samtheseagull
Well-known member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 1,599
from that picture it looks like only his right foot is near the ball
Calde Red Card
- Thread starter Beach Hut
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Kazenga <3
Test 805843
The picture shows he jumped into the tackle with two feet as is what I thought. However it looks as though even though he jumped in, only one of his feet went for the ball using the other to plant on the ground so surely that's not a two-footed tackle as such?
As soon as the ref blew the whistle I said he's going to give him a red card, and sure enough he did. As others have said, Calderon left the ground and came down two footed, bt today's rules which judge a challege on how safe they are (how much damage they could cause), not how successful they are (or even how much damage they do cause) it was always going to be a red.
I'm surprised, actually, on the radio they were saying the press box was split 80-20 in calderon's favour, I was expecting there to be more of an outcry at the decision, glad to see you all know a bit more about football than the commentators!
I'm surprised, actually, on the radio they were saying the press box was split 80-20 in calderon's favour, I was expecting there to be more of an outcry at the decision, glad to see you all know a bit more about football than the commentators!
Spun Cuppa
Thanks Greens :(
From where I was sitting, it looked like a Louis Vuitton 'Gay' man-bag, and was fully deserving of a red card in itself, and could have brought all the hard work done by the club to eradicate the common homo tag to an abrupt end. Poor show...
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,240
Cameras can lie, but it doesn't look like a lot wrong here.
JSD Albion
New member
If that's a two footed challenge then Calde has three feet, one of them invisible.
Cameras can lie, but it doesn't look like a lot wrong here.
His foot can easily go over the ball and on to their players ankle. Really need to see a replay rather than a picture i feel to see the incident as a whole. From where i was i couldn't see a bloody thing so awaiting highlights.
Cameras can lie, but it doesn't look like a lot wrong here.
If the camera could go back in time a second, you would see both his feet off the ground. That is him having landed
And? It is not a sending off offence to have both feet off the ground. From my point of view Calde was on his feet after the tackle and unless it was a deliberate stamp he should not have been sent off.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,240
At least one of the games of his ban will be Pompey in the cup.
I assume that's the case anyway, as it's normally your next three matches. Not so bothered about the Cup, would be nice to stick one over the cheats, but I'd rather lose Calderon for that than a third league game.
I assume that's the case anyway, as it's normally your next three matches. Not so bothered about the Cup, would be nice to stick one over the cheats, but I'd rather lose Calderon for that than a third league game.
Actually, from the laws of the game
The ref obviously viewed it as excessive force. He may have fallen short, but he jumped in, in the direction of the opponent, coming down strongly just fractionally shy of the opponent, if he landed awkwardly on the ball, as he very nearly did, he could have hurt their player. The very definition of endangering his opponents safety.
It didn't work out as the worst case scenario, but as I said earlier, challenges are judged on how safe they are, not how successful. He was successful, but not safe. He lunged in two footed, which is illegal in accordance with the laws of the game.
Yoda
English & European
Cameras can lie, but it doesn't look like a lot wrong here.
What that picture also doesn't show is just before, Racon ALSO in the air going to go in TWO footed as well but changing his mind at the last second.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the
front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play."
No lunge, surely. If you are saying both his feet were off the floor before this picture then Racon was even further away than he is in this picture. Also Acker you are not the only person who knows the rules of football, so it is not necessary for you to point them out every time there is a debate about a refereeing decision.
front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play."
No lunge, surely. If you are saying both his feet were off the floor before this picture then Racon was even further away than he is in this picture. Also Acker you are not the only person who knows the rules of football, so it is not necessary for you to point them out every time there is a debate about a refereeing decision.
What is a two footed lunge if not a jump in a particular direction? Look at his legs, he jumped, two footed, leading with his feet, toward the point where he and his opponent would meet.
If you're arguing a lunge isn't jump or a jump isn't a lunge, you are splitting hairs.
I show the rules because I find it helpful when discussing incidents if someone highlights what the rules are, especially when people make wrong claims about them. Not because I'm proving I'm the only one who knows them (and I have never claimed that), but so that the relevant laws are available in the thread so people can discuss them as they are, not what some may think they are/should be.
Last edited:
A lunge surely implies forward momentum though. Calde did not appear to have any forward motion, imo. I was gonna put the dictionary definition of lunge up but realised that would make me a hypocrite.
If you want to put the rules up to aid discussion, it would probably be better if you did not use them in an effort to prove someone else wrong. For example, using the rules of the game as a direct reply to a post you do not agree with. Especially as the rule in question did not prove what I said in the first place to be incorrect (again, imo).
deletebeepbeepbeep
Well-known member
- May 12, 2009
- 21,031
Stop this bickering and just look at the expression on thr referee's face, LOOK at it.
No, it would simply prove the whole splitting hairs thing. He did have forward momentum. He didn't jump up and down on the spot, he jumped towards the ball/player.
You brought up the laws of the game, suggesting that "It is not a sending off offence to have both feet off the ground. ... unless it was a deliberate stamp he should not have been sent off."
I was highlighting the law to show that it doesn't have to be a deliberate stamp, and that if both feet leave the ground during a challenge (when jumping, or lunging at an opponent) it is a red card offence. I wasn't doing it to prove you wrong, just to provide accuracy in the discussion.
Anyway, off to bed now.
Stop this bickering and just look at the expression on thr referee's face, LOOK at it.
Heehee.
West Hoathly Seagull
Honorary Ruffian
Definitely not two-footed from that picture. I thought Bridcutt's was far worse, similar to his Hartlepool one. As for Calde's challenge, come on it's a contact sport. What would Messrs Hunter and Harris make of today's girl's blouse game?