Scruttocks (U19684)
Sorry, but that's not correct.
'The letter of the law' is only an appropriate phrase for if it literally describes what happened.
With this case it's just a debate about whether the force was negligible. I think it was myself but as I said above, it comes down to opinion really.
The referee was certainly entitled to see it as a red and Deeney brought that on himself with his silly comments some time ago, so I've no sympathy for him.
Just don't see it as a red myself.
From a neutral PoV, looked like he just brushed past him, certainly no elbow involved, nothing like Campbell's elbow in Solskjaer,s face
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 10 minutes ago
Scruttocks (U19684)
Sorry, but that's not correct.
'The letter of the law' is only an appropriate phrase for if it literally describes what happened.
With this case it's just a debate about whether the force was negligible. I think it was myself but as I said above, it comes down to opinion really.
The referee was certainly entitled to see it as a red and Deeney brought that on himself with his silly comments some time ago, so I've no sympathy for him.
Just don't see it as a red myself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough. Like you said it does come down to that final point of whether it was negligible. I've watched it a couple of times now and for me although he certainly doesn't catch him particularly hard he hits him completely intentionally (swinging further back to make sure there's contact, while they're both running and there is some force albeit not a huge amount.
Scruttocks (U19684)
It's absolutely intentional and that's why I've not really got any sympathy for him! Stupid thing to do, whatever your view on the colour of the card.
Fancy watching that and thinking it wasnt a red Can we line you all up and give you forearms to the face as a test
comment by The Godfather (U10154)
posted 6 minutes ago
Fancy watching that and thinking it wasnt a redCan we line you all up and give you forearms to the face as a test
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You reckon it left a mark?
Give over.
Listen, we're each entitled to our opinions but it's fair to ask that you at least understand the law before commenting.
Whenever somebody sticks their arm into an opponents face its intentional. The you have to raise your arms to jump argument is utter rubbish.
I have played football at parks level for years where the ball spends more time in the air than on the deck and local rivalries can get very heated. You can get away with murder as the refereeing is weak and the linesmen hopeless and there can be grudge match ups all over the pitch that have built up over the years.
Despite all that the one thing you never see is anybody sticking their forearm/elbow into somebodys head.
Did anyone claim it wasn't intentional?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
Did anyone claim it wasn't intentional?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Folk are saying that he had to go because it was intentional, I'm saying thats its always intentional but rarely results in a sending off.
Consistency and all that!
comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
Did anyone claim it wasn't intentional?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Folk are saying that he had to go because it was intentional, I'm saying thats its always intentional but rarely results in a sending off.
Consistency and all that!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, I see! Cheers
Has Torreira come out of the ICU?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
comment by The Godfather (U10154)
posted 6 minutes ago
Fancy watching that and thinking it wasnt a redCan we line you all up and give you forearms to the face as a test
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You reckon it left a mark?
Give over.
Listen, we're each entitled to our opinions but it's fair to ask that you at least understand the law before commenting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it "left a mark" or not is kind of irrelevant. As you said yourself, the intent was there. Just because he did it ineffectively is neither here nor there really.
HenrysCat (U3608)
It's not irrelevant to him asking me if you can all line up and 'give me a forearm to the face'.
"Just because he did it ineffectively is neither here nor there really."
Based on the laws of the game it's quite important, actually. Intent doesn't mean it's necessarily a red card.
Sorry, on this occasion I'm not really concerned with the laws of the game, more with the guy being an asshat. I think talk about inconsistency is actually talk about other players "getting away with it", rather than Deeney being harshly treated.
HenrysCat (U3608)
Fair enough, but you can't really debate the decision and not reference the laws!
Aside from that, I agree with you that he brought it on himself. I just don't think that type of offence is a red card.
Agreed, but there's a referee for a reason. It's his job to fill in the grey areas - and for me, intention is everything, and I think that's proven to be the case with most refs.
