Intentional and reckless fouls

[Statto]

@Logicalman

Ok well FWIW, I have a lot of sympathy for the point that those sorts of cynical challenges should be stamped out. I sometimes feel a sense of 'justice' when Johansen does it, purely because other teams do it to us so often, but entirely agree it would be much better if it could just be stamped out altogether somehow.

I guess the difference is, I blame if for ruining the game as a contest and a spectacle, but not for people getting hurt.

[FFC1987]

The cynical foul is probably much worse now than it was due to the speeds of the players involved. At lower levels, a simple ankle tap will almost always result in a guy falling over with no repercussions and a lot of the time, the same can be said for professionals, but particularly when it comes to the pace of the top leagues, the chances of injury is much higher. I'm personally for cynical/tactical fouls as it really is just part of the game but on this occasion, a broken leg was just a freak accident.

[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.

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.

Well the main point was the physicality that you claim you wanted and then saying a trip from behind (it was no more, not a lunge, not studs up, not dangerous, not with intent to harm) was dangerous. It was a clip, one ankle against another, to halt the progress of the opponent.
Have you seen the Gomez incident? He wasn't injured by Son, but by Aurier. Your distasteful personal attack on Son means that Son could predict the fall of his opponent (that he'd fouled) whilst planting his studs in the turf and Aurier hitting him from a certain angle. If you think that deserves a long ban, then I suggest your comment about allowing more physicality is a joke?

[ALG01]

There has been a few rather astonishing comments above seeming to misunderstand that an unwanted and illegal act perptrated cynically can somehow be condoned because the intent was not to cause maximum damage, just minor damage or to prove a point (my intepretation)

Let me remind you all
mathhew fox was killed at a Fulham v gillingham match
he was punched or pushed by a Gillingham fan and as a result stumbbled and hit his head on the kerb and that was what killed him. If he had not been pushed or punched he would not have stummbled. the perpatrator was guilty of manslaughter by way of criminal negligance IMO and I think the law would more or less agree. What the sentence is would depend on circumstance.

In this case of Son, the ankle broke as a direct consequence of his cynical action. Let us suppose gomez fell a little more awkwardly or maybe just onto a defenders knee or boot and he ended up braking his neck, it could happen. That was the point of making the reckless challenge illegal and I for one would be happy to see players sent off every time until it stops.

As I said in my original post, I am in favour of a more physical game, robust challenges honestly made trying to win the ball, that is part and parcel of the game, or should be. But that is not what son or even our setfjo are doing, it isn't  a  robust challenge it is in fact a disgraceful disregard for the laws of the game and fellow players safety.



If the perpetrator would have kept away and not interfered there would not have been a death.

[Sting of the North]

@Jim: I think you fail to grasp the difference between playing physically and playing dirty. Son didn't go for the ball at all.

@ALG01: Gomes didn't get injured as a direct consequence of the challenge from Son, but as an unlucky indirect consequence. The challenge from Son wouldn't have hurt him one bit. Further, it is very obvious that for some reason these sort of cynical fouls have become fully accepted as part of the game of  football. I am against it, but think that the playing field should be level. Therefore, by all means start giving red cards for all such fouls, as it would only make football better, but be consequent about it.

Personally I am however far more against actually dangerous tackles, such as studs up challenges. Such challenges intend to damage (albeit in the heat of the moment) as opposed to Sons challenge.

[toshes mate]

There were some puzzling accounts of the Son incident in the media and equally puzzling ones are seemingly being repeated here.  As far as I am aware Martin Atkinson originally booked Son for the foul and it was a VAR decision to overturn that and have him shown a red card by Atkinson some several seconds later.  I assume that the VAR replays showed something we didn't see from the live incident and Sky mercifully didn't show any replays at the time.  Aurier's follow up certainly aggravated the situation but I would hope that some action would have been taken against him and not an upgraded card shown to Son had VAR shown a different reason for the damage to Gomes. 

