Whether it was cynical or an honest attempt to win the ball, the end result is a clear chance to score was denied and it has to be punished equally as harshly as the attacking team losing that chance.
Greenlizard0 Weekend Football Thread ** spoilers ** [23rd - 26th January 2016]
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
Whether it was cynical or an honest attempt to win the ball, the end result is a clear chance to score was denied and it has to be punished equally as harshly as the attacking team losing that chance.
I don't disagree Baz, it has to be punished. My argument is the 10 men for the rest of the game is too harsh.
Although tbf in this case yesterday, Mert hardly touched Costa. Costa dived. How many times have we seen a ref say get up to an attacker in the penalty box because he went down to easily. I realise this has nothing to do with our debate about a broader issue of red cards regarding goal scoring opportunities.
Although tbf in this case yesterday, Mert hardly touched Costa. Costa dived. How many times have we seen a ref say get up to an attacker in the penalty box because he went down to easily. I realise this has nothing to do with our debate about a broader issue of red cards regarding goal scoring opportunities.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,121
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
He denied it by himself by falling over, no one touched him.
Just looked at the possession rankings table so far for 2015-16. Was quite surprised to see Leicester almost at the bottom. I guess when they have the ball, they make the most of it!
Utd top on that though. Hold the ball for days but just seem to sit there with it.
Utd top on that though. Hold the ball for days but just seem to sit there with it.
Thought it was obstruction, I don't see how it isn't when you're sliding in between or in front of someone's legs without winning the ball. Definite red card for me.
Of course he still 'dived' but I would expect and want any of Liverpool players to do so, so many decisions you don't get if he is dumb enough to obstruct you, you shouldn't have to get out of the way.
Of course he still 'dived' but I would expect and want any of Liverpool players to do so, so many decisions you don't get if he is dumb enough to obstruct you, you shouldn't have to get out of the way.
Eh?
How many times do you see referee's change their decisions?
.I thought it was a dive, Costa went down after no contact. Pretty sure there was a law change to punish players for this over the summer too. It was not dangerous play, and with no actual contact made can not be anything (imho) other then a stupid decision by the referee.
Anyway; that does not mean that what Mert did was the correct decision, he was stupid to go to ground which then gave Costa a decision; either one on one with the goalkeeper, or getting a player sent off in the first 20 minutes. The former gives Chelsea a goal and the latter kills the game.
Arsenal were rubbish, they clearly have a total mental block in regards to Chelsea. Chelsea were not much better, but against 10 men they were in little danger, they might be out of form and having a terrible season but it was almost muscle memory for those players to knock the ball about and wind down the clock.
Cesc had a good game, or rather Arsenal allowed him to have a good game.
Ps - Purdy and me already had this argument elsewhere
haha.The point I was making was that every decision a ref makes is normally argued by the offending player/team, even when they know they are in the wrong. The fact that this didn't happen suggests Mert accepted it was the correct decision.
To me it also didn't look like there was much contact, but there you go.
To me it also didn't look like there was much contact, but there you go.
How many times do you see referee's change their decisions?
How many times do you see a player accept a decision when they're wrongly sent off? None. They almost never accept the decision when it's the correct one.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 41,256
- Location
- Cornwall
Need a snickometer in football.
I didn't say it was a good or bad thing
That was a reply to planty.
Ok, he didn't say it either.
The fact that players argue nearly every single decision, even when they know they were correct, let alone a major decision like that is hugely telling.
No it is not?
I would accept that argument if that was the first football match I'd ever seen
I would accept that argument if it was the first game of football I'd ever seen
You do see it, players know they are not going to change a referee's mind. There's also the mental aspect of it, the player might be so annoyed or frustrated with their own decision that arguing with the referee just doesn't occur to them for a while, sort of shock and just auto pilot walking off.
Just because a player can be accepting of a referee's decision (after all there have been campaigns to respect the referee, not surround him et cetera) does not mean it is an indication of guilt all the time.
Like, Hutchinson for Wednesday argues every decision
, but Lees barely says a word when a decision is given against him (rightly or wrongly).No it is not?
If you can list examples of where a player has been wrongly sent off and not contested it then fair enough. Even if you could, I could list far more examples of where a player has been correctly sent off and contested it.
Like it or not, players nearly always argue the toss. The fact that he just walked off tells you he knew it was the right call.
Eh?
.Nothing about 'like it or not', I'm fully aware that players argue for literally everything on the football pitch, but sometimes they do not.
It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that because a player does not contest a decision it is an admission of guilt.
I thought the referee got it wrong, but that the defender was stupid with his decision making (attempting a tackle that would result in one of two outcomes). If Clattenburg (how he is still a top league official is, absolutely, beyond my comprehension, same goes for friend) thought that the defender fouled the forward then he was correct to send him off (denying a goalscoring opportunity as the forward was through one on one).
I don't care that Arsenal lost, nor that he was sent off, nor that Costa dived, nor that he did not argue about the red card.
Just because a player does not react, does not mean he agree's with the decision though
.