Calvert Lewin red card

Heam44 said:
For example if two players are stood next to each other, let’s say on a corner / free kick etc and the ball is bouncing around waist height and a player lifted his leg / foot higher than the ball, studs up and it glanced the leg of an opponent with minimal force. Nobody would be asking for a red card.
Click to expand...
That bears no resemblance to the situation we're discussing. Two stationary players with a 50/50 ball in between and one of them lifting his leg is not the same as a player sliding in with his studs up and hitting his opponents lower leg. It doesn't take a great deal of force to break the lower leg of a player if it's his standing leg.
 
changingman said:
Agree that you'll never cover every eventuality but it makes sense to try and cover as many as possible.

In terms of casual punters understanding, is that really a concern of the lawmakers? Providing the ref understands it, I'd say that's sufficient?

Take rugby for example, having sat through two QFs at the world cup I'd expect the vast majority of spectators didn't understand the reasons given for the majority of decisions on the pitch :)
Click to expand...
No, I think that the more eventualities that you attempt to legislate for the more complex you make it. The handball rule is simple or should be, an outfield player cannot CONTROL the ball using his hand. That is the intention the purpose of the rule. The nonsense that we have now about natural or unnatural positions, if it isn't the scorer, is he falling over, etc. just making the rules and instructions more and more complex. This is a direct result of pundits undermining the judgement of referees. The example of rugby is good one. The referee's decision is accepted without question in the knowledge that he won't get every decision right but that without him there will be no game. In football we get every decision micro analysed and referee performance cruelly criticised with no acknowledgement that they do a difficult job in real time and mostly get their decisions correct. The rules preface nearly every statement with "If in the opinion of the referee..." This is important. Take handball. Did advantage accrue from the contact with the player's arm/hand then stop play and award a freekick/penalty, (so if the ball merely brushes an arm as it goes out of play ignore it) if that contact was judged to be deliberate then issue an appropriate yellow or red card. Pretty simple. But it relies on us accepting that the referee will get it wrong on occasion.

And yes it is important that the "casual punters" understand the game and the rules. This is the people's game is it not? The same game we play in our gardens with our kids, on the rec with our mates, etc.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
That bears no resemblance to the situation we're discussing. Two stationary players with a 50/50 ball in between and one of them lifting his leg is not the same as a player sliding in with his studs up and hitting his opponents lower leg. It doesn't take a great deal of force to break the lower leg of a player if it's his standing leg.
Click to expand...
Do you think the force used by DCL was anywhere near sufficient to break Clynes leg?

I’m assuming you don’t.

Hence the scenario I described.

Foot over the ball with studs showing is not dangerous if there is no speed / force / momentum.

The difference as to how dangerous it is, is similar to that of a loaded gun and an unloaded gun. There is a huge difference in how dangerous they are.

That tackle had absolutely no chance of injuring Clyne.
 

Two pundits.

One said it wasn’t even a yellow.

One said it wasn’t even a foul.

“The players (except Guehi) weren’t even appealing for it”.

“Put 10 / 100 people who have played the game in a room and not one will say it’s a red card”.
 
Paulroddam7 said:
He went off injured but never mind
Click to expand...

No, he didn't?

He was subbed off 6 minutes after the red card was given, which was obviously a long time after the incident itself, and his last action before being subbed was to charge in to Everton box whilst Palace were on the attack.

He was fine.
 
TeaCider said:
No, he didn't?

He was subbed off 6 minutes after the red card was given, which was obviously a long time after the incident itself, and his last action before being subbed was to charge in to Everton box whilst Palace were on the attack.

He was fine.
Click to expand...
I was hoping nobody would know the truth 😆🤪
 
Absolutely ridiculous
Not a clear and obvious error
VAR is good in principle, but they shouldn't try and referee the game themselves - just blatant mistakes or things missed
 
Muttley said:
No, I think that the more eventualities that you attempt to legislate for the more complex you make it. The handball rule is simple or should be, an outfield player cannot CONTROL the ball using his hand.
Click to expand...
That’s far too limiting. It would allow a defender to deliberately block with an arm or punch a shot over the bar as long as he didn’t try to control it. Not easy this wording lark is it?

There was merit in “deliberate” which should in principle at least prohibit the above two scenarios. Although strictly speaking it requires the referee to be psychic.

But the law wasn’t changed for that reason. In fact, deliberate is still at the heart of the main type of handball, but it was changed precisely because it was felt unfair that a defender who “made themselves a bigger target” should get away with it by pretending it was a complete accident in a situation where, if a goalkeeper had done it, you would say great save. It does feel as though it’s gone too far the other way though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top