GWT: EPL - Matchweek 11

hatterson

Registered User
Apr 12, 2010
36,570
14,094
North Tonawanda, NY
Whether they should or not, the PL has clearly established that if your challenge is low and kinda vaguely defendable as a challenge on the ball (which Havertz was) and you *don't* catch someone with your studs, it won't be a red. It's similar to the Nketiah challenge from a month or two back where he took out the keeper.

I think they *should* be reds, and in other leagues they are likely given as such, but the PL has fairly consistently let players get away with that type of tackle unless the studs catch the opponent.

If, on the other hand, your studs are high and you do catch an opponent, even if there was no malice in the tackle, the PL has pretty consistently called that a red card.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Savant

Savant

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 3, 2013
38,332
11,456
Both are reds.
You're supposed to control your body regardless of intention. You're entirely responsible for your actions.
Off the top of my head, Mane didn't want to send his studs into Ederson's face. There's no question however that it was a red.
Intentions can also result in a red regardless of the results. If a player tries to cut someone in half, even if he misses, he is to be shown a red.
Here Havertz clearly was way off and tried to injure. Red card it is.

Both occurences are easy reds IMO.
both should be reds. Only one was. That’s the issue
 

Savant

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 3, 2013
38,332
11,456
I mean, should we go back and check whether or not you agreed with Jones’ red card at the time?
We don’t have to. I didn’t. I still don’t honestly, but can see it. That’s not my point though.

My point is both should be red or neither should be red.
 

Jersey Fresh

Video Et Taceo
Feb 23, 2004
26,915
9,927
T.A.
We don’t have to. I didn’t. I still don’t honestly, but can see it. That’s not my point though.

My point is both should be red or neither should be red.
Okay, I’m not sure I see it that way. I’d have no problem with Havertz tackle being a red, but they aren’t comparable.

One guy maybe half went for the ball/half wanted to take a piece of a guy and didn’t, and the other guy went over the ball unintentionally and put his studs through a guy’s shin. You can argue the former should be a red, no problem with that, but you can’t point to the latter and say they should be assessed as a pair.
 

Savant

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 3, 2013
38,332
11,456
Okay, I’m not sure I see it that way. I’d have no problem with Havertz tackle being a red, but they aren’t comparable.

One guy maybe half went for the ball/half wanted to take a piece of a guy and didn’t, and the other guy went over the ball unintentionally and put his studs through a guy’s shin. You can argue the former should be a red, no problem with that, but you can’t point to the latter and say they should be assessed as a pair.
I understand what you are saying. I am only pairing in terms of What is reckless tackle/violent intent vs what isn’t. I think both should have been officiated the same.
 

LOGiK

Registered User
Nov 14, 2007
18,408
9,097
Liver drawing LUTON on the day I pick them in the pickem' double elimination game.... now I know how liverpool fans feel....
The one time I trust in them to have a convincing win....

I wouldn't be surprised if nunez gets moved for someone this summer... january I'd slight surprise... but that guy misses more walk'ins then he should...
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad