• 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

It might be that Son's challenge was just a kick and did not break/dislocate Gomes' ankle.

Or it might be that Son's challenge broke bones in Gomes' ankle, so that when Gomes put his weight on that ankle in the next stride, his ankle fully snapped and dislocated.




Nobody knows this.

But it did look like a standard niggly challenge you see several times per match, wherein a player hacks down his opponent in full flow, to stop a break.



Personally I don't like to see these kind of challenges from any team (particularly Fernandinho at City does this 10 times per game) because you wait all game for your team to make a break, then someone just hacks them down. Same with pull backs - if a pull back is blatantly nowhere near the ball, just to stop a breakaway, you should be sent off for a professional foul.
 
Bullet said:
It might be that Son's challenge was just a kick and did not break/dislocate Gomes' ankle.

Or it might be that Son's challenge broke bones in Gomes' ankle, so that when Gomes put his weight on that ankle in the next stride, his ankle fully snapped and dislocated.




Nobody knows this.

But it did look like a standard niggly challenge you see several times per match, wherein a player hacks down his opponent in full flow, to stop a break.



Personally I don't like to see these kind of challenges from any team (particularly Fernandinho at City does this 10 times per game) because you wait all game for your team to make a break, then someone just hacks them down. Same with pull backs - if a pull back is blatantly nowhere near the ball, just to stop a breakaway, you should be sent off for a professional foul.
Click to expand...
https://www.glory-glory.co.uk/community/threads/time-to-outlaw-the-tactical-foul.10247/
 
Raziel said:
Seems we are appealing the red card officially ..

Odds on that getting overturned? will probably get an additional ban just so the FA send a message re protecting one of their own.
Click to expand...

Isn't it a panel that decides, rather than the FA, with the panellists making their own independent conclusion (and not knowing who the other panellists are?). I think it's a ref, a former player but can't remember what/who fills the third slot.
 
Raziel said:
Seems we are appealing the red card officially ..

Odds on that getting overturned? will probably get an additional ban just so the FA send a message re protecting one of their own.
Click to expand...
I was going to ask if there is some information about us appealing the red card. Where have you seen this?
 
NickTB said:
Confirmed. Common sense for once
Click to expand...
I would have put good money on that not being overturned, despite just about every pundit in the land agreeing (for once) that it was never a straight red.

Still, there are plenty of idiots out there. Like "Craig LFC" who made the headline on Football365 today with a particularly nonsensical letter:

https://www.football365.com/news/why-the-referee-was-right-to-upgrade-sons-punishment-to-red
Some complete numpty said:
Consequence should matter

Sorry, bit late to this one, but who doesn’t enjoy a good, contentious VAR/referee issue? I know I do!

The consensus, from what I’ve seen/read (pundits on TV, reporters, and my mailbox brothers and sisters), seems to be that Son Heung-min was wrong to be sent off for, what turned out to be, a season-ending professional foul on Andre Gomes. This is based on the fact Son should have been punished on the act and not the consequence. And that the horrific outcome was in no way foreseeable by Son.

Addressing the second point first, Son makes no attempt to play the ball and instead lunges to take out a 1.88m tall, 84kg (thanks wiki) adult male running at full pelt. It is of course within the realms of possibility that that may lead to injury, potentially serious.

But to the point of my mail, I think consequence should absolutely matter. It does in law. If you have a few too many drinks and drive home, getting pulled over by the police on your way, you’ll get a fine and suspension. If you hit somebody, you’re off to prison. Your actual crime, drinking and driving, is the same, but with different consequences. And different punishments. And rightly so. If you get into an argument at a bar and throw a punch that does no serious damage, you’ll maybe get just a slap on the wrist. If that person falls over, hits their head, and ends up dead then you’re going to be serving at Her Majesty’s pleasure for quite some time. Same action, throwing the punch, with different consequences and different punishments. There are hundreds of examples.

In my profession, as a healthcare worker, a patient on the wrong end of a medical blunder has to prove both the error and the harm before they will receive any significant compensation. They have to prove both the action and the consequence.

Somebody mentioned whether all challenges that result in injury should have the tackler sent off, but that’s easy. It would just be for illegal challenges, ie. foul play.

Very difficult to police, of course, with referees not being doctors and able to diagnose and prognosticate on an injury at the time. Also, wouldn’t it be nice if you wanted to substitute your tiring central midfielder. You could tell him to draw a foul, pretend to be injured, substitute him, and have the “offending” player sent off.

But in cases where there is clearly a serious injury as the result of foul play, as in this unfortunate incident, I have absolutely no problem with the referee upgrading the punishment.

Wishing Gomes a speedy return to health, fitness, and football.

Craig LFC
Click to expand...

Idiot.
 
Interesting. The issue is, refereeing is not conducted like that at the moment. The act is what defines the punishment not the outcome. You can't suddenly, midway through a season, change the laws and presidents as you wish. Craig-idiot also outlines reasons why it would be difficult/impossible to oversee by Refs. Nice idea chum but no dice.
 
FatBloke said:
I would have put good money on that not being overturned, despite just about every pundit in the land agreeing (for once) that it was never a straight red.

Still, there are plenty of idiots out there. Like "Craig LFC" who made the headline on Football365 today with a particularly nonsensical letter:

https://www.football365.com/news/why-the-referee-was-right-to-upgrade-sons-punishment-to-red


Idiot.
Click to expand...

Any bets that Craig wrote a similar letter about why mane was correctly sent sent off for kicking a leaping 6'2 goalkeeper in the head?
No I didn't think so.
 
Benny_Lad said:
How can you have a need to overturn red cards in an age of VAR? That's its whole point. I would like to see a statement clearing it up and where the process fell down.
Click to expand...

What a shambles. Incredible how the PL immediately defended the decision, then this backtracking two days later. And what was VAR doing? It's a proper, collective clusterfudgeup.

This mess possibly cost us two points. There should be a lot of explaining to be done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back