Greenlizard0 Premier League Football Thread ** spoilers ** [20th - 22nd December 2025]

postbox said:
I often wonder whether anyone here has played contact sport in real time? it was a tackle to get the ball, unfortunately momentum and really bad luck meant Isaak ended up injured, it happens and is impossible to rule out unless you say nobody can ever tackle within 3 feet of each other. A scissor tackle is just sensationalist BS
Click to expand...
Well yes, it was. But it was badly mistimed, he didn't get the ball, and he went clean through the player. 9 times out of 10 that's a yellow card at a minimum. Can you clarify why you don't think it was on this occasion?

I'm not attributing any blame or malice to the player. But it's a yellow card challenge.

And yes, I played rugby through school, and football (uni, Sunday league, 5 a side and futsal) until I was in my mid 30s. But cheers for the question.
 
Last edited:
fez said:
Its very very hard to be objective when it comes to tackles because so much of the reaction is based on the outcome. Yes there are some tackles that are simply dangerous by their nature. There are a huge number though that are only dangerous some of the time and those one are usually considered dangerous when a few things go wrong. The fouled player puts their foot down at the worst time and in the worst position.

Now you can argue that if thats the case then it wasn't a safe tackle but to my mind, a huuuuuge number of tackles are not remotely in the hands of the player making the tackle once they have committed to the tackle. Most tackles fall somewhere on a spectrum of "this is 100% safe" to "that was almost certain to hurt the other player". Not many sit very close to the 100% safe end.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing that it was a drastically dangerous or reckless tackle. But he was late and it was mistimed and, understandably in the circumstances, he was putting his full body weight into attempting to block the shot and failed to even touch the ball. It's a yellow card, at least, and I'm not really clear on what your argument is to the contrary?
 
manic111 said:
I'm not arguing that it was a drastically dangerous or reckless tackle. But he was late and it was mistimed and, understandably in the circumstances, he was putting his full body weight into attempting to block the shot and failed to even touch the ball. It's a yellow card, at least, and I'm not really clear on what your argument is to the contrary?
Click to expand...
He was sliding in front of Isak, he did not put his body weight though Isak. Isak got the shot away and then his foot planted inbetween the legs. There were no high feet and it was cm from blocking the shot.

Unfortunately as above posters say, some tackles seem innocuous cause a stumble and someone gets a broken leg. Equally, we give red cards for catching the back of the foot with studs which is incredibly painful, but less likely to break an ankle than a lot of tackles that get made.
 
we’ll be giving yellows to the groundsman for shoddy pitches and overwatering the pitches, and may as well punish the coaches who overtrain their players before kick off with the OTT drills. All cause way more injuries on average than the challenges that get people’s blood pressure up.
 
Last edited:
manic111 said:
It's a yellow card, at least, and I'm not really clear on what your argument is to the contrary?
Click to expand...

I was arguing against the idea that it was a horrible rash challenge that should have been a clear red. My point was a general one that we judge too many fouls on the outcome rather than the intent and how dangerous they actually are. Its akin to watching someone ping a 40 yard shot into the top corner and deciding that its an easy goal and scored all the time simply because it just happened. Just because something resulted in a nasty injury doesn't make that challenge inherently dangerous every time it happens.
 
postbox said:
we’ll be giving yellows to the groundsman for shoddy pitches and overwatering the pitches, and may as well punish the coaches who overtrain their players before kick off with the OTT drills. All cause way more injuries on average than the challenges that get people’s blood pressure up.
Click to expand...
If Isak had passed the ball in the middle of the park and got clattered like he did you think no card would be given
 
fez said:
I was arguing against the idea that it was a horrible rash challenge that should have been a clear red. My point was a general one that we judge too many fouls on the outcome rather than the intent and how dangerous they actually are. Its akin to watching someone ping a 40 yard shot into the top corner and deciding that its an easy goal and scored all the time simply because it just happened. Just because something resulted in a nasty injury doesn't make that challenge inherently dangerous every time it happens.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I entirely agree in that case. The Son one a few years back is a good example. Something that most of the time is a simple yellow, nothing further, and that's that.

And as I've said, I don't think Van de Ven's was a terrible challenge or anything. But the vast majority of the time that challenge results in a booking.
 
PikeyPriest said:
He was sliding in front of Isak, he did not put his body weight though Isak. Isak got the shot away and then his foot planted inbetween the legs. There were no high feet and it was cm from blocking the shot.

Unfortunately as above posters say, some tackles seem innocuous cause a stumble and someone gets a broken leg. Equally, we give red cards for catching the back of the foot with studs which is incredibly painful, but less likely to break an ankle than a lot of tackles that get made.
Click to expand...
Watch it again, Isak ends up between his legs with VdV sliding into him at the perpendicular. You can't not have your full bodyweight going through someone if you do that.

I don't think it's malicious or a horror challenge or anything, but I found it remarkable at the time that it didn't seem to merit a yellow or even a discussion, and that remains the case.
 
scarps said:
If Isak had passed the ball in the middle of the park and got clattered like he did you think no card would be given
Click to expand...
Yes but you are comparing two completely different scenarios. We could all point out anybody who dares touches a player with a hand is impeding another in the middle of the pitch, yet it happens in every box, every corner etc to try and gain an advantage
 
Last edited:
manic111 said:
Fair enough, I entirely agree in that case. The Son one a few years back is a good example. Something that most of the time is a simple yellow, nothing further, and that's that.

And as I've said, I don't think Van de Ven's was a terrible challenge or anything. But the vast majority of the time that challenge results in a booking.
Click to expand...

Yep and I would suggest that thats kind of what the yellow card should be used for. No intent and an unfortunate outcome but the outcome wasn't good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom