compo 7,217 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 In my day with the old fashioned boots his head would have been shredded ? 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooponthewing 1,139 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 26 minutes ago, johnnyk said: he seen Jack and still put his foot into his head, sorry I can't see what you are seeing here and totally disagree. The irony is that I think this gives them an out for shaggers appeal. The can’t ban him after saying that’s ok. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooponthewing 1,139 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, cooponthewing said: The irony is that I think this gives them an out for shaggers appeal. The can’t ban him after saying that’s ok. Famous last words? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 Im going to post the rule again. Bo idea why anyone would choose to ignore it. If the defender is showing the bottom of his boots, then he will get a straight red. As in no situation can a player justify that he was going for the ball with that gesture. Even if his intentions were innocent, it is too dangerous for the other player. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 4 hours ago, ian1964 said: Pete, you don't think it was a red, other people do! that's football. I have no problem with that Ian. I don't think I have said people are not allowed another opinion than mine and I did state it was only my opinion. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 7 hours ago, pete said: You can paint it as black as you like but he was going for the ball imo. Maybe we should try and get him charged with attempted murder. You do realise that going for the ball is no longer the end result of a yellow or red decision ? How many times have we seen players, correctly, see red despite going for the ball but following through or scissoring or just being dangerous. Going for the ball is almost the last line of defence these days. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 5 hours ago, pete said: The ball was coming over his head and that was the only option to play it. Away pete - he could have tried to header it, especially as it was at head height. If you say his head was too far away to header it then he had to let Jack win it - he can't be excused by saying he had to use his foot at that height. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 56 minutes ago, craig said: Away pete - he could have tried to header it, especially as it was at head height. If you say his head was too far away to header it then he had to let Jack win it - he can't be excused by saying he had to use his foot at that height. Craig look at the position\height of the ball and the way he is facing. It has come over his head from the back there is no way he could have headed that. If there is a new rule now about feet at head height is red then that is one thing but imo this was totally unintentional and dangerous play so a yellow card. I know that taking the player after the ball is now an offence but is almost always met with a yellow card. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 If you go in studs up you get a red. Whether thats at ground level. Head height. Deliberate or not. Even winning the ball doesnt change that. Those are the rules. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 4 minutes ago, pete said: Craig look at the position\height of the ball and the way he is facing. It has come over his head from the back there is no way he could have headed that. If there is a new rule now about feet at head height is red then that is one thing but imo this was totally unintentional and dangerous play so a yellow card. I know that taking the player after the ball is now an offence but is almost always met with a yellow card. If he can't head it then he needs to let Jack win it - it is not a defence to say "I couldn't get my head to it but I could launch my foot at it, above head height, and possibly win the ball". That would, for me, be excessive force (particularly given the ball is above head height - above head height and nobody realistically should be using their foot. Excessive force is a red card offence. The height of the ball should in itself dictate whether Power a) tries to header it (he cant as he knows Jack is closer and will get their first or b) let Jack win it (which is what he should have done) or c) do what he did, which was the worst of the 3 options and the one which could have caused serious injury. If that type of challenge is to be "rewarded" with just a yellow then we need to throw the rulebook out and start again. If McGregor is getting a two game ban for potentially injuring Ferguson (lets say, worse case scenario, he could have broken his leg - ignore that McGregor was defending himself) but Power gets a yellow for a challenge which could, easily, have fractured Jack's skull and ended his career, then the rules really are moronic. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.