Intentional and reckless fouls

[ALG01]

steff Jo regularly brings down players from behind when they are clean through, he gets a yellow card
son intentionally brings down gomez... ending up breaking the man's ankle, because that is what will happen when you behave in that way.

Taking a player from behind was supposed to be a sending off offence, I think it should be. I have never muched like son and all that crying and hearing he is very down makes my stomach churn. He beghave in a way that was vicious, intentional and was clearly going to cause harm, he deserves a long ban. To hear Alli say he isn't that sort of man, is preposterous and he should be banned to for defending the indefensible... and yes steff Jo could have caused the same harm when taking out the hull player, we could see him gear up to do it, it is wrong and just has to be stopped once and for all.

I am happy that the game return to being more physical and allowing a more robust level of challenge, but the intentional foul, especially from behind should be a striaght red, whether it a trip or shitrt pull or whatever, it is dangerous.

And as for the diving cheating son, i doubt his integrity... he is like loads of top players nowadays no moral fabric.

Just my opinion.

[Logicalman]

.. and I for one, agree totally with what you say (not that my thinking counts for much).

I have been critical of the so-called "Professional Foul" as there is no such thing, in the pre-prem days we called it cheating, it is still cheating, and should be treated as such.
Unfortunately, and I only bring this out as to show how widespread it is these days, even our own Jim has used the phrase "taking one for the team", in other words the player cheated and got the card he was expecting. I wonder how many would still "take one for the team" if the colour was red?

With Son though, it goes deeper. I have little respect for the Spuds team as a whole, and even less for it's Manager/Coach. In various interviews both the players and coach have either defended such play or almost lauded it as the way the game should be played, that makes my stomach churn. His crocodile tears aimed at the poor sod whose career he might have ended were for himself. Perhaps he was suitably shocked at the consequences of his own deliberate foul on an opponent, though I tend to believe this was more malicious, and I may be wrong, but didn't he get a blooded mouth from the same player just two minutes beforehand? Payback is part and parcel of sport, but payback with a strong - legal - tackle is a far cry from the insidious act taken by Son.

Perhaps the Kick It Out campaign should be redirected to include such cheating, which, along with the racism and such, has blighted our game for far too long, but does not hit the PC brigades radar at all.

[LittleErn]

Of course Son did not intend the horrible consequences of his foul, but that is no excuse. If I was a professional footballer whose career was ended by just such an incident, i would consider suing for loss of earnings.

[Statto]

Disagree

Intentionally tripping someone is a rather cynical way to stop the other team scoring, not really in the spirit of fairness, but it's highly unlikely to seriously injure a player

Gomes got injured because he was tripped, stumbled awkwardly, then Aurier came in hard from the side. I'd attribute the blame 5% to Son's trip, 60% to Aurier and 35% to bad luck (arbitrary numbers but you get my point)

It's not in the same bracket as a studs up challenge, or the 'proper' challenge from behind where you go through the player

[Lighthouse]

The days when a good tackle was winning the ball but taking the player out as well. Are long gone. I think it is hard to judge intention when an injury occurs. I miss the physicality of the game. But then the speed of the game has increased. The tackle from behind is a booking. A two footed challenge from the side or front is a sending off.  In these instances the intention is fairly simple to read. Beside no Fulham player has ever been dirty or deserved a sending off. This is a Fulham fact. 

[Sting of the North]

Disagree

Intentionally tripping someone is a rather cynical way to stop the other team scoring, not really in the spirit of fairness, but it's highly unlikely to seriously injure a player

Gomes got injured because he was tripped, stumbled awkwardly, then Aurier came in hard from the side. I'd attribute the blame 5% to Son's trip, 60% to Aurier and 35% to bad luck (arbitrary numbers but you get my point)

It's not in the same bracket as a studs up challenge, or the 'proper' challenge from behind where you go through the player

:plus one:

Not a red card in my book, but the ref probably knee jerked it because of the bad outcome

[Carborundum]

Whilst very unlikely to cause serious harm, there was a depressing inevitably about Steffjo's challenge.  The bloke a few rows from me back loudly said "Yellow Card" the moment Steffjo found himself the wrong side of a man looking to make progress forward with the ball.  He was only saying what many were thinking. Sure enough, Steffjo obliged with a ridiculous foul. 

[Jim©]

steff Jo regularly brings down players from behind when they are clean through, he gets a yellow card
son intentionally brings down gomez... ending up breaking the man's ankle, because that is what will happen when you behave in that way.

