Jump to content

Henri Lansbury


Phumfeinz

Recommended Posts

the red was harsh for the "professional foul"   However, for nostalgia, when I played in the US.  in that situation we would have just grabbed his shirt and pulled him back from the ball.  He would have probably thanked the defender for not whacking his ankle to bring him down.  there would have been no card at all.  That's even if the defender was the last man back with a open goal.  nobody talked about professional or tactical fouls.  it was just an accepted "good idea"   as long as you did it in a non-violent way it was actually "gentlemanly."

 

Times change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, srsmithusa said:

the red was harsh for the "professional foul"   However, for nostalgia, when I played in the US.  in that situation we would have just grabbed his shirt and pulled him back from the ball.  He would have probably thanked the defender for not whacking his ankle to bring him down.  there would have been no card at all.  That's even if the defender was the last man back with a open goal.  nobody talked about professional or tactical fouls.  it was just an accepted "good idea"   as long as you did it in a non-violent way it was actually "gentlemanly."

 

Times change.

Lansbury is too slow to get that close ;) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, srsmithusa said:

the red was harsh for the "professional foul"   However, for nostalgia, when I played in the US.  in that situation we would have just grabbed his shirt and pulled him back from the ball.  He would have probably thanked the defender for not whacking his ankle to bring him down.  there would have been no card at all.  That's even if the defender was the last man back with a open goal.  nobody talked about professional or tactical fouls.  it was just an accepted "good idea"   as long as you did it in a non-violent way it was actually "gentlemanly."

 

Times change.

Some of the stuff they did reminded me of the " Crazy Gang" .....they were allowed to stop us.....the ref was shocking.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was absolutely 100% a red card. Ref was spot on. It was malicious and dangerous.  Getting the ball didn't enter his thinking, just the player.

Rescinding the red just puts out the wrong message, ie it's OK to tackle from behind with no hope of getting the ball just to stop an attack

progressing. If that was a Boro player the crowd would have screamed for a red card

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, pintpotvilla said:

Then the textbook is wrong. It's just the sort of thing that is wrong with football it's called cheating!!

The textbook revoked the ban.

Sorry but by the rules of the game; after intensive post-match reviews from every angle, they revoked it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pintpotvilla said:

As I said the "textbook" is clearly wrong then and the rule needs changing

Couldn't agree less. There was no malice andno dangerous play. We don't want it to become a non contact sport where any challenge results in a red card

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, pintpotvilla said:

It was absolutely 100% a red card. Ref was spot on. It was malicious and dangerous.  Getting the ball didn't enter his thinking, just the player.

Rescinding the red just puts out the wrong message, ie it's OK to tackle from behind with no hope of getting the ball just to stop an attack

No, it's not ok. It's a yellow card offence. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â