Premier League 2019/20

[Birley Owl 1867]

12 minutes ago, Socialist_Owl said:

Saw a lot of people saying that Spurs shouldn't contest the red because "it's a bad look".

 

Absolute horseshit.  They should contest it.  It was a freak injury and Son didn't maliciously break his ankle.  

 

The red card isn't there to mitigate any harshness with the injury.  Apply it fairly and objectively.

He maliciously hacked him down though.

 

His actions indirectly broke a man's leg, he had to go and if they even think of appealing Spurs are disgraces.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Birley Owl 1867 said:

He maliciously hacked him down though.

 

His actions indirectly broke a man's leg, he had to go and if they even think of appealing Spurs are disgraces.

 

It was an intentional foul worthy of a yellow but definitely not a malicious hack. I would imagine you would see half a dozen worse tackles than that in 90% of matches. 

 

What Spurs should do is have the courtesy to contact Everton and Gomes directly first, pass on their sympathies  and explain that they are going to appeal on the basis that the evidence clearly shows that it was an accident that caused the injury.  

[Belfast Owl 2]

8 minutes ago, Birley Owl 1867 said:

He maliciously hacked him down though.

 

His actions indirectly broke a man's leg, he had to go and if they even think of appealing Spurs are disgraces.

 

It was in no way malicuous and the collosion was a horrible accident.

 

The Son foul is something you see all the time and its a yellow.

 

The fact Everton players said it wasnt his fault consoled him says a lot.

 

 

Edited November 4, 2019 by Belfast Owl 2

[HullOwlPhil]

17 minutes ago, Birley Owl 1867 said:

He maliciously hacked him down though.

 

His actions indirectly broke a man's leg, he had to go and if they even think of appealing Spurs are disgraces.

With respect, that's absolute horseshiit.

[edmontonowl]

32 minutes ago, SUPER OWLS O.K. said:

With respect, that's absolute horseshiit.

 

 

Sometimes diplomacy just isn't needed

[Birley Owl 1867]

1 hour ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

It was an intentional foul worthy of a yellow but definitely not a malicious hack. I would imagine you would see half a dozen worse tackles than that in 90% of matches. 

 

What Spurs should do is have the courtesy to contact Everton and Gomes directly first, pass on their sympathies  and explain that they are going to appeal on the basis that the evidence clearly shows that it was an accident that caused the injury.  

He hacked him down as retaliation for an elbow just prior. He didn't mean to hurt him if course but that doesn't matter. He did so he walked, and rightly so.

 

Any tackle which causes a player to serious injure themselves, whether the intention was there or the tackle was bad or not, should be given a red card. No questions asked.

[Birley Owl 1867]

58 minutes ago, SUPER OWLS O.K. said:

With respect, that's absolute horseshiit.

What the fact he purposely hacked him down? 

 

He broke a man's leg, whether he meant to or jor it doesn't matter, he deserved to walk and they won't appeal it and if they do they won't win it.

[Birley Owl 1867]

1 hour ago, Belfast Owl 2 said:

 

It was in no way malicuous and the collosion was a horrible accident.

 

The Son foul is something you see all the time and its a yellow.

 

The fact Everton players said it wasnt his fault consoled him says a lot.

 

 

He hacked him down as retaliation for a previous elbow. He also attempted to stop a counter. He didn't mean to cusse injury, but he did, so he deserved his red card and it won't be overturned because of it.

 

Any foul, accident or otherwise which causes an injury should be given a red card. No questions asked and no player would complain either way.

[Whitechapel Owl]

13 minutes ago, Birley Owl 1867 said:

 

Any tackle which causes a player to serious injure themselves, whether the intention was there or the tackle was bad or not, should be given a red card. No questions asked.

 

That's ridiculous 

[Birley Owl 1867]

Just now, Whitechapel Owl said:

 

That's ridiculous 

Why is it? They've put the players health in danger, and caused a serious injury whether they meant to or not.

 

Of course they should be sent off. It's ridiculous to say otherwise.

[Whitechapel Owl]

10 minutes ago, Birley Owl 1867 said:

Why is it? They've put the players health in danger, and caused a serious injury whether they meant to or not.

 

Of course they should be sent off. It's ridiculous to say otherwise.

 

Not everything that happens is someone's fault, there's such a thing as bad luck.

 

If a player nudges a another player off the ball and he falls and breaks his wrist, is that a red card? Bearing in mind you said 'No questions asked' 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Birley Owl 1867 said:

Why is it? They've put the players health in danger, and caused a serious injury whether they meant to or not.

