Weekend Football

[URZZZZ]

Think the loser of Everton Tottenham could be a goner...although the international break being next week could just save them for one more week. Utterly dreadful game

[The Enfield Royal71]

Good lord. Just saw a still of Andre gomes leg break

[Hoop Blah]

I read a stat this morning that Vardy has now scored 19 goals in 21 games since Rodgers took over at Leicester.

His chance conversion is also at 45%.

That's pretty outstanding, and Rodgers probably deserves a fair amount of credit for it too.

[Sanguine]

I read a stat this morning that Vardy has now scored 19 goals in 21 games since Rodgers took over at Leicester.

His chance conversion is also at 45%.

That's pretty outstanding, and Rodgers probably deserves a fair amount of credit for it too.

Indeed. And Rodgers remains a terrific manager under-rated on these forums owing to his short time at Reading and amongst other things for 'failing' to win the title with Liverpool when what he actually did was drag them from 7th to 2nd and a whisker from winning it. Brilliant at Swansea, brilliant at Celtic, and now he's turning Leicester into one of the best teams in the league, and with one of the youngest squads.

[Sanguine]

Potentially unpopular opinion - 'cynical' fouls, that whilst not always reckless (like Son's was) are designed only to stop the flow of the game, should be punished with a straight red card. Son tripped Gomes to break up the attack, he was prepared to 'take a yellow for the team'. This should be cut out of the game.

Second unpopular opinion - Atkinson got this decision spot on. It is within the laws of the game to make a judgement after the event, and considering the severity of the injury, as to whether Son's cynical foul endangered Gomes.

[Old Man Andrews]

Potentially unpopular opinion - 'cynical' fouls, that whilst not always reckless (like Son's was) are designed only to stop the flow of the game, should be punished with a straight red card. Son tripped Gomes to break up the attack, he was prepared to 'take a yellow for the team'. This should be cut out of the game.

Second unpopular opinion - Atkinson got this decision spot on. It is within the laws of the game to make a judgement after the event, and considering the severity of the injury, as to whether Son's cynical foul endangered Gomes.

Complete nonsense RE: Atkinson. Atkinson went over to Son initially with a yellow card in his hand, as per the rules. Like you say it was a "take a yellow" challenge. Atkinson then changed his mind based completely on the very unfortunate injury Gomes sustained which isn't a basis to upgrade the punishment to a red card, that isn't part of the football laws. Aurier's challenge following the Son trip was actually more dangerous, should Aurier have been sent off too?

[Sanguine]

Potentially unpopular opinion - 'cynical' fouls, that whilst not always reckless (like Son's was) are designed only to stop the flow of the game, should be punished with a straight red card. Son tripped Gomes to break up the attack, he was prepared to 'take a yellow for the team'. This should be cut out of the game.

Second unpopular opinion - Atkinson got this decision spot on. It is within the laws of the game to make a judgement after the event, and considering the severity of the injury, as to whether Son's cynical foul endangered Gomes.

Complete nonsense RE: Atkinson. Atkinson went over to Son initially with a yellow card in his hand, as per the rules. Like you say it was a "take a yellow" challenge. Atkinson then changed his mind based completely on the very unfortunate injury Gomes sustained which isn't a basis to upgrade the punishment to a red card, that isn't part of the football laws. Aurier's challenge following the Son trip was actually more dangerous, should Aurier have been sent off too?

It isn't nonsense. Referees are entitled to change their mind - you highlight that Atkinson ran over to Son with a yellow for the cynical foul. It almost immediately became clear to him that Son's tackle was actually 'serious foul play', because it had endangered the safety of his opponent, since the trip had caused the collision with Aurier in the manner in which it happened.

And as above, I think that Aurier's challenge was a collision with and already falling Gomes.

[Sanguine]

A word on Sheffield United and Chris Wilder - up to 6th place now, and having conceded just 8 goals in 11 games, which is outstanding, not least for a promoted side, and with a defence that was playing in League One four years ago (Basham and O'Connell for United, Egan for Gillingham).

[Hoop Blah]

Potentially unpopular opinion - 'cynical' fouls, that whilst not always reckless (like Son's was) are designed only to stop the flow of the game, should be punished with a straight red card. Son tripped Gomes to break up the attack, he was prepared to 'take a yellow for the team'. This should be cut out of the game.

Second unpopular opinion - Atkinson got this decision spot on. It is within the laws of the game to make a judgement after the event, and considering the severity of the injury, as to whether Son's cynical foul endangered Gomes.

Complete nonsense RE: Atkinson. Atkinson went over to Son initially with a yellow card in his hand, as per the rules. Like you say it was a "take a yellow" challenge. Atkinson then changed his mind based completely on the very unfortunate injury Gomes sustained which isn't a basis to upgrade the punishment to a red card, that isn't part of the football laws. Aurier's challenge following the Son trip was actually more dangerous, should Aurier have been sent off too?

