Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

Sutton and Shearer



drew

drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,053
Burgess Hill
Having watched these two on MOTD and MOTD2 they seem to be suggesting that you can go in for the ball and if you miss because the defender gets there first you should be sent off for going in recklessly. My view is that both Mane and Ritchie should have been sent off, one was the other wasn't. Shearer and Sutton both saying that a striker has to go for those high balls yet if the ball was lower and they missed and took out the defenders fibia and tibia I bet you they would have a different view. Reckless is reckless and if it endangers an opponent then has to be off.

The only real issue is the muppet who didn't send Richie off.
 




edna krabappel

edna krabappel

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 7, 2003
47,221
Quite agree. All this bollocks about Mané not intending to endanger his opponent- as you say, if he'd "not intended" to harm his opponent but had broken his leg by means of a reckless challenge, the entire viewing public would have been screaming for a red card. Therefore the fact that he merely twatted his opponent round the face instead is immaterial. Likewise Ritchie, although I admit I am somewhat biased by the knowledge that Ritchie is an utter helmet.
 




spence

spence

British and Proud
Oct 15, 2014
9,814
Crawley
Baldock's red at Newcastle was a total joke. He had every right to close down their keeper.
 


Captain Sensible

Captain Sensible

Well-known member
Jul 8, 2003
6,435
Not the real one
I differ, I think in both cases when the players start to go for the ball the opposition players are a good 10 yards away. By the time they collide, it's considered dangerous. Had the Man City keeper pulled out of the challenge, would that have been deemed a sending off still? I'd say not. You see plenty of players controlling a ball with feet and studs up at that height. But if no one is around to challenge with their head or body to the boot, it's deemed acceptable. So do we bar players from raising their boot above hip height? What's the answer? Had the Man City keeper challenged with his foot instead of his head? What then? Still a sending off? Again I'd say no. So it's all down to interpretation and that word intent. Intending to injure an opponent and an accident are two different things, and should not carry the same punishments. Otherwise banning players from lifting a boot above hip level has to come in.
 




Super Steve Earle

Super Steve Earle

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2009
8,355
North of Brighton
drew said:
Having watched these two on MOTD and MOTD2 they seem to be suggesting that you can go in for the ball and if you miss because the defender gets there first you should be sent off for going in recklessly. My view is that both Mane and Ritchie should have been sent off, one was the other wasn't. Shearer and Sutton both saying that a striker has to go for those high balls yet if the ball was lower and they missed and took out the defenders fibia and tibia I bet you they would have a different view. Reckless is reckless and if it endangers an opponent then has to be off.

The only real issue is the muppet who didn't send Richie off.
Click to expand...

Surely the point should be that the forward can go in with his head if it's head high, but not his foot. If his foot is head or shoulder high, off he should go for dangerous play.
 


GT49er

GT49er

Well-known member
Feb 1, 2009
46,720
Gloucester
edna krabappel said:
Quite agree. All this bollocks about Mané not intending to endanger his opponent- as you say, if he'd "not intended" to harm his opponent but had broken his leg by means of a reckless challenge, the entire viewing public would have been screaming for a red card. Therefore the fact that he merely twatted his opponent round the face instead is immaterial. Likewise Ritchie, although I admit I am somewhat biased by the knowledge that Ritchie is an utter helmet.
Click to expand...

I trust that you were equally outraged when Stevens cleanly nicked he ball off that Middlesbrough whinger, and some of us thought he shouldn't have been sent off.
 










Gazwag

Gazwag

5 millionth post poster
Mar 4, 2004
30,137
Bexhill-on-Sea
Surely it's the same the other way round if a defender with a high foot against a striker so why didn't we get a penalty and a second sending off v Watford
 




F

Farehamseagull

Solly March Fan Club
Nov 22, 2007
13,962
Sarisbury Green, Southampton
Shearer and Sutton are classic British football dinosaurs who think that over the top, dangerous challenges that injure players are just 'part of the game'. All this guff about the fact you HAVE to challenge for it is just nonsense. If you're too slow to the ball and are going to injure the opponent, you should pull out. It was a red card all day long.

Pundits like these idiots get more worked up about a player diving or waving an imaginery card than potential career ending challenges and that attitude is another reason why British football is miles behind most of the world.
 


S

sussex_guy2k2

Well-known member
Jun 6, 2014
3,734
I don't know why there's any debate here. FIFA rules speak nothing of intent so it's irrelevant what Mane and Ritchie intended to do. What the rules speak of is how reckless was the challenge. In both cases the challenge was reckless and the FA should intervene to ensure Ritchie gets the same punishment as Mane to ensure the game's integrity stays in tact.

I do actually think the Ritchie one was worst as the guy he kicked didn't stoop at all and was simply going for a header at normal height, so I've no idea how Ritchie got away with it. In the Mane situation, the goalkeeper was stooping to get the ball and was actually quite reckless too in my book, rushing out of his area as he did. Had Mane got to the ball a fraction of a second quicker and then been taken out by the keeper who was stooping to head the ball, it's arguable that actually it would have been Emerson who'd have been sent off. What would've been interesting also is what would've happened had Mane tried to get contact on the ball with his head... had they clashed heads, would that have been deemed to be reckless?
 


N

Normski1989

Well-known member
Apr 15, 2015
751
Hove
I agree that both should've been reds. A high foot doesn't warrant a red card. But when you're running at speed and jump, you have no control of what happens next. You couldn't pull out if you wanted to. Thats reckless and dangerous and should be a red card. I actually think Ritchies was the worse of the two.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 




AmexRuislip

AmexRuislip

Trainee Spy 🕵️‍♂️
Feb 2, 2014
33,802
Ruislip
I do 100% agree with CS, that it would madness to sack Palarse coach FDB.
He's doing a fantastic job, carrying on the work of AP & SA:thumbsup:
 


portlock seagull

portlock seagull

Why? Why us?
Jul 28, 2003
17,071
It's all getting a bit non contact sport for my liking. Bring back heavy leather balls, proper boots and shin pads that were plastic drain pipes cut down the middle. Oh, and get rid of sprays and medical bags. Bucket and magic sponge are all that's needed.
 




Kalimantan Gull

Kalimantan Gull

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2003
12,923
Central Borneo / the Lizard
I think both are fouls and both are yellow cards, as Stephens should have been two seasons ago. Quite what is wrong with giving a yellow card for these fouls I dont understand.

Btw Sutton appeared to think it should be yellow, it was Kilbane demanding the red
 






Papa Lazarou

Papa Lazarou

Living in a De Zerbi wonderland
Jul 7, 2003
18,858
Worthing
I assume as the ref saw Ritchie's tackle, and gave a yellow, no retrospective action can take place?
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here