 

Of course they should be sent off. It's ridiculous to say otherwise.

 

By that reckoning every tackle puts a players health in danger. The injury was pure bad luck and could have happened by getting caught in the turf without a tackle at all, believe me I know from experience!

 

You are in the minority with this viewpoint, as has been said, even many opposing players know the red card was harsh in this instance.

 

[Westfield Owl]

6 hours ago, mattitheowl said:

 

No I haven't changed my mind about it.  I just can't understand why the EPL are making it look so hard.  

 

Anyone with a pair of eyes could see that Dele Ali handballed it in the box, it's a penalty.  It doesn't need 3 minutes and 45 replays to show it, you could see it clear as day in the first replay.  Simple.  The rules are clear, unnatural position, hits arm, penalty.  

 

They stated the "bar would be high" for turning over decisions, yet they give a penalty to Watford for a clear dive.  

 

The biggest frustration isn't that VAR is getting decisions right after a long delay, it's that it is still getting decisions wrong (and usually after a long delay).

 

Rugby, cricket, tennis, ice hockey, American football all manage to do the review system and on the whole they do it well.  But so far the EPL has utterly botched it by trying to over think and over complicate the whole thing.

 

At this point, given what we’ve seen so far in the Premier League, I don’t understand how anyone that actually likes football can be in favour of VAR.

 

This season we’ve seen refs make some laughably bad decisions.  Refs have been given all the technology they have requested.  And like you say, they’re STILL making erroneous game-changing (goals, penalties, red cards etc) decisions.

 

VAR was brought in with the intention of reducing controversial referee decisions.  It’s done the opposite.

 

The argument that other sports rely on technology is a moot point.  Football has so many rules that depend on a referee’s interpretation of the law so there will ALWAYS be gray areas.

 

Meanwhile the spirit of the game is being eroded.  Fans and players are hesitating before celebrating goals now.

 

I’ve said it all along that I’m against bringing VAR to football.  So I’m not surprised that it has been so bad.

[Birley Owl 1867]

9 hours ago, Whitechapel Owl said:

 

Not everything that happens is someone's fault, there's such a thing as bad luck.

 

If a player nudges a another player off the ball and he falls and breaks his wrist, is that a red card? Bearing in mind you said 'No questions asked' 

Yes cos he broke a players bone. Cause a serious injury, take the consequence on the chin.

 

Although you can argue a broken wrist isn't a serious injury.

[Birley Owl 1867]

8 hours ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

By that reckoning every tackle puts a players health in danger. The injury was pure bad luck and could have happened by getting caught in the turf without a tackle at all, believe me I know from experience!

 

You are in the minority with this viewpoint, as has been said, even many opposing players know the red card was harsh in this instance.

 

Well no as most tackles are genuine, far and go for the ball.

 

Son made no attempt to play the ball, just made a cynical hack, and he indirectly caused an injury. Red card all day long.

[SiJ]

Birley being a contrarian for the sake of it. 

 

Who would have thought it. 

[SiJ]

Christ. 

 

Just read through a few more of your posts and they are even dumber than the last one. 

 

Any foul which results in a serious injury is a red card? I'm I reading this right? 

 

So say if two players went to kick the ball at the same time and one ends up with say a damage ankle, does that mean the other player should be sent off? 

 

If two players go up for the ball and make contact with one another, resulting in one player landing awkwardly on his knee, does that mean the other player should be sent off? 

[beano]

12 hours ago, Birley Owl 1867 said:

Any tackle which causes a player to serious injure themselves, whether the intention was there or the tackle was bad or not, should be given a red card. No questions asked.

This would only result in an increase of the amateur dramatics we already see too often as a result of perfectly legal tackles.

[Birley Owl 1867]

2 hours ago, SiJ said:

Christ. 

 

Just read through a few more of your posts and they are even dumber than the last one. 

 

Any foul which results in a serious injury is a red card? I'm I reading this right? 

 

So say if two players went to kick the ball at the same time and one ends up with say a damage ankle, does that mean the other player should be sent off? 

 

If two players go up for the ball and make contact with one another, resulting in one player landing awkwardly on his knee, does that mean the other player should be sent off? 

Yes because they've caused a serious injury. I'm not sure what you arent getting about that. Cause a serious injury, take the consequences. The bloke you've injured has too.

[Birley Owl 1867]

If you break a players leg you have no defence of you're sent off. None whatsoever.

 

I don't see what people aren't seeing about that fact.