Kyle Walker : 2018/19 performances

[Goater=Legend]

At this time of the season we don't want to give these refs a reason

 

[Dax777]

Oh sorry, I picked the wrong term in my annoyance, my bad. I meant 'accuse' instead, honestly.
Sorry again.

But that doesn't change the main points of my post
and the questions you preferred to remain unanswered.
But hey - let's assume they've been rhetorical and just disagree. That's fine with me.

I'll Iput aside the fact that I didn't 'accuse' Kyle of anything either. And address your questions:


The questions you asked are only relevant to issue "what caused Walker to committ an offense that deserved a red card? "

However, they are wholly irrelevant to the question of whether his act deserved a red card.


It seems you and @FantasyIreland are unable to see the distinction between these 2 issues. I'm assuming that's why you both thought it was something worth noting.

Sure, one would have understood why Kyle got the red card had it been given, but this would have no bearing on whether it should have been given.

But I'll let you or FI have the last word. And thanks for the honesty regarding the insults claim.

 

[u2fme2]

Clearly not...even VAR said NO!

If he had pulled his head back, yes.

And, if someone pushed me down and stamped on me for nothing, I might be a bit angry too. That said, he screwed himself, because it meant he couldn’t leave something on him in a challenge later. Like I said earlier...stupid!

Come on!!! Other way round we would be screaming red all day long. Hay pleased it didn't happen but he needs to get a grip of his temper

 

[TFC]

I think he’s a lucky boy. We’ve seen them go for less over the years.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Come on!!! Other way round we would be screaming red all day long. Hay pleased it didn't happen but he needs to get a grip of his temper

I’m not sure which “we” you are referring to, but I don’t think it was a red and the ref and VAR didn’t.

Do you know something “we” all don’t???

 

[Marvin]

Does the offence fall under Violent Conduct? The answer is no. There is no application of excessive force, or brutality.

VIOLENT CONDUCT

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible

 

[quiet_riot]

Does the offence fall under Violent Conduct? The answer is no. There is no application of excessive force, or brutality.

VIOLENT CONDUCT

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible

So you can kick someone in the face?

 

[sir baconface]

From where we were, behind the City goal, I thought that bastard with the whistle wouldn't need VAR. Having sent of Delph via yellow then red, I thought he go straight red, but then when Tierney has seen it on the replay he will have seen the Brighton guy putting his foot on the back of his thigh when there were other options for where to place his landing foot. Send off Walker, yer have to send off the Brighton guy, and they wouldn't want to do that. Spoils the game, don'tcha know! I point that I would raise though, is that if the red card is a clear and obvious decision why was it taking so long. Perhaps Tierney told the Alty Tit that it was neither or both.

I agree. It was probably the fact that they got a better look at the Brighton player’s offence that saved him. That arguably moved the decision away from one concerning just Walker to two yellows versus two reds. Under most circumstances Walker would have been off.

 

[sir baconface]

Why exactly did Jahanbakhsh push Walker?
How did he want to win the ball?
Why did he stamp on Kyle's thigh?

Even after more strict German reffing this is not a red,
it was more like "aggressive standing".
Cool down emotions, a yellow each and go on playing.

Kyle had good reasons, which was pain and the foul being pure provocation.

Without Kyle's reaction Jahanbakhsh deserved a clear yellow, VAR could justify red for the stamp. So what?

Finally stop insulting Kyle for being angry about that bastard.

“Aggressive standing”. I like that one :)

 

[Coley4]

I agree. It was probably the fact that they got a better look at the Brighton player’s offence that saved him. That arguably moved the decision away from one concerning just Walker to two yellows versus two reds. Under most circumstances Walker would have been off.

Yep I agree, very nieve from Walker and one we got away with. Hopefully he will learn his lesson and doesn't pull the same trick in the more important/bigger games. I think Pep would have bollocked him at HT and then took him off to make a point. Could be a blessing in disguise!

 

[Dax777]

Does the offence fall under Violent Conduct? The answer is no. There is no application of excessive force, or brutality.

VIOLENT CONDUCT

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible

To understand a rule, you have to understand it's elements and then line it up against the facts. Here are the elements:

1. A playpr who Uses or attempts to Use -
--As I had stated to another member earlier, 'Contact' isn't a requirement. The attempt in itself is enough to satisfy this element of the rule.

2. Excessive Force or Brutality
--- 'Excessive Force' or Brutality. A headbutt would be qualify as 'Brutality.' And since the first element only requires an "attempt" of the brutality. It becomes Blatantly obvious why this should have been a red.

3 The 3rd element " against an opponent when not challenging for the ball" also is easily met. The ball was already out for a goal kick. So no attempt at a challenge.

The 'negligible force' exception is used to distinguish things like when players tap.opponents on the cheek after a miss, or push a player away from a brewing fight ( example here would include Eddy pushing the Brighton player away from Kyle to break up the impending fight.)

An unconnecting headbutt or a missed swing of a punch, or an intentionally thrown soft elbow in retaliation, do not fall under this exception.

So no Marvin, It did fall under the VC rule. But was fortunately, for us and Kyle, ignored.

 

[Dax777]

So you can kick someone in the face?

So long as you use negligible force. Sure :)

 

[FantasyIreland]

To understand a rule, you have to understand it's elements and then line it up against the facts. Here are the elements:

1. A playpr who Uses or attempts to Use -
--As I had stated to another member earlier, 'Contact' isn't a requirement. The attempt in itself is enough to satisfy this element of the rule.

2. Excessive Force or Brutality
--- 'Excessive Force' or Brutality. A headbutt would be qualify as 'Brutality.' And since the first element only requires an "attempt" of the brutality. It becomes Blatantly obvious why this should have been a red.

3 The 3rd element " against an opponent when not challenging for the ball" also is easily met. The ball was already out for a goal kick. So no attempt at a challenge.

The 'negligible force' exception is used to distinguish things like when players tap.opponents on the cheek after a miss, or push a player away from a brewing fight ( example here would include Eddy pushing the Brighton player away from Kyle to break up the impending fight.)

An unconnecting headbutt or a missed swing of a punch, or an intentionally thrown soft elbow in retaliation, do not fall under this exception.

So no Marvin, It did fall under the VC rule. But was fortunately, for us and Kyle, ignored.

It wasn't an attempted headbutt though.

Had he wanted to butt him,he would have done.

 

[kaz7]

Anyhow pep says he has recovered,i'm torn about him playing tomorrow

 

[deano ou812]

To be fair when I saw it I thought oh ffs he’s off here,very lucky as normally the refs can’t contain themselves when it’s us playing,having said that I understand walkers rage as the Brighton player stood on his calf,only a few mins after walker had received treatment on his leg..

 

[Dax777]

It wasn't an attempted headbutt though.

Had he wanted to butt him,he would have done.

Btw I noticed you only told me what it wasn't. But you did not try to tell me what it was. That in of itself, is telling :)

But to be clear, what was it exactly that Kyle did? What is what he did called?

 

[denislawsbackheel]

The man’s a liability.
He reacts too easily.

 

[FantasyIreland]

Btw I noticed you only told me what it wasn't. But you did not try to tell me what it was. That in of itself, is telling :)

But to be clear, what was it exactly that Kyle did? What is what he did called?

A bit of daft but understandable aggression,nothing more.

 

[FantasyIreland]

The man’s a liability.
He reacts too easily.

I thought he showed restraint given the stamp.

 

[jimharri]

I think he’s a lucky boy. We’ve seen them go for less over the years.

Indeed. "Aggressive walking", anyone? Or Morrison sticking his tongue out at the dogger?