ECHO Comment: "Fears of Witch-hunt Against Liverpool FC" part 3

[Tony101]

At the time I thought it could have been a red, but Peter Walton explained on BT that because initial contact was low on the shin that made it a yellow. The biggest contact was on his foot, which made me think after the fact that yellow was probably the correct decision. As was said, if the referee had given a red card, it wouldn't have been rescinded.

If that was a Everton player and the ref didn’t send him off on the field. I can guarantee VAR would have. Peter Walton and Gallagher both would have said it was a red no question.

 

[hallamblue]

If that was a Everton player and the ref didn’t send him off on the field. I can guarantee VAR would have. Peter Walton and Gallagher both would have said it was a red no question.

Nah I don't agree. It was a clumsy tackle, not a malicious one, and they would have done the same. I agree that the rs have got away with malicious tackles in the past. Robertson probably twice, and Mane after about ten seconds of a game I think against Spurs at their place, but on this occasion I don't think many refs would have sent the player off. The ref had a good game on Saturday.

 

[wandyr79]

At the time I thought it could have been a red, but Peter Walton explained on BT that because initial contact was low on the shin that made it a yellow. The biggest contact was on his foot, which made me think after the fact that yellow was probably the correct decision. As was said, if the referee had given a red card, it wouldn't have been rescinded.

I saw that on and his words were something along the lines of the 'Initial contact was on the shin but because the foot slid down to the foot, it is a yellow.' Despite previously in the same comment saying that contact with the shin could be a red card.

My response was 'It would be interesting to see a player punch another player in the face but then slide their fist down to the foot, I assume it will be a yellow'

 

[Tony101]

Nah I don't agree. It was a clumsy tackle, not a malicious one, and they would have done the same. I agree that the rs have got away with malicious tackles in the past. Robertson probably twice, and Mane after about ten seconds of a game I think against Spurs at their place, but on this occasion I don't think many refs would have sent the player off. The ref had a good game on Saturday.

That’s fine but In my opinion it was a clear red card.

 

[hallamblue]

That’s fine but In my opinion it was a clear red card.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I've now seen the ref on the pitch, the VAR ref, Peter Walton and Dermot Gallagher all see it as a yellow, and the latter 2 give pretty much the same explanation as to why it's a yellow. Those tackles always look worse in slow motion or in freeze frames, but he essentially stamped on Onana's foot, which is literally never given as a red, it's just the initial drag down the shin that made it look bad, in my opinion.

 

[arch stanton]

You're entitled to your opinion, but I've now seen the ref on the pitch, the VAR ref, Peter Walton and Dermot Gallagher all see it as a yellow, and the latter 2 give pretty much the same explanation as to why it's a yellow. Those tackles always look worse in slow motion or in freeze frames, but he essentially stamped on Onana's foot, which is literally never given as a red, it's just the initial drag down the shin that made it look bad, in my opinion.

I suppose you believe they were only 'work events' at number 10 as all the politicians who were there said so?

 

[DuuuncanHadaPigeon]

You're entitled to your opinion, but I've now seen the ref on the pitch, the VAR ref, Peter Walton and Dermot Gallagher all see it as a yellow, and the latter 2 give pretty much the same explanation as to why it's a yellow. Those tackles always look worse in slow motion or in freeze frames, but he essentially stamped on Onana's foot, which is literally never given as a red, it's just the initial drag down the shin that made it look bad, in my opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion but it looks terrible in normal speed, completely misses the ball, studs up and catches the player on the shin. It's a clear red.

It doesn't matter the players intention at all, he might not have meant it but it could have resulted in a season ending injury, it is serious foul play.

Why is it we have never heard this explanation before, this pathetic narrative that oh well the force is actually on his foot not his leg therefore it's not a red. The mental gymnastics these 'experts' perform is astounding. This whole notion of an orange card is pathetic as well, what next, will we have a magenta card? what about a sunset yellow?

 

[wandyr79]

You're entitled to your opinion, but I've now seen the ref on the pitch, the VAR ref, Peter Walton and Dermot Gallagher all see it as a yellow, and the latter 2 give pretty much the same explanation as to why it's a yellow. Those tackles always look worse in slow motion or in freeze frames, but he essentially stamped on Onana's foot, which is literally never given as a red, it's just the initial drag down the shin that made it look bad, in my opinion.