Just because you don't snap someone in half, doesn't mean you shouldn't be booked for dangerous play after lunging in. Similar principle with trying to hit someone in the face. That's all I'm saying, I think we agree otherwise.
Hmm, not sure I agree there - intent isn't everything and the laws are quite clear about that.
But yeh, we pretty much agree and let's be honest, it was so off the ball that there is just no excuse. If you don't needlessly do it then you don't give the referee a decision to make.
He was an idiot, no question.
Comment deleted by Article Creator
comment by vavarising (U21731)
posted 3 minutes ago
unless the force used was negligible.
just coz that Arsenal player is a scrawny tuurd a gust of wind can blow over. Have to be careful running past him. has to be the minciest defensive midfielder in history...perfect for Arsenal. seems from this thread that anything Arsenal views deenys breeze a redcard offence whereas everybody else thinks its bull.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 hours, 14 minutes ago
Scruttocks (U19684)
Those mincy headbutts aren't actually red cards though.
People have just convinced themselves that any show of aggression is an automatic red card, but it's not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston,
I think that a deliberate personal assault deserves a RED card and the suspension that goes with it. Try to stop playing "philosopher", you're really not very good at it.
comment by Globaled (U7198)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 hours, 14 minutes ago
Scruttocks (U19684)
Those mincy headbutts aren't actually red cards though.
People have just convinced themselves that any show of aggression is an automatic red card, but it's not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston,
I think that a deliberate personal assault deserves a RED card and the suspension that goes with it. Try to stop playing "philosopher", you're really not very good at it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure you know what philosophising is, because that's not what I was doing.
I was understanding the laws of the game and applying them. Maybe try it sometime if you want to have a debate about whether an incident is deserving of a red card
Sign in if you want to comment
Deeney red
Page 2 of 2
posted on 16/4/19
Scruttocks (U19684)
Sorry, but that's not correct.
'The letter of the law' is only an appropriate phrase for if it literally describes what happened.
With this case it's just a debate about whether the force was negligible. I think it was myself but as I said above, it comes down to opinion really.
The referee was certainly entitled to see it as a red and Deeney brought that on himself with his silly comments some time ago, so I've no sympathy for him.
Just don't see it as a red myself.
posted on 16/4/19
From a neutral PoV, looked like he just brushed past him, certainly no elbow involved, nothing like Campbell's elbow in Solskjaer,s face
posted on 16/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 10 minutes ago
Scruttocks (U19684)
Sorry, but that's not correct.
'The letter of the law' is only an appropriate phrase for if it literally describes what happened.
With this case it's just a debate about whether the force was negligible. I think it was myself but as I said above, it comes down to opinion really.
The referee was certainly entitled to see it as a red and Deeney brought that on himself with his silly comments some time ago, so I've no sympathy for him.
Just don't see it as a red myself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough. Like you said it does come down to that final point of whether it was negligible. I've watched it a couple of times now and for me although he certainly doesn't catch him particularly hard he hits him completely intentionally (swinging further back to make sure there's contact, while they're both running and there is some force albeit not a huge amount.
posted on 16/4/19
Scruttocks (U19684)
It's absolutely intentional and that's why I've not really got any sympathy for him! Stupid thing to do, whatever your view on the colour of the card.
posted on 16/4/19
Fancy watching that and thinking it wasnt a red Can we line you all up and give you forearms to the face as a test
posted on 16/4/19
comment by The Godfather (U10154)
posted 6 minutes ago
Fancy watching that and thinking it wasnt a redCan we line you all up and give you forearms to the face as a test
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You reckon it left a mark?
Give over.
Listen, we're each entitled to our opinions but it's fair to ask that you at least understand the law before commenting.
posted on 16/4/19
Whenever somebody sticks their arm into an opponents face its intentional. The you have to raise your arms to jump argument is utter rubbish.
I have played football at parks level for years where the ball spends more time in the air than on the deck and local rivalries can get very heated. You can get away with murder as the refereeing is weak and the linesmen hopeless and there can be grudge match ups all over the pitch that have built up over the years.