Taking a player from behind was supposed to be a sending off offence, I think it should be. I have never muched like son and all that crying and hearing he is very down makes my stomach churn. He beghave in a way that was vicious, intentional and was clearly going to cause harm, he deserves a long ban. To hear Alli say he isn't that sort of man, is preposterous and he should be banned to for defending the indefensible... and yes steff Jo could have caused the same harm when taking out the hull player, we could see him gear up to do it, it is wrong and just has to be stopped once and for all.

I am happy that the game return to being more physical and allowing a more robust level of challenge, but the intentional foul, especially from behind should be a striaght red, whether it a trip or shitrt pull or whatever, it is dangerous.

And as for the diving cheating son, i doubt his integrity... he is like loads of top players nowadays no moral fabric.

Just my opinion.

God, so much to argue with in your OP.
How can you claim that the game should return to a more physical form and then say someone should be sent off for pulling a shirt?
Stefan's foul was about as vicious as a unicorn balloon at a kids party, he clipped the bloke's leg onto his other. Same as what the long haired fella did for Hull in 1st half.

Massive over reaction re Son too.

[Skatzoffc]

I thought it a pretty innocuous trip by Stefjo tbh.

This thread does seem a bit strong imo.

[ALG01]

Disagree

Intentionally tripping someone is a rather cynical way to stop the other team scoring, not really in the spirit of fairness, but it's highly unlikely to seriously injure a player

Gomes got injured because he was tripped, stumbled awkwardly, then Aurier came in hard from the side. I'd attribute the blame 5% to Son's trip, 60% to Aurier and 35% to bad luck (arbitrary numbers but you get my point)
⁵
It's not in the same bracket as a studs up challenge, or the 'proper' challenge from behind where you go through the player

:plus one:

Not a red card in my book, but the ref probably knee jerked it because of the bad outcome

Son took him from behind, no chance to get the ball, as a consequence gomes stumbbled and fell causing the injury. No needless challenge no injury. Maybe 99 out of 100 do not end so vad but the 1 in a 100 makes it a red card offence.  If he woukd have been making an honest attempt then that is a bad luck accident.

This was intentional, from behind, the man had no chance to even get out the way.

[ALG01]

steff Jo regularly brings down players from behind when they are clean through, he gets a yellow card
son intentionally brings down gomez... ending up breaking the man's ankle, because that is what will happen when you behave in that way.

Taking a player from behind was supposed to be a sending off offence, I think it should be. I have never muched like son and all that crying and hearing he is very down makes my stomach churn. He beghave in a way that was vicious, intentional and was clearly going to cause harm, he deserves a long ban. To hear Alli say he isn't that sort of man, is preposterous and he should be banned to for defending the indefensible... and yes steff Jo could have caused the same harm when taking out the hull player, we could see him gear up to do it, it is wrong and just has to be stopped once and for all.

I am happy that the game return to being more physical and allowing a more robust level of challenge, but the intentional foul, especially from behind should be a striaght red, whether it a trip or shitrt pull or whatever, it is dangerous.

And as for the diving cheating son, i doubt his integrity... he is like loads of top players nowadays no moral fabric.

Just my opinion.

God, so much to argue with in your OP.
How can you claim that the game should return to a more physical form and then say someone should be sent off for pulling a shirt?
Stefan's foul was about as vicious as a unicorn balloon at a kids party, he clipped the bloke's leg onto his other. Same as what the long haired fella did for Hull in 1st half.

Massive over reaction re Son too.

If there is so much to argue with you should do so. Stef jo tripped him from behind, no intent to play the ball, the hull player could just as easilly fallen badly just as gomes did...  that should not need explaining.

More physical is allowing proper honest attempts at winning the ball.

The only over reaction to gomez is from people defending son. Stef jo gas a track record for those challenges so called, it is wrong to allow it, it is dangerous, it needs stopping.

[Matt10]

Reed did it too, got a yellow card. I think it's just a professional foul and I am glad that referees understand that enough not to send players off. Unless they are the last man back of course.

Regarding Son. Going with my gut, he doesn't seem to be that type of player or person. Some pictures on social media showing how he celebrates with everyone's family members on the pitch (forgot which victory it was, think UCL), just gives some brief insight to the man. No professional footballer wants to intentionally break someone's leg. Maybe, in the heat of the moment, some type of harm wants to be done, but that's as far as it goes.