He either stamped on his foot or his foot was on his shin. It cannot be both things, if he hit his shin first then dragged it down, it is definitely not 'just a stamp'. It is an extremely late and dangerous tackle that deserved a red card. Just because he dragged his leg down does not negate the initial contact.

Again, we talk about what we hear in a rugby game, with regards to head contact. It is ALWAYS the initial contact that they look at and then where the motion moves the force to, i.e. if the initial contact was on the shoulder and then to the head it is more likely to be a yellow card or just a penalty, if the initial contact was on the head and then moved down then it is more likely to be a red card. Same here, the initial contact was a red card, what motion took place after is irrelevant.

You wait, another of these incidents will come up where the force and initial contact is the same, with the foot sliding down the leg and I would bet heavily that the narrative will be different, dependent on what team and player it happens to, obviously.

 

[fabricsince1985]

You're entitled to your opinion, but I've now seen the ref on the pitch, the VAR ref, Peter Walton and Dermot Gallagher all see it as a yellow, and the latter 2 give pretty much the same explanation as to why it's a yellow. Those tackles always look worse in slow motion or in freeze frames, but he essentially stamped on Onana's foot, which is literally never given as a red, it's just the initial drag down the shin that made it look bad, in my opinion.

I think it's getting a bit dangerous to be deemed to be 'reckless' but then to say, 'it's OK in this instance because his feet were pointing down' or words to that effect for Trippier flying through the air. Similarly with Van Dijk 'he impacts the shin, but slides down an stamps on his foot'.

It's almost encouraging reckless challenges. It used to be the red line to say a tackle was reckless and now it seemingly isn't. I personally think Van Dijk tackled in a cowards way too, I wouldn't be happy with a challenge like that, because it's loaded with greater risk. It's made in that way because he knows he's going to be 2nd to the ball at best if he gets there. What he's doing is taking the easy way out. Doesn't want to defend, so I'll either get lucky an stamp down on the ball (not allowed) or unlucky an stamp on the players shin or foot.

Why can't Van dijk make a similar challenge but with his foot square or at worst pointing down with the front of his boot. To say the force is on the boot, is to say make that tackle again. Next time he or another player might catch someone on the shin an maybe it has a different outcome and the force is felt fully on the shin. The issue should be addressing the type of challenge an saying this isn't allowed.

 

[fabricsince1985]

You are entitled to your opinion but it looks terrible in normal speed, completely misses the ball, studs up and catches the player on the shin. It's a clear red.

It doesn't matter the players intention at all, he might not have meant it but it could have resulted in a season ending injury, it is serious foul play.

Why is it we have never heard this explanation before, this pathetic narrative that oh well the force is actually on his foot not his leg therefore it's not a red. The mental gymnastics these 'experts' perform is astounding. This whole notion of an orange card is pathetic as well, what next, will we have a magenta card? what about a sunset yellow?

On intention. I remember Materazzi getting a red card for not even touching huckerby ... that was based on intent apparently. Similarly Steven Gerrard getting a pen once an them saying the intent was to foul him, whilst no foul actually being committed. Now you can foul an everton player with intent but as long as the foot slides down the leg an hits the foot all is good with the world.

 

[witchdoc187]

If that was a Everton player and the ref didn’t send him off on the field. I can guarantee VAR would have. Peter Walton and Gallagher both would have said it was a red no question.

Plus they'd still be talking about it months later.

 

[hallamblue]

I think it's getting a bit dangerous to be deemed to be 'reckless' but then to say, 'it's OK in this instance because his feet were pointing down' or words to that effect for Trippier flying through the air. Similarly with Van Dijk 'he impacts the shin, but slides down an stamps on his foot'.

It's almost encouraging reckless challenges. It used to be the red line to say a tackle was reckless and now it seemingly isn't. I personally think Van Dijk tackled in a cowards way too, I wouldn't be happy with a challenge like that, because it's loaded with greater risk. It's made in that way because he knows he's going to be 2nd to the ball at best if he gets there. What he's doing is taking the easy way out. Doesn't want to defend, so I'll either get lucky an stamp down on the ball (not allowed) or unlucky an stamp on the players shin or foot.

