The words “off the ground” and “out of control” are not in the laws of the game when it comes to red cards.As stated in other posts afterwards, it was to show that having two feet off the ground does not necessarily mean someone is out of control.
To be a red card it has to be excessive force and it clearly and obviously wasn’t. He only dinked the side of de Bruyne’s leg with the side of his toe.No, the question was did the referee make a clear and obvious mistake. You replied that you think it was a yellow so yes he did. That is simply your opinion. The referee had an opinion as well. His was it was red. He didn't send the wrong man off, he didn't ignore the foul, both of which VAR could have intervened for clear and obvious, he saw a dangerous tackle which he deemed to be red.
Your opinion it's yellow, his was its red. It uis an opinion and so cannot come under the clear and obvious rule.
It shows that you can be in control of your body with two feet off the ground.Just shows the lengths of stupidity some people will go to, to try and make their point relevant. Jumping for a ball and lunging at a player knee high is like comparing apples to oranges. Two totally different things. Whatever floats their boat I suppose. I give up with them all.
Yeah, I was trying to show(and failing/falling on deaf ears) that being off the ground in itself isn’t dangerous and why it’s not in the laws.The words “off the ground” and “out of control” are not in the laws of the game when it comes to red cards.
They are phrases made up by pundits who don’t understand the laws of the game.
You can be off the ground and out of control and make a challenge that is no more than just a few kick with no red or even yellow card.
This is a much better rule than trying to find 1mm of a shirt sleeve of an attacker being offside.Tolerance level hahahahaa they make the rules up on the spot VAR and the officials are a joke
I’ve no problem at all with this new rule at all. My problem is the angle they showed the line from. No where near side on, so how can they possible accurately work that out?This is a much better rule than trying to find 1mm of a shirt sleeve of an attacker being offside.
Fans have been calling for this since VAR’s inception - to be more lenient/giving the advantage to attackers instead of defenders, if you can’t separate two lines with the naked eye, sack off the microscopic inspection of trying to find the attacker offside - and now fans are moaning about it.
Sterling''s goal v dippers? Apparently this rule was operative last season...?This is a much better rule than trying to find 1mm of a shirt sleeve of an attacker being offside.
Fans have been calling for this since VAR’s inception - to be more lenient/giving the advantage to attackers instead of defenders, if you can’t separate two lines with the naked eye, sack off the microscopic inspection of trying to find the attacker offside - and now fans are moaning about it.
The lines aren’t random lines drawn on the screen, they take into account the camera angle.I’ve no problem at all with this new rule at all. My problem is the angle they showed the line from. No where near side on, so how can they possible accurately work that out?
It still doesn't stop the VAR operator selecting which frame they use for their 'analysis'. In fact it actually gives them a wider margin to play with if they wanted to manipulate the outcome in favour of the attacking team.This is a much better rule than trying to find 1mm of a shirt sleeve of an attacker being offside.
Fans have been calling for this since VAR’s inception - to be more lenient/giving the advantage to attackers instead of defenders, if you can’t separate two lines with the naked eye, sack off the microscopic inspection of trying to find the attacker offside - and now fans are moaning about it.
Just like in rugby, the video refs do not get 100% of the decisions correct. If that was an incorrect decision it doesn’t mean that rule isn’t better than trying to find someone offside when they look level.Sterling''s goal v dippers? Apparently this rule was operative last season...?
Trying to find the attacker onside is better than trying to find the attacker offside. In football the rule was always that the benefit of doubt or advantage should always go to the attacker. Fans have been calling for this since VAR came in.It still doesn't stop the VAR operator selecting which frame they use for their 'analysis'. In fact it actually gives them a wider margin to play with if they wanted to manipulate the outcome in favour of the attacking team.
'Roll it back a frame or two and oh look, it's in the margin of error, on side, goal'.
I hope you're right but I won't hold my breath.Trying to find the attacker onside is better than trying to find the attacker offside. In football the rule was always that the benefit of doubt or advantage should always go to the attacker. Fans have been calling for this since VAR came in.
We’ve been on the end of loads of those microscopic ‘try to find the attacker offside’ goals and had them chalked off. This is much much better and will benefit us more than anyone since we attack more than anyone.
I’ve no problem at all with this new rule at all. My problem is the angle they showed the line from. No where near side on, so how can they possible accurately work that out?
It can be hard to trust it all with the disappointments we’ve had with VAR over it’s time (not being able to celebrate goals properly is the big one for me), but I’m glad this rule has come in.I hope you're right but I won't hold my breath.
Try telling that to KDB he was still having a go at Trippier after the final whistle. Professional footballers know when someone commits a dangerous, reckless foul and he knew he had been very lucky not to be injured.To be a red card it has to be excessive force and it clearly and obviously wasn’t. He only dinked the side of de Bruyne’s leg with the side of his toe.
The ref’s initial opinion from seeing it once, at one speed, from one angle was that it was red. After a number of replays from a number of angles and speeds, he came to a much more informed and the correct decision.
One replay was all I needed to show he’d hardly touched him and there was no excessive force.
You’ve just described a yellow card.Try telling that to KDB he was still having a go at Trippier after the final whistle. Professional footballers know when someone commits a dangerous, reckless foul and he knew he had been very lucky not to be injured.
- Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
- Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
- Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
Trippier's intention was to take out the player, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't thinking about the consequences.You’ve just described a yellow card.
It was shite when it was first used and it’s shite now. Didn’t celebrate any of our goals yesterday like I would have done before VAR. I fucking hate it and always will.
If it had been a different tackle, it would have been judged on how it happened.Trippier's intention was to take out the player, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't thinking about the consequences.
From Kev's reaction he knew the outcome could have been serious. If Kev had have been half a step closer it would have been excessive.