Our very own Mitro could be questioned as well. Our first home match of the season he intentionally dove head first into a player's leg and I thought instantly the player had suffered an ACL tear. Lucky that both were okay, but it was still a pretty gruesome act.

[Sting of the North]

Disagree

Intentionally tripping someone is a rather cynical way to stop the other team scoring, not really in the spirit of fairness, but it's highly unlikely to seriously injure a player

Gomes got injured because he was tripped, stumbled awkwardly, then Aurier came in hard from the side. I'd attribute the blame 5% to Son's trip, 60% to Aurier and 35% to bad luck (arbitrary numbers but you get my point)
⁵
It's not in the same bracket as a studs up challenge, or the 'proper' challenge from behind where you go through the player

:plus one:

Not a red card in my book, but the ref probably knee jerked it because of the bad outcome

Son took him from behind, no chance to get the ball, as a consequence gomes stumbbled and fell causing the injury. No needless challenge no injury. Maybe 99 out of 100 do not end so vad but the 1 in a 100 makes it a red card offence.  If he woukd have been making an honest attempt then that is a bad luck accident.

This was intentional, from behind, the man had no chance to even get out the way.

Whatever the view on this particular incident, I very strongly disagree that the outcome should determine the decision from the ref. The tackle should be judged on its own merits, and if this was a tackle deemed worthy of a red then there should be at least a couple of red cards in every game. It would be fine by me if they instructed refs to punish cynical tackles more and give red cards in such situations, but they don't. Ever. To give a red card just because a tackle had an unlucky consequence is just a sign of the referee not being able to handle the pressure and keep a cool head (somewhat understandably given the horrific injury, but doesn't change that this would never have been a red card in any other game).

If I were Spurs I would appeal the decision, but it is probably pointless given that the FA don't want to receive criticism. 

At least in my opinion.

[Sgt Fulham]

This happens after every freak accident. A rollercoaster crash; suddenly nobody wants to ride rollercoasters. Believe it or not there is a chance we may get injured or worse doing mundane tasks let alone sport. What happened to Gomez was terrible, but to suggest that Son was really at fault is ridiculous. We want to put bubble wrap and padding on everything and seem to forget that life has rough edges.

[Logicalman]

This happens after every freak accident. A rollercoaster crash; suddenly nobody wants to ride rollercoasters. Believe it or not there is a chance we may get injured or worse doing mundane tasks let alone sport. What happened to Gomez was terrible, but to suggest that Son was really at fault is ridiculous. We want to put bubble wrap and padding on everything and seem to forget that life has rough edges.

Sorry to disagree, but if I saw the incident correctly, the injury was as a result of initially being tripped, and the tripping was a purposeful act by another player. So he IS at fault, he fouled a player on purpose and caused the incident. Lets put it into real life if you wish: There are stated cases where one person punches or pushes another, the victim falls back, hits their head on a curb, and dies. So by your reckoning, the guy doing the punching or pushing has no fault whatsoever? Pity then there are guys doing years in prison for just that 'no fault' punch or push, I'm sure they didn't mean for the person to die from their action. If it really were a fair punishment world, then Son should face a ban totaling the same amount of time the Gomez is out. These ankle taps on players are cheating, black and white.

[toshes mate]

.. and I for one, agree totally with what you say (not that my thinking counts for much).

I have been critical of the so-called "Professional Foul" as there is no such thing, in the pre-prem days we called it cheating, it is still cheating, and should be treated as such.
Unfortunately, and I only bring this out as to show how widespread it is these days, even our own Jim has used the phrase "taking one for the team", in other words the player cheated and got the card he was expecting. I wonder how many would still "take one for the team" if the colour was red?

With Son though, it goes deeper. I have little respect for the Spuds team as a whole, and even less for it's Manager/Coach. In various interviews both the players and coach have either defended such play or almost lauded it as the way the game should be played, that makes my stomach churn. His crocodile tears aimed at the poor sod whose career he might have ended were for himself. Perhaps he was suitably shocked at the consequences of his own deliberate foul on an opponent, though I tend to believe this was more malicious, and I may be wrong, but didn't he get a blooded mouth from the same player just two minutes beforehand? Payback is part and parcel of sport, but payback with a strong - legal - tackle is a far cry from the insidious act taken by Son.

