Can't agree, I think watching challenges in slow motion always makes them look deliberate.
The fact the ref doesn't so much as give a foul says it all.
It's an accident.
This is where I amDon’t think it’s deliberate at all, just really poor choice of tackle and because he brings his left leg through Elliot it’s dangerous. Red all day once you see the how he actually challenges which wasn’t visible in real speed.
It's not from behind either, it's from the side, they are both running in the same direction, it's nothing like a CF protecting the ball and a CB going through him, which IS outlawed.Reason why tackling from behind was outlawed, putting your body weight on the back of someone leg like travelling at speed you risk what just happened. Accidental is irrelevant.
The only way he doesn’t get caught is if the Leeds players other foot doesn’t follow through. His other foot doesn’t follow through if he is in control. He wasn’t in control, it was dangerous and it’s a red card and a good spot by the fourth official, the referee didn’t see it.It's not from behind either, it's from the side, they are both running in the same direction, it's nothing like a CF protecting the ball and a CB going through him, which IS outlawed.
If he doesn't get hurt then no one even looks at that twice, just like the ref doesn't until Salah tells him to stop the game.
If we are giving punishments based on injury, then perhaps we shouldn't punish players if there is no injury too, like when Copper did the same challenge a few minutes later....
Sky said Pawson always intended to send him off.The fourth official who had Klopp in his ear all game? Right....
The referee was looking right at it, and didn't give anything.
The fourth official who had Klopp in his ear all game? Right....
The referee was looking right at it, and didn't give anything.
Sky said Pawson always intended to send him off.
So a still means it didnt happen then? The still shows a lunge, off the ground, out of control, scissor, from behind. Theres no doubt about what happened. It’s doesnt make it look worse, it shows what he did.i) It's a paused still of a tackle, 90% of tackles would look similar, every tackle has the potential to injure, every single one.
We're not going to agree, i don't even think it's a foul.So a still means it didnt happen then? The still shows a lunge, off the ground, out of control, scissor, from behind. Theres no doubt about what happened. It’s doesnt make it look worse, it shows what he did.
Of course you can get injured in any challenge. But the only way someone breaks your leg like that is if they scissor you from behind with their body weight.
I don’t think we can agree on that! Outrage against Pogba last week for nearly breaking Neves’ leg. Bloke even said himself if it’s a foul then it’s a red. And no one got hurtOne thing we can agree on (i think) is that if he doesn't get injured, then we aren't having this conversation now, as the game would have just carried on.
That helps my argument doesn't it? Pogba made no contact with the ball, caught Neves but Neves didn't go down, so didn't get a free kick.I don’t think we can agree on that! Outrage against Pogba last week for nearly breaking Neves’ leg. Bloke even said himself if it’s a foul then it’s a red. And no one got hurt
If he doesn't get hurt then no one even looks at that twice, just like the ref doesn't until Salah tells him to stop the game.
If we are giving punishments based on injury, then perhaps we shouldn't punish players if there is no injury too, like when Cooper did the same challenge a few minutes later....