2018/19 Phil Jagielka

[LouReedwalkonthewildside]

This will be the same as the niasse ban last season. We'll get lectured that tackling with a straight leg is out of control ergo a red, and then next week we'll be told by the same 'experts' when a man u or spurs player does the same that it's not a foul because he's got the ball.

You only have to look at Dele Alli mate, he got away with a few seriously nasty tackles in the past, but according to the pundits that was part of his game, and we shouldn't come down on him too hard because we don't want him to lose that 'enthusiasm'

 

[Jebus_lives]

This is the point some keep missing, it didn't matter whether he got the ball, the rules state that it was classed as serious foul play, Jags lost control of the ball, he then over stretches and lunges in at the ball, and because he over stretches and lunges in he's deemed not to be in control of his tackle, and to be using excessive force that could result in injuring a player. That's the reason that ref Peter Walton gave anyway at half time on BT. The funny thing is the ref doing the game said it was because Jags was stopping a goal scoring opportunity, which he wasn't IMO, so the ref got it wrong for that call.

As I started of saying, you can still get done for serious foul play even if you get the ball, if a player goes in with a really high boot, gets a 100% of the ball, he can still get done for serious foul play.

I've nothing to suggest this is accurate, but my take on it was it could be seen as a foul, but if Pawson also thinks it's a clear goalscoring opportunity, then the foul becomes a red.

 

[cadex]

Is that the case though? Is there no difference between unwittingly committing a foul whilst trying to win the ball and deliberately fouling to prevent a goal?

No. Fact is that a clear goal scoring opportunity has been denied. However, in accordance with the double-jeopardy law, If the incident had occurred inside the penalty area then Jagz would have just been shown a caution as he is clearly making a challenge for the ball.

 

[chrismpw]

Hahaha loyalty he's shown? You joking? You think a better club than us has ever shown an interest in signing him from us? Seriously? Loyalty? You're off your head. He's been finished for three years and has happily continued to drain us of over 50 grand a week instead of showing some self respect and moving on to play week in week out at a more suitable level. Loyalty, haha. Hopefully this is the final straw. There is still chance to send him packing before the end of August. I hope we show him the door asap.

Only an utter beanhead would not realise the fact that dispite his decrepitude and declining abilities, we would have almost certainly been relegated last season without him, in my opinion. Sure he's not as good as he was, but he still plugged a lot of leaks last year, caused by the absolute incompetence of Williams.

Perhaps you have also forgotten that man u and Chelsea were both sniffing around him in his prime. He stayed, thank goodness.

 

[BigBlueConk]

It's prevention rather than cure lads.
Jags doesn't have the touch anymore.

Another defender wouldn't have give the ref a decision to make.

 

[BigBlueConk]

Only an utter beanhead would not realise the fact that dispite his decrepitude and declining abilities, we would have almost certainly been relegated last season without him, in my opinion. Sure he's not as good as he was, but he still plugged a lot of leaks last year, caused by the absolute incompetence of Williams.

Perhaps you have also forgotten that man u and Chelsea were both sniffing around him in his prime. He stayed, thank goodness.

I think Arsenal were as well.

Thing is, our board must surely have seen our defenders on the wain and did not react sufficiently.
Similar with Baines. Both been great servants, but needed replacing/back up sooner.

 

[SixtyGrand]

Let us down massively yesterday. Should never play again this season.

 

[Tel001]

This is the point some keep missing, it didn't matter whether he got the ball, the rules state that it was classed as serious foul play, Jags lost control of the ball, he then over stretches and lunges in at the ball, and because he over stretches and lunges in he's deemed not to be in control of his tackle, and to be using excessive force that could result in injuring a player. That's the reason that ref Peter Walton gave anyway at half time on BT. The funny thing is the ref doing the game said it was because Jags was stopping a goal scoring opportunity, which he wasn't IMO, so the ref got it wrong for that call.

As I started of saying, you can still get done for serious foul play even if you get the ball, if a player goes in with a really high boot, gets a 100% of the ball, he can still get done for serious foul play.

It wasn’t a high boot tho , he wasn’t sprinting into the tackle either , if he’s going sprinting in with studs up and a a straight leg locked in I can see the dangerous play side of it. He has stood still and stretched, and like you just mentioned he was sent off for denying a scoring opportunity , the player never had control of the ball at any point , he never actually touched the ball, the ball never once moved in the direction of our goal. Never a red

 

[ToffeeTim]

No. Fact is that a clear goal scoring opportunity has been denied. However, in accordance with the double-jeopardy law, If the incident had occurred inside the penalty area then Jagz would have just been shown a caution as he is clearly making a challenge for the ball.

The ball was in the hands of our goalkeeper. How is that a goalscoring opportunity?

 

[LouReedwalkonthewildside]

I've nothing to suggest this is accurate, but my take on it was it could be seen as a foul, but if Pawson also thinks it's a clear goalscoring opportunity, then the foul becomes a red.

Whether it was the right decision or not mate in our eyes this is the rule that that ref Peter Walton on BT said was his interpretation of the tackle:

Law 12: Fouls and Misconduct.

SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

 

[Tel001]

The ball was in the hands of our goalkeeper. How is that a goalscoring opportunity?

It wasn’t he won the ball and it went upfield

 

[TippEverton]

But it wasn't even a foul...and not winning the ball is most definitely not a clear goal scoring opportunity. You have to jump through massive logic hoops to come to that decision. The ref had a mare.

Regardless, it was awful mistake on the edge of his own penalty area, and it cost us big time.

 

[ToffeeTim]

It wasn’t he won the ball and it went upfield

I don't think it was even a foul. But the goalscoring opportunity brigade are baffling me. The ball was with our goalkeeper. I'm lost by that argument. Was he gonna turn round and hoof into his own net???

 

[LouReedwalkonthewildside]

It wasn’t a high boot tho , he wasn’t sprinting into the tackle either , if he’s going sprinting in with studs up and a a straight leg locked in I can see the dangerous play side of it. He has stood still and stretched, and like you just mentioned he was sent off for denying a scoring opportunity , the player never had control of the ball at any point , he never actually touched the ball, the ball never once moved in the direction of our goal. Never a red

I was just using the high boot as an example that you can still be done even after getting 100% of the ball, as some lads seem to think that because a player gets the ball then it's not serious foul play.

This was that ref Peter Walton's interpretation of the tackle on BT, and the rule he stated:

Law 12: Fouls and Misconduct

SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

 

[tonyhorne]

I don't think it was even a foul.

I think a studs-up tackle will always have been given as a foul, even back in the days when tackles were supposed to be physical...