[Statto]

There were some puzzling accounts of the Son incident in the media and equally puzzling ones are seemingly being repeated here.  As far as I am aware Martin Atkinson originally booked Son for the foul and it was a VAR decision to overturn that and have him shown a red card by Atkinson some several seconds later.  I assume that the VAR replays showed something we didn't see from the live incident and Sky mercifully didn't show any replays at the time.  Aurier's follow up certainly aggravated the situation but I would hope that some action would have been taken against him and not an upgraded card shown to Son had VAR shown a different reason for the damage to Gomes. 

Replays are all over Twitter. Have a look for yourself rather than making wild assumptions.
The Son red card was purely a reaction to the injury and I'll be astounded if it isn't overturned on appeal.
In fact it would be pretty outrageous for Spurs to appeal the red if it was really for a foul that caused such a serious injury.

[Jim©]

There has been a few rather astonishing comments above seeming to misunderstand that an unwanted and illegal act perptrated cynically can somehow be condoned because the intent was not to cause maximum damage, just minor damage or to prove a point (my intepretation)

Let me remind you all
mathhew fox was killed at a Fulham v gillingham match
he was punched or pushed by a Gillingham fan and as a result stumbbled and hit his head on the kerb and that was what killed him. If he had not been pushed or punched he would not have stummbled. the perpatrator was guilty of manslaughter by way of criminal negligance IMO and I think the law would more or less agree. What the sentence is would depend on circumstance.

In this case of Son, the ankle broke as a direct consequence of his cynical action. Let us suppose gomez fell a little more awkwardly or maybe just onto a defenders knee or boot and he ended up braking his neck, it could happen. That was the point of making the reckless challenge illegal and I for one would be happy to see players sent off every time until it stops.

As I said in my original post, I am in favour of a more physical game, robust challenges honestly made trying to win the ball, that is part and parcel of the game, or should be. But that is not what son or even our setfjo are doing, it isn't  a  robust challenge it is in fact a disgraceful disregard for the laws of the game and fellow players safety.



If the perpetrator would have kept away and not interfered there would not have been a death.

I know I was there and you could of course argue that the gillingham fan, by being in a fight was intent on injuring a fulham fan. Hitting someone in the head and something terrible happening as a consequence is, in my mind a million miles from Son's trip.

As I said, you clearly have not seen the incident as it was the clash with Aurier that caused the injury, allied to the fact that his studs got caught in the ground. The card was changed from the yellow that he had in his hand to a red purely on the severity of the injury which was hugely unfortunate.

I reckon if there was an instance of 100 trips as la Stefan/Son/Hull player and 100 "robust" challenges, there'd be a whole lot more injuries from the latter, whether intentional or not.

[FFC1987]

Red card has now been overturned.

[RaySmith]

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.

Fair enough Logicalman, but IMO Son was involved in a competitive sport, in which a certain amount of physical contact is inevitable, even encouraged - though it should be within the Laws of the game, or it can be punished.

Everyone who has played the game must have been involved in  some  foul play at some time , maybe through accident, a mistimed challenge say, or over enthusiasm, without intending to cause harm, or even deliberately tripping someone through on goal - a spur of the moment act in the heat of the game, though you'd be mortified if the opponent got serious injury, which  would be a freak occurrence.

But most people will never have punched a pushed another person when in an argument out in public ,not playing a sport, apart from when they were young at school - and if someone dies as result of a person doing  such an act, even if it wasn't the intention to cause serious harm, it's a different matter isn't it? and they should obviously be severely  punished by the  Law of the land.

I think the ref's first card decision should have stood - he was just punishing the  severity of the foul, and changing the card because of the, freak accident outcome, sets a  precedent that could adversely affect   the game in future, and is unfair on the perpetrator Son, in this case, who's foul tackle would have had innocuous consequences 99 times out of 100, and is a type of  tackle   seen many times  every week in games everywhere.

IMO for what it's worth anyway.

[Logicalman]

@Logicalman

Ok well FWIW, I have a lot of sympathy for the point that those sorts of cynical challenges should be stamped out. I sometimes feel a sense of 'justice' when Johansen does it, purely because other teams do it to us so often, but entirely agree it would be much better if it could just be stamped out altogether somehow.

I guess the difference is, I blame if for ruining the game as a contest and a spectacle, but not for people getting hurt.

Fair enough Logicalman, but IMO Son was involved in a competitive sport, in which a certain amount of physical contact is inevitable, even encouraged - though it should be within the Laws of the game, or it can be punished.