Perhaps the Kick It Out campaign should be redirected to include such cheating, which, along with the racism and such, has blighted our game for far too long, but does not hit the PC brigades radar at all.

+1
Excellent summary of the state of football. 
Where there was once unbending discipline now there is just too much latitude.  I also agree with your summary of the Son incident.  It was a completely unnecessary and avoidable set of circumstances.

[Statto]

Lets put it into real life if you wish: There are stated cases where one person punches or pushes another, the victim falls back, hits their head on a curb, and dies. So by your reckoning, the guy doing the punching or pushing has no fault whatsoever? Pity then there are guys doing years in prison for just that 'no fault' punch or push, I'm sure they didn't mean for the person to die from their action.

Is there anyone in prison for tripping someone who then stumbled 10 yards down the road into a position where they got hit by a brick falling off some scaffolding?

That would be a more analogous situation.

[Logicalman]

Lets put it into real life if you wish: There are stated cases where one person punches or pushes another, the victim falls back, hits their head on a curb, and dies. So by your reckoning, the guy doing the punching or pushing has no fault whatsoever? Pity then there are guys doing years in prison for just that 'no fault' punch or push, I'm sure they didn't mean for the person to die from their action.

Is there anyone in prison for tripping someone who then stumbled 10 yards down the road into a position where they got hit by a brick falling off some scaffolding?

That would be a more analogous situation.

Deliberately missing the point of intention is beneath you.
The point was doing a deliberate act that suffers consequences, foreseeable and otherwise is not faultless as well you know.

[Statto]

Lets put it into real life if you wish: There are stated cases where one person punches or pushes another, the victim falls back, hits their head on a curb, and dies. So by your reckoning, the guy doing the punching or pushing has no fault whatsoever? Pity then there are guys doing years in prison for just that 'no fault' punch or push, I'm sure they didn't mean for the person to die from their action.

Is there anyone in prison for tripping someone who then stumbled 10 yards down the road into a position where they got hit by a brick falling off some scaffolding?

That would be a more analogous situation.

Deliberately missing the point of intention is beneath you.
The point was doing a deliberate act that suffers consequences, foreseeable and otherwise is not faultless as well you know.

FWIW I was not deliberately missing your point

I'm no expert in this area but I would have though a person shouldn't be blamed (certainly not in ethics, even if they would in law) for "consequences" that were not foreseeable

If you punch someone in the face hard enough to knock them over, it's foreseeable that you'll hurt them, whether that's directly from your fist or the impact of them hitting the floor

It is not, IMO, reasonably foreseeable (or at least, nowhere near as foreseeable as in your scenario) when you trip someone that they will then stumble into an awkward position AND your teammate will smash into them with 10x the force of your trip, AND those two things in combination will cause them to suffer a serious injury

I'd also add that even if there are "guys doing years in prison" for doing things which had serious, but unforeseeable consquences (as I said, I'm no expert so maybe there are) then I suspect they were still given much shorter sentences than they would have the consequences been foreseeable. IMO that undermines your suggestion that Son should face such a serious punishment as "a ban totaling the same amount of time the Gomez is out".

[Logicalman]

.....

FWIW I was not deliberately missing your point

I'm no expert in this area but I would have though a person shouldn't be blamed (certainly not in ethics, even if they would in law) for "consequences" that were not foreseeable

If you punch someone in the face hard enough to knock them over, it's foreseeable that you'll hurt them, whether that's directly from your fist or the impact of them hitting the floor

It is not, IMO, reasonably foreseeable (or at least, nowhere near as foreseeable as in your scenario) when you trip someone that they will then stumble into an awkward position AND your teammate will smash into them with 10x the force of your trip, AND those two things in combination will cause them to suffer a serious injury

I'd also add that even if there are "guys doing years in prison" for doing things which had serious, but unforeseeable consquences (as I said, I'm no expert so maybe there are) then I suspect they were still given much shorter sentences than they would have the consequences been foreseeable. IMO that undermines your suggestion that Son should face such a serious punishment as "a ban totaling the same amount of time the Gomez is out".

I clearly see the point you make, though the thrust of my argument was that had Son not decided to cheat, and I still believe it was malicious, then what followed would not have happened as a result.

Therefore, to stamp out this issue the authorities need to clamp down on this type of play. Obviously the yellow card threat carries almost no fear, as it has been reduced to "taking one for the team" by most and as such, has gained justification in the eyes of many.