or to join or start a new Discussion

23 Comments
Article Rating 1 Star

The Red Card

I was watching the match this afternoon from a pretty neutral perspective (maybe slightly leaning towards Sunderland). I was amazed by how convinced the commentary team were of Tiote's tackle being deserving of a sending off.

I am no fan of Tiote and think at times he plays like a glorified thug. BUT that tackle today did not display excessive force, nor was it out of control. In fact, it was little more than a little kick. I just don't see how it was worthy of a red, derby or not. No matter how many replays i see, it just was not a red card offence.

So what's the general consensus here? Was it harsh?

posted on 21/10/12

you're an arsenal fan you don't like contact.

posted on 21/10/12

Did I just read "it was little more than a little kick" which is obviously violent conduct in any rule book, then the writer contradicts himself by saying "I just don't see how it was worthy of a red "

Blinking heck

It doesn't even matter that the perpetrator is a persistent offender/thug

posted on 21/10/12

It doesn't matter if he's a persistent offender! Why on earth would it? That would be entirely contrary to the rules! Reputation should never precede you! Every incident should be treated on an individual basis.

If you can find me a rule that states that where a player goes in for a tackle and follows through with a little kick, with no force, he should be sent off i shall digress.

Basically, it's a choice of excessive force or violent conduct. I don't see how that tackle falls under either category. If it doesn't, it isn't a red card. So, which is it, excessive force or violent conduct? I am willing to argue my point against either charge.

posted on 22/10/12

You really don't understand, do you

I'm terribly sorry, but I didn't realise

posted on 22/10/12

Don't understand that that tackle was never worthy of a red card? No i understand perfectly well.

comment by Boom (U7629)

posted on 22/10/12

"Not by the letter of the law it wasn't. Unless you consider that to be excessive force. Even managers don't know the rules it seems."

Sums it up perfectly to me. If you're going by the laws then the only way he could have been sent off is if it involved excessive force, which it didn't. He got sent off because:
a) Fletcher rolled repeatedly
b) Atkinson was influenced by the crowd
c) Tiote's reputation.
If it wasn't for those three reasons, I almost guarantee he wouldn't have been sent off

All this 'his foot was high' and 'he was late' is rubbish. If you're going off that then there'd be 2 sendings off every game, including Larsson for his tackle on Ameobi.

posted on 22/10/12

I presume that you think that excessive force needs to be used to emphasise the intent, then . . . . otherwise 'striking an opponent' or whichever other way you might describe violent conduct, doesn't count

Blinking heck . . . . some people really don't understand

posted on 22/10/12

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Boom (U7629)

posted on 22/10/12

"emphasise the intent"

Depends if you think he kicked out at Fletcher rather than the ball. If you think he did then fair enough I can see why, but not many people have mentioned it when talking about it

posted on 23/10/12

" I can see why "

Yep, you've got it

Sign in if you want to comment
RATE THIS ARTICLE
Rate Breakdown
5
0 Votes
4
0 Votes
3
0 Votes
2
0 Votes
1
0 Votes

Average Rating: 1 from 1 vote

ARTICLE STATS
Day
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available
Month
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available