've exonerated himself for any blame for a poor decision.

I can't help but feel Atkinson issued the red because of the general atmosphere from the supporters with him wrongly reacting to this to try to restore a bit of calm.
 
Finney Is Back said:
Interestingly enough I thought that Atkinson got just about everything in the game right other than the Son sending off. I think he should've taken more time with decision, stayed with the yellow as he felt warranted initially and then allowed a full VAR review to take place to inform him of whether a red was instead deserved. Had he done this he also would've exonerated himself for any blame for a poor decision.

I can't help but feel Atkinson issued the red because of the general atmosphere from the supporters with him wrongly reacting to this to try to restore a bit of calm.
Click to expand...

For sure. But there's rumblings now that VAR did step in - again shambolic if so as it was completely unclear as to who made what decision.
 
Unfortunate but that tackle is made by players every week where they 'take one for the team' to stop a break and it's always a yellow card and understood as such. Very strange to issue a statement like that right after the game on the reasons for the red card.
 
P.D. said:
Unfortunate but that tackle is made by players every week where they 'take one for the team' to stop a break and it's always a yellow card and understood as such. Very strange to issue a statement like that right after the game on the reasons for the red card.
Click to expand...
If this is a red card then Fernandinho might as well just retire, as tactical fouls are all that he knows to do!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back