Everyone who has played the game must have been involved in  some  foul play at some time , maybe through accident, a mistimed challenge say, or over enthusiasm, without intending to cause harm, or even deliberately tripping someone through on goal - a spur of the moment act in the heat of the game, though you'd be mortified if the opponent got serious injury, which  would be a freak occurrence.

But most people will never have punched a pushed another person when in an argument out in public ,not playing a sport, apart from when they were young at school - and if someone dies as result of a person doing  such an act, even if it wasn't the intention to cause serious harm, it's a different matter isn't it? and they should obviously be severely  punished by the  Law of the land.

I think the ref's first card decision should have stood - he was just punishing the  severity of the foul, and changing the card because of the, freak accident outcome, sets a  precedent that could adversely affect   the game in future, and is unfair on the perpetrator Son, in this case, who's foul tackle would have had innocuous consequences 99 times out of 100, and is a type of  tackle   seen many times  every week in games everywhere.

IMO for what it's worth anyway.

I tend to agree with almost everything you both say, and yes, the card reflected the result as opposed to the initial action, and agreed, 99 times out of 100 (I'd put it closer to 999/1000) this would result in a grass stain on the players shorts, unfortunately in this case it didn't, and it goes to show that even the innocuous touch can cause consequences, and it is, indeed, a contact sport, and that does add to the excitement and gameplay.

What I fail to appreciate is how people will defend an illegal tackle of this kind, that can have these consequences (don't take that personally, it's not directed at any person in particular. on here), and the term Professional Foul comes to mind. The laws we have regarding contact, in the main, are there to protect players from injury, and when a player deliberately steps beyond the laws of the game he should expect consequences, and I think this is where we disagree so much, I honestly feel that a yellow card for the result of this tackle is not going to stop it going on at all. I recall seeing Shawcross break Ramseys leg, weeping genuinely, but then return in subsequent matches with the same dirty play.

Perhaps that is where we differ in our respective opinions, and we are all entitled to each our own, but thanks for your opinions, enlightening, even if they didn't change my views the whole nine yards.

[Whitesideup]

.....

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.

Every deliberate foul could then be a yellow card. In fact to be fair,  every challenge that resembles a deliberate foul should be a yellow card. And then comes the issue of when you draw the line. So "clamping down" is easier said than done.  Then we are playing the equivalent of touch rugby.   

Horrible outcome to a poor challenge, but we see worse challenges nearly every week. I agree with the posters saying we are over-reacting. 

[ALG01]

There has been a few rather astonishing comments above seeming to misunderstand that an unwanted and illegal act perptrated cynically can somehow be condoned because the intent was not to cause maximum damage, just minor damage or to prove a point (my intepretation)

Let me remind you all
mathhew fox was killed at a Fulham v gillingham match
he was punched or pushed by a Gillingham fan and as a result stumbbled and hit his head on the kerb and that was what killed him. If he had not been pushed or punched he would not have stummbled. the perpatrator was guilty of manslaughter by way of criminal negligance IMO and I think the law would more or less agree. What the sentence is would depend on circumstance.

In this case of Son, the ankle broke as a direct consequence of his cynical action. Let us suppose gomez fell a little more awkwardly or maybe just onto a defenders knee or boot and he ended up braking his neck, it could happen. That was the point of making the reckless challenge illegal and I for one would be happy to see players sent off every time until it stops.

As I said in my original post, I am in favour of a more physical game, robust challenges honestly made trying to win the ball, that is part and parcel of the game, or should be. But that is not what son or even our setfjo are doing, it isn't  a  robust challenge it is in fact a disgraceful disregard for the laws of the game and fellow players safety.



If the perpetrator would have kept away and not interfered there would not have been a death.

I know I was there and you could of course argue that the gillingham fan, by being in a fight was intent on injuring a fulham fan. Hitting someone in the head and something terrible happening as a consequence is, in my mind a million miles from Son's trip.

As I said, you clearly have not seen the incident as it was the clash with Aurier that caused the injury, allied to the fact that his studs got caught in the ground. The card was changed from the yellow that he had in his hand to a red purely on the severity of the injury which was hugely unfortunate.

