Stevo985 Posted September 15, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted September 15, 2017 6 minutes ago, villa4europe said: i dont see them as the same at all traore there is an argument that he left the floor and had no control, its the back leg that follows through, i dont think the contact is that bad but thats more down to luck than judgement, the refs have been trying (and failing) to stop it for years now, also think theres an argument that its a stupid tackle, he's going no where and just pumping the ball away from nearly off the pitch, absolutely no need for the tackle lansbury if anything was actually the opposite, its perfectly controlled, he knows what he's doing, he's being a word removed, its not a red card, you see tons of fouls and yellow cards where a man whos been beat just takes the attacker out, its not often you see one so blatant but its in no way shape or form dangerous to the opponent Exactly this. The only argument for Lansbury's being worse is that it was deliberate. But as I've already said, a tackle being a deliberate foul doesn't make the offence worse according to the laws of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 2 hours ago, Stevo985 said: FWIW I do think this was a harsh Red. however I can see why this one got upheld and Lansbury's didn't. You could argue that this one was dangerous and lacked control. It was very late and committed at high speed. Again I don't think it WAS a red having seen it a few more times, but the ingredients are there. Whereas Lansbury's was a total nonsense. The only argument for that was he didn't go for the ball, which as explained above makes little difference. Not going for the ball makes all the difference. It makes the challenge all the more dangerous. Lansbury literally kicked at his calf from behind and could have seriously injured him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted September 15, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted September 15, 2017 12 minutes ago, Keyblade said: Not going for the ball makes all the difference. It makes the challenge all the more dangerous. Lansbury literally kicked at his calf from behind and could have seriously injured him. Going by the laws of the game, you're simply wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 5 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: Going by the laws of the game, you're simply wrong. Really? It seems the FA agrees with me. Quote SERIOUS FOUL PLAYA tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.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 or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play. Sounds exactly like what Lansbury did (and Adama as well tbf) FA Rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 He didn't kick him, per se. He was stretching to catch him, which made it look worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 4 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: He didn't kick him, per se. He was stretching to catch him, which made it look worse. True. At least a kick would be controlled per se. His was a wild lunge. He luckily missed the calf by inches, but if his cleats caught it, it would be lights out for that player for a while especially as he wasn't expecting the challenge. Definition of dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 Oh come on. It wasn't dangerous. He wanted to trip him. to stop the attack. He had to lunge as the player was miles away, he did. The fact it was revoked backs up my viewpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 He deserved a red for the shit haircut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 it was a trip, it wasnt dangerous at all, he knew exactly what he was doing, the only reason he went to ground was due to the distance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted September 15, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted September 15, 2017 34 minutes ago, Keyblade said: Really? It seems the FA agrees with me. Sounds exactly like what Lansbury did (and Adama as well tbf) FA Rules That's exactly the rule I read, and to be included in that description it would have to have used excessive force or endangered the safety of the opponent. Lansbury wasn't even close to doing either of those things. So yeah. you're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted September 15, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted September 15, 2017 26 minutes ago, Keyblade said: True. At least a kick would be controlled per se. His was a wild lunge. He luckily missed the calf by inches, but if his cleats caught it, it would be lights out for that player for a while especially as he wasn't expecting the challenge. Definition of dangerous. Literally NOT the definition of dangerous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 56 minutes ago, Keyblade said: Really? It seems the FA agrees with me. The appeal being successful shows they don't 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 21 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: The appeal being successful shows they don't Can't argue with that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 (edited) Didn't an Arsenal player get sent off for cynically tripping Adama last season or am I completely imaging that. It was pretty similar to the Lansbury foul. Edited September 15, 2017 by VillaChris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 12 minutes ago, VillaChris said: Didn't an Arsenal player get sent off for cynically tripping Adama last season or am I completely imaging that. It was pretty similar to the Lansbury foul. Xhaka did but was vs swansea i think 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted September 16, 2017 Share Posted September 16, 2017 13 hours ago, Zatman said: Xhaka did but was vs swansea i think Ah that's the incident Lansbury's red reminded me of, cheers Zat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyM3000 Posted September 16, 2017 Share Posted September 16, 2017 Rooney did the exact same thing as Lansbury, was that overturned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 And people were saying boro got the better deal with adama?? Albert scores another goal meanwhile adama does a reckless and stupid tackle conceading a penalty costing boro the game vs cardiff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodders0223 Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 2 hours ago, Demitri_C said: And people were saying boro got the better deal with adama?? Albert scores another goal meanwhile adama does a reckless and stupid tackle conceading a penalty costing boro the game vs cardiff. He will have another decent game in 18 months and people will still be bemoaning the fact we sold him, and calling him the new Pele. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts