Mr Winberg
Full House
There's a similar rule in icehockey: If your stick hits someone in the face you get a 2 minute penalty regardless of how/why it happened.
-
PCF is an eBay Partner. If you make a purchase through one of our links, we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. Thank you for your support!
Euros 2020 (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter BonScot
- Start date
OP
OP
BonScot
Straight Flush
I’ve watched it several times. It’s a controlled clearance. He’s not reckless or out of control. I’d be raging if that was my player being sent off for that. The Ukrainian boy is unlucky but there’s no malice or intent in the clearance.
In the Scottish Premier League the Ukrainian boy would have been booked for simulation
Mr Winberg
Full House
I think there are two discussions here: What the rule is, and what the rule should be. 
And of course: What the rule is in Scotland
And of course: What the rule is in Scotland
Perthmike
Straight Flush
Not anymore, the games annoyingly soft now. If you can't make a great clearance and satisfyingly crunch the defender afterwards why even be a defender lol
OP
OP
BonScot
Straight Flush
Here’s the moment he clears the ball. He still has one foot on the ground and his studs aren’t up. His leg has to follow through and the other guy runs into him. I know that it looks bad but there’s no recklessness or malice in that clearance.
FlushBlack
Straight
I missed the game but going by the reaction of the BBC pundits I thought they’d already won the Euros
OP
OP
BonScot
Straight Flush
Honestly at halftime during the Sweden Ukraine game the BBC didn’t mention Sweden or Ukraine once. They just spoke about how this is “England’s year” and that the trophy has their name on it. Clowns
FlushBlack
Straight
They’ve got the best run to the final, box seat, also Grealish should be a starter.
John Zoidberg
Pair
I honestly don't know what else you want the defender to do; he's not going to just let the attacker get the ball. The attacker is displaying no self preservation, and is the one that actually brings the force into the collision. Horrible outcome, but I can't see what the defender did wrong. Maybe call it careless and give him a yellow, but it's not a red.
Well, I’m gonna root for Switzerland now. The two of us are indistinguishable to some anyway
Absolutely true and still appreciated
MilouPilou1
Flush
Are we really that much hated?
Not at all, I just like to root for the underdog
Perthmike
Straight Flush
Well I think the French/English rivalry is fairly mutual wouldn't you say lol.
And the French team doesn't have any arsenal players these days, so I have zero reason to want them to do well.
Pinball
Full House
MilouPilou1
Flush
I was joking of course, we just didn't measure up to the event
Chippy McChiperson
Straight Flush
What's up with Rabiot's mom?
Mr Winberg
Full House
Regarding the red card, I thought I'd post a quote by Jonas Eriksson, a referee who is currently working for Swedish television to explain rules/decisions etc for the viewers. He is really good at helping the viewers understand the reasons and methodology behind how the decisions are taken.
"The red card is completely correct. The tackle jeopardizes the opponent's safety - even if there is no intention or if the Ukrainian actually runs into Danielsson's outstretched legs or feet. The intention is always a subordinate consequence when it comes to unfair play. That is, what happens is more important than the player's intention."
So arguments like "he struck the ball first", "it was unintentional", "the Ukrainian ran into him" don't really matter in this case. I haven't fact checked him, so if someone can find a source that contradicts him (apart from Gary Lineker) then I'm all ears.
FWIW, I didn't think it was a red until Jonas explained the rule.
EDIT: Sorry! I thought you were Norwegian!! No, you aren't
"The red card is completely correct. The tackle jeopardizes the opponent's safety - even if there is no intention or if the Ukrainian actually runs into Danielsson's outstretched legs or feet. The intention is always a subordinate consequence when it comes to unfair play. That is, what happens is more important than the player's intention."
So arguments like "he struck the ball first", "it was unintentional", "the Ukrainian ran into him" don't really matter in this case. I haven't fact checked him, so if someone can find a source that contradicts him (apart from Gary Lineker) then I'm all ears.
FWIW, I didn't think it was a red until Jonas explained the rule.
Yes.