It isn't nonsense. Referees are entitled to change their mind - you highlight that Atkinson ran over to Son with a yellow for the cynical foul. It almost immediately became clear to him that Son's tackle was actually 'serious foul play', because it had endangered the safety of his opponent, since the trip had caused the collision with Aurier in the manner in which it happened.

And as above, I think that Aurier's challenge was a collision with and already falling Gomes.

I've not seen the challenge yet so I'm basing this comment just on what you've said, and what I've heard from others...

If a relatively innocuous trip is deemed to be serious foul play and endangering an opponent then we may as well make the game a non-contact sport and be done with tackling altogether.

I think I've posted on here about the cliched 'leg breaker tackle' that we always hear about. The majority of those leg breakers aren't really anything of the sort. They have the potential to cause damage yes, but we see so many of them being made without breaking anything that it's just a bit of hype to say they're leg breakers.

[Sanguine]

Complete nonsense RE: Atkinson. Atkinson went over to Son initially with a yellow card in his hand, as per the rules. Like you say it was a "take a yellow" challenge. Atkinson then changed his mind based completely on the very unfortunate injury Gomes sustained which isn't a basis to upgrade the punishment to a red card, that isn't part of the football laws. Aurier's challenge following the Son trip was actually more dangerous, should Aurier have been sent off too?

It isn't nonsense. Referees are entitled to change their mind - you highlight that Atkinson ran over to Son with a yellow for the cynical foul. It almost immediately became clear to him that Son's tackle was actually 'serious foul play', because it had endangered the safety of his opponent, since the trip had caused the collision with Aurier in the manner in which it happened.

And as above, I think that Aurier's challenge was a collision with and already falling Gomes.

I've not seen the challenge yet so I'm basing this comment just on what you've said, and what I've heard from others...

If a relatively innocuous trip is deemed to be serious foul play and endangering an opponent then we may as well make the game a non-contact sport and be done with tackling altogether.

I think I've posted on here about the cliched 'leg breaker tackle' that we always hear about. The majority of those leg breakers aren't really anything of the sort. They have the potential to cause damage yes, but we see so many of them being made without breaking anything that it's just a bit of hype to say they're leg breakers.

Son's trip put Gomes directly on course for a collision with Aurier.

Must admit I'm aghast that there are so many on this and other forums who can't see that and seem unwilling to accept that any action that puts players in a situation like this is dangerous and should be got rid of.

As for my other point - a straight red for cynical 'take a yellow' tackles (however innocuous) would improve the flow of the game, so no doubt will get a lot of support. Otherwise we're just making a judgement on what types of gamesmanship, delays and cynicism are allowed.

[Wycombe Royal]

It isn't nonsense. Referees are entitled to change their mind - you highlight that Atkinson ran over to Son with a yellow for the cynical foul. It almost immediately became clear to him that Son's tackle was actually 'serious foul play', because it had endangered the safety of his opponent, since the trip had caused the collision with Aurier in the manner in which it happened.

And as above, I think that Aurier's challenge was a collision with and already falling Gomes.

I've not seen the challenge yet so I'm basing this comment just on what you've said, and what I've heard from others...

If a relatively innocuous trip is deemed to be serious foul play and endangering an opponent then we may as well make the game a non-contact sport and be done with tackling altogether.

I think I've posted on here about the cliched 'leg breaker tackle' that we always hear about. The majority of those leg breakers aren't really anything of the sort. They have the potential to cause damage yes, but we see so many of them being made without breaking anything that it's just a bit of hype to say they're leg breakers.

Son's trip put Gomes directly on course for a collision with Aurier.

Must admit I'm aghast that there are so many on this and other forums who can't see that and seem unwilling to accept that any action that puts players in a situation like this is dangerous and should be got rid of.

As for my other point - a straight red for cynical 'take a yellow' tackles (however innocuous) would improve the flow of the game, so no doubt will get a lot of support. Otherwise we're just making a judgement on what types of gamesmanship, delays and cynicism are allowed.

That would just add another whole grey area that even using VAR wouldn't clear up. Most of those cynical fouls are not clear cut and there would be no consistency with the decisions.

I can't see how that was a red card, all he did was clip his ankle. Yes that challenge sent him tembling but if that is red as it is endangering the safety of a player then every tackle and challenge out there is the same. Every time a defender jumps for the ball or a player pushes another over would have to be a red card as it is potentially endangering te safety of the other player. Or does it only endanger them if they end up with a serious injury? That is not a rule it would just be a reaction - he's got an injury so you deserve a red card......it's a dangerous precedent to set......

It looks like Spurs are appealing the decision so it will be interesting to see how this one goes....

[paultheroyal]

Think the loser of Everton Southampton could be a goner...although the international break being next week could just save them for one more week. It will be an utterly dreadful game

Correct for you, again.

