Sky - Mané Red card poll (official appeal rejected)

[MillionMilesAway]

It's not even a debate. Its a clear red card. Mane isn't malicious, nor is he trying to injure Ederson. The moment Ederson wins that ball he knows he's going to get a whack, Mane has his studs up and it's dangerous and reckless.

This is mostly my opinion too.
I don't think anyone thinks Mane was trying to injure anyone.

However the laws currently don't require intent or anything else - if it endangers an opponent, it's serious foul play and a red card. Nothing else is needed.

All the accident/not looking stuff is muddying the main fact of the law. If you jump with studs out and catch someone on the knee as they trap the ball, you''ll be off. This is just 2 1/2 feet higher. Carragher, Shearer and Wright all said the same thing - they'd have gone/wanted a teammate to go for it, but if you get it wrong, the law means a sending off. They don't like it, but they did accept it was the law.

I have sympathy with the idea that a 3 match ban for an accident might be harsh, but it's the rules at the moment, except in very rare circumstances when the FA decide to make things less clear.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Danny Murphy was on talk sport this morning. Normally he comes across to me as quite astute but again this morning he didn't know the rules and said it shouldn't have been a red as there was no intent and Mane was right to go for it. Kept trying to rewrite history by saying that what if Mane had got there first and not caught Edison. Jim White then said well i supose the ref interpretted it the way he saw it, he didnt have to send him off. Despite previously saying five minutes before he had by the letter of the law. Bizzare stuff really.

 

[Lancet Fluke]

Anyone see what Dermot Gallagher said about it on Sky? I turned it on half way through the piece and missed the bit about our match.

 

[harry the plumber]

Anyone see what Dermot Gallagher said about it on Sky? I turned it on half way through the piece and missed the bit about our match.

He said .There was no doubt it was a sending off.

 

[Lancet Fluke]

He said .There was no doubt it was a sending off.

Assumed he would. Surprised Sky even let him on this morning. They usually repeat his opinon on a big incident throughout the day on a Monday, what's the betting they don't repeat it much, if at all today? And then tonight on Monday Night Football we will still have to listen to them tell us how it was a bad decision.

 

[west didsblue]

Can't understand how it's still a debate. Even Lineker and co on MOTD agreed that the rules were interpreted correctly even though they didn't like them. Anyone going on about intent is totally missing the point and is either clueless or deliberately muddying the issue due to anti-City bias.

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Wonder if Neville has had time to reflect on the bollocks spouted on Sat?
I expect a retraction and contrite admission it was a red on MNF- LOL
The bizarre way the media have reported this is beyond belief. Sunday supplement first one up "Red no question, dont know why there's a debate". "2nd one Definite red, 3rd one should have been a yellow? When quizzed that it was serious foul play and the law says you're off in such a case and that it's OK to disagree with the law but you have to abide by it then grudgingly agreed. Only then when putting it to bed to vote should it have been a red to say no, a yellow. What a complete dick. Ashton said should have been a yellow with no justification and just to be a koont.

 

[blueparrot]

From 365
http://www.football365.com/news/premier-league-winners-and-losers-71

"
Sadio Mane
And now the slightly longer take:

“He wasn’t looking at the goalkeeper.”

That’s more of a prosecution than a defence. The laws of the game stipulate that a tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play, and that serious foul play must be punished by a red card. If you are raising your foot to the height of a goalkeeper’s face without looking where it is going when you can reasonably expect that goalkeeper to be rushing out to meet you, you are guilty of endangering his safety.

“He had to go for the ball.”

No he didn’t, he chose to go for the ball. And he chose to go for the ball with his boot raised at face height. Those using this defence are guilty of administering their subjective view of how football used to be played or how they want it to be played rather than the laws of the game. Players have less right to go for the ball than they do to remain safe.

“Matt Ritchie didn’t get sent off.”

No, and he was fortunate not to, even admitting as much after the game. Using one lenient decision as evidence for Mane not being sent off is to deliberately obfuscate the point."

 

[MillisleBlue]

Tomorrow I'm expecting the national media to begin campaigning for a minutes silence or day of mourning. If only the red scousers knew how they're being manipulated but, alas, they're mostly as thick as pig-shit.

 

[harry the plumber]

Assumed he would. Surprised Sky even let him on this morning. They usually repeat his opinon on a big incident throughout the day on a Monday, what's the betting they don't repeat it much, if at all today? And then tonight on Monday Night Football we will still have to listen to them tell us how it was a bad decision.

Yep. Fair play to him he was not backing down. When they started the shit about why the Newcastle one was only a a yellow he just said he thought the ref got that one wrong and it should have been red.