EDIT: Sorry! I thought you were Norwegian!! No, you aren't
MilouPilou1
Flush
She is completely crazy...
A priori, she would have inveighed Wilfried Mbappé (father) by deploring the "smugness with which his son had shot and missed the penalty" and to reframe him because she found him too arrogant.
I say a priori, because these are only statements of the medias and not from the interested parties. There was no expert in lip-reading to confirm this either.
StewbieDoo
Pair
Nothing at all if you want your agent and blood relative making you look terrible to top teams because of the demands that you make. Rabiot is a fantastic player but him being represented by family will be the downfall of his career.
Chippy McChiperson
Straight Flush
Regarding the red card, I thought I'd post a quote by Jonas Eriksson, a referee who is currently working for Swedish television to explain rules/decisions etc for the viewers. He is really good at helping the viewers understand the reasons and methodology behind how the decisions are taken.
"The red card is completely correct. The tackle jeopardizes the opponent's safety - even if there is no intention or if the Ukrainian actually runs into Danielsson's outstretched legs or feet. The intention is always a subordinate consequence when it comes to unfair play. That is, what happens is more important than the player's intention."
So arguments like "he struck the ball first", "it was unintentional", "the Ukrainian ran into him" don't really matter in this case. I haven't fact checked him, so if someone can find a source that contradicts him (apart from Gary Lineker) then I'm all ears.
FWIW, I didn't think it was a red until Jonas explained the rule.
Yes.
EDIT: Sorry! I thought you were Norwegian!! No, you aren't
Mark Clattenburg said it was definitely a red for the same reasons you stated live on the broadcast, while they were still doing the VAR check.
John Zoidberg
Pair
Regarding the red card, I thought I'd post a quote by Jonas Eriksson, a referee who is currently working for Swedish television to explain rules/decisions etc for the viewers. He is really good at helping the viewers understand the reasons and methodology behind how the decisions are taken.
"The red card is completely correct. The tackle jeopardizes the opponent's safety - even if there is no intention or if the Ukrainian actually runs into Danielsson's outstretched legs or feet. The intention is always a subordinate consequence when it comes to unfair play. That is, what happens is more important than the player's intention."
So arguments like "he struck the ball first", "it was unintentional", "the Ukrainian ran into him" don't really matter in this case. I haven't fact checked him, so if someone can find a source that contradicts him (apart from Gary Lineker) then I'm all ears.
FWIW, I didn't think it was a red until Jonas explained the rule.
Yep, if that’s the rule, it’s obviously a red.
I guess the defender IS supposed to pull out of challenge - if the burden on care lies with the player in the more “stable” position at point of impact. Or maybe put his body in a position so that when the two players inevitably collide, its his leg that is destroyed by the Ukrainian, and then hope the rule applies in his favour!
An odd situation.
If the red card was correct by rule, then the rule sucks. Contact happens, both were going after the ball, the defender got there first and played the ball.
OP
OP
BonScot
Straight Flush
Bit by bit they’re killing the game. So now defenders shouldn’t stretch for a clearance in case someone runs on to their outstretched leg? Game’s gone softRegarding the red card, I thought I'd post a quote by Jonas Eriksson, a referee who is currently working for Swedish television to explain rules/decisions etc for the viewers. He is really good at helping the viewers understand the reasons and methodology behind how the decisions are taken.
"The red card is completely correct. The tackle jeopardizes the opponent's safety - even if there is no intention or if the Ukrainian actually runs into Danielsson's outstretched legs or feet. The intention is always a subordinate consequence when it comes to unfair play. That is, what happens is more important than the player's intention."
So arguments like "he struck the ball first", "it was unintentional", "the Ukrainian ran into him" don't really matter in this case. I haven't fact checked him, so if someone can find a source that contradicts him (apart from Gary Lineker) then I'm all ears.
FWIW, I didn't think it was a red until Jonas explained the rule.
Yes.
EDIT: Sorry! I thought you were Norwegian!! No, you aren't
Wouldn’t have been a yellow card in Scotland. Probably why we get so many red cards in Europe
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