I reckon if there was an instance of 100 trips as la Stefan/Son/Hull player and 100 "robust" challenges, there'd be a whole lot more injuries from the latter, whether intentional or not.

i did see the incident and the break was as a direct result of son's reckless challenge, with no chance of winning the ball, from behind. If he had not touched Gomez then gomez would be in training today with all the others rather than having to sit out half the season and hope he makes a full recovery...son's action caused the problem because fromn that second gomez was no longer in control of his actions.

I was also at Gillingham and had been threatened on line by a gillingham fan on the morning of the game (I didn't know that till I got home) and of course he was very sorry for the words he had used and didn't mean it, it was bantz.... but the atmosphere if you rember was toxic in the ground for a variety of reasons but if persons A's unwelcome action has an unintended consequence on person B, such as I push him and he falls over, then person A needs to be severely punished, that is why we stop kids misbehaving, because a consequence of their messing about is that some inocent party is substantially disadvanteged. My entire point is what happened to mat Fox was not an accident, neither was happened to gomez. a different scale but nonetheless the pepertator caused the damage.

If I held a loaded gun to your head for a joke, with no intention of firing it, but it accidentally went off ( I do not need to explain a  series of events that might make that happen) would that be an unfortunate accident? I am not sure that other than putting it into a really extreme form illustrates why, the original action IS the problem.

When some of you deefending Son end up the vicim of such 'accidents' who will you turn to for justice? Nobody because you think it is OK.

[Dr Know]

There has been a few rather astonishing comments above seeming to misunderstand that an unwanted and illegal act perptrated cynically can somehow be condoned because the intent was not to cause maximum damage, just minor damage or to prove a point (my intepretation)

Let me remind you all
mathhew fox was killed at a Fulham v gillingham match
he was punched or pushed by a Gillingham fan and as a result stumbbled and hit his head on the kerb and that was what killed him. If he had not been pushed or punched he would not have stummbled. the perpatrator was guilty of manslaughter by way of criminal negligance IMO and I think the law would more or less agree. What the sentence is would depend on circumstance.

In this case of Son, the ankle broke as a direct consequence of his cynical action. Let us suppose gomez fell a little more awkwardly or maybe just onto a defenders knee or boot and he ended up braking his neck, it could happen. That was the point of making the reckless challenge illegal and I for one would be happy to see players sent off every time until it stops.

As I said in my original post, I am in favour of a more physical game, robust challenges honestly made trying to win the ball, that is part and parcel of the game, or should be. But that is not what son or even our setfjo are doing, it isn't  a  robust challenge it is in fact a disgraceful disregard for the laws of the game and fellow players safety.



If the perpetrator would have kept away and not interfered there would not have been a death.

Matt Fox died from a single blow which burst an artery in his head . The report said he was probably dead before he hit the ground .

[toshes mate]

Replays are all over Twitter. Have a look for yourself rather than making wild assumptions.
The Son red card was purely a reaction to the injury and I'll be astounded if it isn't overturned on appeal.
In fact it would be pretty outrageous for Spurs to appeal the red if it was really for a foul that caused such a serious injury.

It occurs to me that the only possible assumption I make every time I make a comment on here is that readers comprehend my writing.   I appreciate that my assumption is not always going to be correct, and if I feel I have erred then I will say so.

In my response to the thread  I was simply recounting events observed and comments made in real time while watching the Everton v Spurs game live on Sky with some family and friends on Sunday afternoon.  There was general agreement about what we saw, which is, of course, not proof that our eyes did not deceive us.   Pictures can have that effect on almost everybody and anybody.   The media articles which confirm confusion about the incident are all public domain.

I have noted your assumption that Twitter is the place to go for 'facts'.  Whatever floats your boat as they say.

As for your use of the phrase 'wild assumption'  you need to think about what you write before you write it, rather than, IMO, trying to dictate to others how, why, where and when they should make comments.

[Jim©]

My entire point is what happened to mat Fox was not an accident, neither was happened to gomez. a different scale but nonetheless the pepertator caused the damage.