Why can't Van dijk make a similar challenge but with his foot square or at worst pointing down with the front of his boot. To say the force is on the boot, is to say make that tackle again. Next time he or another player might catch someone on the shin an maybe it has a different outcome and the force is felt fully on the shin. The issue should be addressing the type of challenge an saying this isn't allowed.

It wasn't a challenge at all, he was trying to kick the ball, but came in far too late, hence his foot landing on Onana's shin. I'm not saying it wasn't a mistimed "challenge" if you can call it that, and obviously a lot of people seem to think he should be sent off (although they all seem to be Everton fans. I haven't heard any non-Everton fans saying it was a red card). If you go in with force into a player's shin, or higher, there is a fair chance you'll damage them, hence Sue Smith's "leg breaker" comment. However, there wasn't much force in the initial challenge, the main element of the foul was when he then stood on Onana's foot, which is what the booking was for.

The Trippier challenge was much worse and a clear red. It was a scissor tackle with force, and could easily have caused a serious injury.

It was clumsy, and there couldn't have been huge complaints if he'd been sent off, but I'm not sure it now gives players carte blanche to stamp on people's legs.

 

[dublinbluenose]

I dont think it was a red card either and I'd be disappointed if an Everton player was sent off for it. It was a bad challenge and one VanDyyk has done before, he's very snide.

I also think that if it was the other way around it would've been reviewed by VAR and it would be talked about all week.

 

[DuuuncanHadaPigeon]

It wasn't a challenge at all, he was trying to kick the ball, but came in far too late, hence his foot landing on Onana's shin. I'm not saying it wasn't a mistimed "challenge" if you can call it that, and obviously a lot of people seem to think he should be sent off (although they all seem to be Everton fans. I haven't heard any non-Everton fans saying it was a red card). If you go in with force into a player's shin, or higher, there is a fair chance you'll damage them, hence Sue Smith's "leg breaker" comment. However, there wasn't much force in the initial challenge, the main element of the foul was when he then stood on Onana's foot, which is what the booking was for.

The Trippier challenge was much worse and a clear red. It was a scissor tackle with force, and could easily have caused a serious injury.

It was clumsy, and there couldn't have been huge complaints if he'd been sent off, but I'm not sure it now gives players carte blanche to stamp on people's legs.

Mate, it doesn't matter what he was trying to do! The end result was a studs up challenge that made first contact with Onana's shin, luckily in this instance it didn't result in a leg break but easily could have. You say it wasn't a challenge, then what was it then?? he went to challenge for the ball, was too slow and as a result committed a red card offence, it's really that simple.

On 606 both Robbie Savage and Chris Sutton said it should be a red, the presenter in that sky video clearly thought it was a red and when kopites in the media are calling it an orange card that is basically saying it is a red, they just don't want to openly admit it, stop with this narrative it's just blues saying it, it is objectively a red card.

 

[fabricsince1985]

It wasn't a challenge at all, he was trying to kick the ball, but came in far too late, hence his foot landing on Onana's shin. I'm not saying it wasn't a mistimed "challenge" if you can call it that, and obviously a lot of people seem to think he should be sent off (although they all seem to be Everton fans. I haven't heard any non-Everton fans saying it was a red card). If you go in with force into a player's shin, or higher, there is a fair chance you'll damage them, hence Sue Smith's "leg breaker" comment. However, there wasn't much force in the initial challenge, the main element of the foul was when he then stood on Onana's foot, which is what the booking was for.

The Trippier challenge was much worse and a clear red. It was a scissor tackle with force, and could easily have caused a serious injury.

It was clumsy, and there couldn't have been huge complaints if he'd been sent off, but I'm not sure it now gives players carte blanche to stamp on people's legs.

His foot shouldn't be so high if he's trying to kick the ball. And he shouldn't be leading with his studs either in a face to face challenge.

If it now comes down to force and only force then I can see that it wasn't excessive. My main issue is that he leads with his studs and he's meeting the top of the ball if he gets there and then following through higher up his shin. Its not carte blanche but I think all the subjectivity isn't a good thing.