2025/26 James Tarkowski

BlueInNZ · 2025-12-07T14:25:54+0000

Kevsleftpeg said:
He is lucky. He's an idiot.

Showing your insight as an expert in such things?

pfim · 2025-12-07T14:33:16+0000

He's been lucky in the past on 1-2 challenges in the run of play in his time here, he's never been sent off in a PL match.

Zero chance yesterday was a red. None. Violent conduct is spelled out pretty well in the PL rules, nearly all of the criteria involve striking or grabbing the head/neck areas or using your head to create violent conduct. What the Forest player did was closer to violent conduct, by the rules, than Tarkowski.

Kevsleftpeg · 2025-12-07T14:52:18+0000

Number_25 said:
I'm a Guardian reading tofu eating card carrying member of the wokerati.

There was nothing wrong with what he did. The Notts player was backing into him giving him elbows, and he just made himself known. It's 50/50 stuff that's just part of the game.

What are talking about? The ball wasn't in play. You can't just smash people from behind with your shoulder. If someone did that to one of our players we would be demanding a red card. It was naive/stupid in the extreme.

Kevsleftpeg · 2025-12-07T14:57:18+0000

pfim said:
He's been lucky in the past on 1-2 challenges in the run of play in his time here, he's never been sent off in a PL match.

Zero chance yesterday was a red. None. Violent conduct is spelled out pretty well in the PL rules, nearly all of the criteria involve striking or grabbing the head/neck areas or using your head to create violent conduct. What the Forest player did was closer to violent conduct, by the rules, than Tarkowski.

Oh yeah, I forget the refs always apply the laws 100% accurately and never make questionable decisions. Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball. Pretty clear he wasn't challenging for the ball since it wasn't in player and the force was clearly excessive because there was absolutely no reason to do it. Should have been red. Given the ball's not in play it is basically battery under criminal law.

Kevsleftpeg · 2025-12-07T14:57:43+0000

BlueInNZ said:
Showing your insight as an expert in such things?

I've only just met you.

pfim · 2025-12-07T15:15:15+0000

Kevsleftpeg said:
Oh yeah, I forget the refs always apply the laws 100% accurately and never make questionable decisions. Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball. Pretty clear he wasn't challenging for the ball since it wasn't in player and the force was clearly excessive because there was absolutely no reason to do it. Should have been red. Given the ball's not in play it is basically battery under criminal law.

Umm, sure.

Number_25 · 2025-12-07T15:16:55+0000

Kevsleftpeg said:
What are talking about? The ball wasn't in play. You can't just smash people from behind with your shoulder. If someone did that to one of our players we would be demanding a red card. It was naive/stupid in the extreme.

It's part of the game you fanny

Kevsleftpeg · 2025-12-07T15:18:55+0000

pfim said:
Umm, sure.

Do you know the definition of battery? Battery is a criminal offense involving "unlawful intentional infliction of harmful or offensive physical contact with another person without consent".

If I did that to someone in the street it's battery.

Nobody who plays football consents to being barged from behind when the ball isn't in play. It was just thuggish behaviour.

Kevsleftpeg · 2025-12-07T15:19:28+0000

Number_25 said:
It's part of the game you fanny

How is it when the ball isn't in play?

Benicetoourboys · 2025-12-07T15:19:50+0000

Kevsleftpeg said:
Do you know the definition of battery? Battery is a criminal offense involving "unlawful intentional infliction of harmful or offensive physical contact with another person without consent".

If I did that to someone in the street it's battery.

Nobody who plays football consents to being barged from behind when the ball isn't in play. It was just thuggish behaviour.

Basically, you just don't like him do you?

pfim · 2025-12-07T15:20:01+0000

Kevsleftpeg said:
Do you know the definition of battery? Battery is a criminal offense involving "unlawful intentional infliction of harmful or offensive physical contact with another person without consent".

If I did that to someone in the street it's battery.

Nobody who plays football consents to being barged from behind when the ball isn't in play. It was just thuggish behaviour.

It wasn't in the street. I feel like you wanted him sent off, which is odd.

Kevsleftpeg · 2025-12-07T15:20:07+0000

Number_25 said:
It's part of the game you fanny

Can see this sort of issue is the usual dividing line between the knuckle draggers and the more civilised fans.

Kevsleftpeg · 2025-12-07T15:22:25+0000

Benicetoourboys said:
Basically, you just don't like him do you?

I don't like people doing dumb things that risk us losing a player for no benefit to the team. I also think he's been a decent servant but he's ultimately a mid table player at best and we can easily improve on him.

Benicetoourboys · 2025-12-07T15:25:31+0000

Kevsleftpeg said:
I don't like people doing dumb things that risk us losing a player for no benefit to the team. I also think he's been a decent servant but he's ultimately a mid table player at best and we can easily improve on him.

I disagree, he's been a fantastic signing & a very good player & still is.
Fantastic Captain & leader too.

davek · 2025-12-07T15:25:38+0000

Head's gone - another crazy day at the office for this chump.

We could have been down to 10 men at 1-0 up.

Needs to GTF out of this team and go and sit on the bench and think about his actions this season.