If I held a loaded gun to your head for a joke, with no intention of firing it, but it accidentally went off ( I do not need to explain a  series of events that might make that happen) would that be an unfortunate accident? I am not sure that other than putting it into a really extreme form illustrates why, the original action IS the problem.

When some of you deefending Son end up the vicim of such 'accidents' who will you turn to for justice? Nobody because you think it is OK.

I don't think you understand the intent?
The intent of the Gillingham fan was to hurt Foxy, plain and simple.
The intent of Son was to impede the forward progress of Gomez (unless of course you believed your earlier statement on Son's character)? What transpired afterwards was sheer bad luck.


I don't need to go into any more detail there, it's in black and white.
I've had an old team mate lose sight in one of his eyes going up for a contested header. There was no malice intended by the opposing player, none at all (though he got booked), he was simply trying to win the ball and win the game.

You are saying that the potential to harm must be stamped out from everything in football (as the initial action is the problem to quote you), so that it becomes entirely non-contact. No tackling (in case of injury) no contested headers (in case of injury).. where will it end?

[Sting of the North]

I tend to agree with almost everything you both say, and yes, the card reflected the result as opposed to the initial action, and agreed, 99 times out of 100 (I'd put it closer to 999/1000) this would result in a grass stain on the players shorts, unfortunately in this case it didn't, and it goes to show that even the innocuous touch can cause consequences, and it is, indeed, a contact sport, and that does add to the excitement and gameplay.

What I fail to appreciate is how people will defend an illegal tackle of this kind, that can have these consequences (don't take that personally, it's not directed at any person in particular. on here), and the term Professional Foul comes to mind. The laws we have regarding contact, in the main, are there to protect players from injury, and when a player deliberately steps beyond the laws of the game he should expect consequences, and I think this is where we disagree so much, I honestly feel that a yellow card for the result of this tackle is not going to stop it going on at all. I recall seeing Shawcross break Ramseys leg, weeping genuinely, but then return in subsequent matches with the same dirty play.

Perhaps that is where we differ in our respective opinions, and we are all entitled to each our own, but thanks for your opinions, enlightening, even if they didn't change my views the whole nine yards.

It was not a yellow card for the result of the tackle. It was a yellow card for the intent of the tackle (namely to stop the opposing team attacking by committing a so called professional foul). As it should be. under the apparent current interpretation of the game. Also, if you want to stop players going beyond the laws of the game wouldn't it make more sense to always book them or send them off, not only the 1 out of 1 000 times it happens to lead to an injury by some freak accident? That just seems hypocritical to me. It's like saying that it is allowed as part of the game unless the tackle happen to indirectly lead to an injury. That would teach no one (except maybe Son) anything, and would defer no one from committing professional fouls.

[Statto]

Replays are all over Twitter. Have a look for yourself rather than making wild assumptions.
The Son red card was purely a reaction to the injury and I'll be astounded if it isn't overturned on appeal.
In fact it would be pretty outrageous for Spurs to appeal the red if it was really for a foul that caused such a serious injury.

It occurs to me that the only possible assumption I make every time I make a comment on here is that readers comprehend my writing.   I appreciate that my assumption is not always going to be correct, and if I feel I have erred then I will say so.

In my response to the thread  I was simply recounting events observed and comments made in real time while watching the Everton v Spurs game live on Sky with some family and friends on Sunday afternoon.  There was general agreement about what we saw, which is, of course, not proof that our eyes did not deceive us.   Pictures can have that effect on almost everybody and anybody.   The media articles which confirm confusion about the incident are all public domain.

I have noted your assumption that Twitter is the place to go for 'facts'.  Whatever floats your boat as they say.

As for your use of the phrase 'wild assumption'  you need to think about what you write before you write it, rather than, IMO, trying to dictate to others how, why, where and when they should make comments.

I wasn't referring to your assumption "that readers comprehend [your] writing."

I was referring to your statement that you "assume that the VAR replays showed something we didn't see"

That assumption was wrong. That's why the red card has since been overturned.

And it wasn't necessary for you to make that assumption because, whilst I accept you can't believe everything you read on Twitter, an intelligent person can filter the reliable content from the unreliable (admittedly I'm now assuming you're an intelligent person) and in this case there was reliable evidence (video footage from lots of different sources) of what happened.