Man City v. Liverpool

[skygod]

Talk on Sky Sports - by the normally well-informed Martin Tyler - that there's nothing in the Laws to say that the severity of the injury sustained by a player should be reflected in the punishment administered.

It seems to me that the current version of the Laws does just that, under the definition of Serious Foul Play:

"A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play."

Mane's challenge evidently endangered Ederson's safety.

I think it's wrong that the consequences of a challenge or tackle are more important than the INTENT behind it. There is not even any mention of recklessness - simply that an opponent is endangered, even if that results from the opponent's own action, eg lowering his head as Ederson did.

It seems that football is moving towards the attitude in Rugby Union that a player is responsible for an opponent's safety.

 

 

[RAG]

14 minutes ago, skygod said:

It seems that football is moving towards the attitude in Rugby Union that a player is responsible for an opponent's safety.

All contact sports have that "intent of deliberately injuring opponent" clause.

You wouldn't last long on a squash court or in mixed martial arts or boxing, using moves outwith the rules that endanger the opponent.

Team sport should be no different.  

Not seen the Mane challenge so thats not a comment on that.

[Dieter's Heeder]

Ederson's head went down about 6 inches and Mane's foot was 5 feet off the deck with studs showing. Clearest red card decision you'll see all season, intent or not.

[CB]

[DrewWylie]

3 game ban --- be seeing you -- next year will be liverpools year 

[casual observer]

On 09/09/2017 at 2:04 PM, Dieter's Heeder said:

Ederson's head went down about 6 inches and Mane's foot was 5 feet off the deck with studs showing. Clearest red card decision you'll see all season, intent or not.

Just like Matt Ritchie's in other words? If that didn't endanger the safety of Mawson then fair enough referees are consistent. But regardless, there's about 10 tackles at least per game that could come into the category of "endangers the safety of an opponent" to different degrees, and it doesn't need to be their head at risk. It's a crap rule open to interpretation by whoever's in the middle that week. If Liverpool can't cope without Mane for two games against Burnley & Leicester they don't deserve to be challenging anywhere near the top end of the league. Gives Klopp a chance to bring Coutinho back in without dropping anyone though.

[Killie alan]

At the time I thought no way a sending off but have seen it again. Three games is too harsh he went for the ball it's not his fault the keeper got in the way. A booking yes but the letter of the law says it must be a sending off.

[Dieter's Heeder]

11 hours ago, casual observer said:

Just like Matt Ritchie's in other words? If that didn't endanger the safety of Mawson then fair enough referees are consistent. But regardless, there's about 10 tackles at least per game that could come into the category of "endangers the safety of an opponent" to different degrees, and it doesn't need to be their head at risk. It's a crap rule open to interpretation by whoever's in the middle that week. If Liverpool can't cope without Mane for two games against Burnley & Leicester they don't deserve to be challenging anywhere near the top end of the league. Gives Klopp a chance to bring Coutinho back in without dropping anyone though.

It is open for interpretation but so it should be. On certain occasions it's ok to go in with your foot up (thinking overhead kicks with nobody around you etc) but it's not ok to send a goalies jaw back to benfica by going studs up 5 feet off the deck into someone you know is about to challenge with their head.

If Mane thought he might be able to nick it, why didn't he go with his head?

 

Had a few straight red cards in his career already - but he's 'not that type of player' I'm sure.