[Sanguine]

Did say when I posted it that my opinion would be unpopular - best analogy I can suggest is say Son had tripped a player as they ran towards the ball on the touchline, sending him slamming or cartwheeling or smashing into the advertising hoarding or the crowd. There wouldn't be a lot of argument against Son getting a red card. In this incident, replace the hoarding with Serge Aurier. Son's intervention put Gomes out of control going into a collision with Aurier. That the judgement was made (and had to be made) after the matter doesn't, in my view, change that judgement.

[URZZZZ]

Did say when I posted it that my opinion would be unpopular - best analogy I can suggest is say Son had tripped a player as they ran towards the ball on the touchline, sending him slamming or cartwheeling or smashing into the advertising hoarding or the crowd. There wouldn't be a lot of argument against Son getting a red card. In this incident, replace the hoarding with Serge Aurier. Son's intervention put Gomes out of control going into a collision with Aurier. That the judgement was made (and had to be made) after the matter doesn't, in my view, change that judgement.

Post a differing opinion from the “know it alls” and you’ll get your head bitten off. I don’t think it was a red card for Son or Aurier and think it was just an unfortunate incident. However, given the outcome, I can see why people may think it could be a red card. And that’s the beauty of these sort of decisions. They can’t be proven right or wrong and no ones opinion can therefore be wrong (cough cough OMA). Whereas, for example an offside, or Alli’s handball can be proven right or wrong

As a separate issue, I’ve always agreed with the rugby way of cards with the orange card. There are some tackles/fouls that are too strong a yellow card but too weak a red card and thus whatever the ref chooses, he’ll have “professionals” criticise him. I think this tackle could be categorised into the orange card and a 10 minute sinbin (or whatever they’d call it in football) would indeed be a more suitable punishment

[6ft Kerplunk]

I read a stat this morning that Vardy has now scored 19 goals in 21 games since Rodgers took over at Leicester.

His chance conversion is also at 45%.

That's pretty outstanding, and Rodgers probably deserves a fair amount of credit for it too.

Indeed. And Rodgers remains a terrific manager under-rated on these forums owing to his short time at Reading and amongst other things for 'failing' to win the title with Liverpool when what he actually did was drag them from 7th to 2nd and a whisker from winning it. Brilliant at Swansea, brilliant at Celtic, and now he's turning Leicester into one of the best teams in the league, and with one of the youngest squads.

I was fully convinced that after winning the league Leicester would stuff things up massively and already be down at the bottom of the Championship with a bucket load of debt. But they've done a good job of steading the ship and now pushing on again despite the chairman's death.

[Snowflake Royal]

Potentially unpopular opinion - 'cynical' fouls, that whilst not always reckless (like Son's was) are designed only to stop the flow of the game, should be punished with a straight red card. Son tripped Gomes to break up the attack, he was prepared to 'take a yellow for the team'. This should be cut out of the game.

Second unpopular opinion - Atkinson got this decision spot on. It is within the laws of the game to make a judgement after the event, and considering the severity of the injury, as to whether Son's cynical foul endangered Gomes.

First one? Absolutely. Raised eyebrow, "think you're clever do you? Get off the oxf*rd pitch and grow up"

[stealthpapes]

The penalty from last night's Stoke WBA game. What, exactly, was the defender thinking? And how impressive was it for the ball not to move even an inch.

[Old Man Andrews]

The penalty from last night's Stoke WBA game. What, exactly, was the defender thinking? And how impressive was it for the ball not to move even an inch.

Stoke seem to have a load of players who just don't give a single toss any more. It was the sort of tackle that makes it look like the defender had a bet on 0-2.

[Stranded]

The penalty from last night's Stoke WBA game. What, exactly, was the defender thinking? And how impressive was it for the ball not to move even an inch.

Stoke seem to have a load of players who just don't give a single toss any more. It was the sort of tackle that makes it look like the defender had a bet on 0-2.

They have that horrible mix of:

a) players on big contracts who don't want to move/aren't wanted elsewhere
b) loan players who don't really care as they'll be off soon enough (see Cameron-Vickers)
c) players who just aren't good enough or not good enough any more.

They have less points after 15 games than Ipswich last year and Sunderland the year before - it will take a minor miracle to stay up now especially if they lose to Barnsley at the weekend.

[Old Man Andrews]

The penalty from last night's Stoke WBA game. What, exactly, was the defender thinking? And how impressive was it for the ball not to move even an inch.

Stoke seem to have a load of players who just don't give a single toss any more. It was the sort of tackle that makes it look like the defender had a bet on 0-2.

They have that horrible mix of:

a) players on big contracts who don't want to move/aren't wanted elsewhere
b) loan players who don't really care as they'll be off soon enough (see Cameron-Vickers)
c) players who just aren't good enough or not good enough any more.

They have less points after 15 games than Ipswich last year and Sunderland the year before - it will take a minor miracle to stay up now especially if they lose to Barnsley at the weekend.

Think if they get Pulis back in they will stay up, he can get teams to grind out wins and draws. It will just be dull as oxf*rd for their supporters. if they go down it will kill them so it might be the right time to break the emergency Pulis glass.