Despite all that the one thing you never see is anybody sticking their forearm/elbow into somebodys head.
posted on 16/4/19
Did anyone claim it wasn't intentional?
posted on 16/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
Did anyone claim it wasn't intentional?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Folk are saying that he had to go because it was intentional, I'm saying thats its always intentional but rarely results in a sending off.
Consistency and all that!
posted on 16/4/19
comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
Did anyone claim it wasn't intentional?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Folk are saying that he had to go because it was intentional, I'm saying thats its always intentional but rarely results in a sending off.
Consistency and all that!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, I see! Cheers
posted on 16/4/19
Has Torreira come out of the ICU?
posted on 16/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
comment by The Godfather (U10154)
posted 6 minutes ago
Fancy watching that and thinking it wasnt a redCan we line you all up and give you forearms to the face as a test
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You reckon it left a mark?
Give over.
Listen, we're each entitled to our opinions but it's fair to ask that you at least understand the law before commenting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it "left a mark" or not is kind of irrelevant. As you said yourself, the intent was there. Just because he did it ineffectively is neither here nor there really.
posted on 16/4/19
HenrysCat (U3608)
It's not irrelevant to him asking me if you can all line up and 'give me a forearm to the face'.
"Just because he did it ineffectively is neither here nor there really."
Based on the laws of the game it's quite important, actually. Intent doesn't mean it's necessarily a red card.
posted on 16/4/19
Sorry, on this occasion I'm not really concerned with the laws of the game, more with the guy being an asshat. I think talk about inconsistency is actually talk about other players "getting away with it", rather than Deeney being harshly treated.
posted on 16/4/19
HenrysCat (U3608)
Fair enough, but you can't really debate the decision and not reference the laws!
Aside from that, I agree with you that he brought it on himself. I just don't think that type of offence is a red card.
posted on 16/4/19
Agreed, but there's a referee for a reason. It's his job to fill in the grey areas - and for me, intention is everything, and I think that's proven to be the case with most refs.
Just because you don't snap someone in half, doesn't mean you shouldn't be booked for dangerous play after lunging in. Similar principle with trying to hit someone in the face. That's all I'm saying, I think we agree otherwise.
posted on 16/4/19
Hmm, not sure I agree there - intent isn't everything and the laws are quite clear about that.
But yeh, we pretty much agree and let's be honest, it was so off the ball that there is just no excuse. If you don't needlessly do it then you don't give the referee a decision to make.
He was an idiot, no question.
posted on 16/4/19
Comment deleted by Article Creator
posted on 16/4/19
comment by vavarising (U21731)
posted 3 minutes ago
unless the force used was negligible.
just coz that Arsenal player is a scrawny tuurd a gust of wind can blow over. Have to be careful running past him. has to be the minciest defensive midfielder in history...perfect for Arsenal. seems from this thread that anything Arsenal views deenys breeze a redcard offence whereas everybody else thinks its bull.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 16/4/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 hours, 14 minutes ago
Scruttocks (U19684)
Those mincy headbutts aren't actually red cards though.
People have just convinced themselves that any show of aggression is an automatic red card, but it's not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston,
I think that a deliberate personal assault deserves a RED card and the suspension that goes with it. Try to stop playing "philosopher", you're really not very good at it.
posted on 16/4/19
comment by Globaled (U7198)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 hours, 14 minutes ago
Scruttocks (U19684)
Those mincy headbutts aren't actually red cards though.
People have just convinced themselves that any show of aggression is an automatic red card, but it's not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston,
I think that a deliberate personal assault deserves a RED card and the suspension that goes with it. Try to stop playing "philosopher", you're really not very good at it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure you know what philosophising is, because that's not what I was doing.
I was understanding the laws of the game and applying them. Maybe try it sometime if you want to have a debate about whether an incident is deserving of a red card
Page 2 of 2