He's a stupid twit

[wolfie]

when is his contract up?

[_Putney_]

For those saying it's not a red, would you still say it if he had of ruptured the other guys achilles? What if it was our player.

I agree.

I wonder whether those who say it shouldn't be a red card are judging the incident by the criteria to which referees have been instructed to work, or are simply 'making up their own rules', so to speak, as to how a tackles such as Kamara's should be interpreted. It may be the latter.

The Achilles tendon is easily damaged and takes a long time to repair. I understand referees have been told they should consider a stamp (or attempted stamp) on the Achilles tendon without genuine intent to play the ball as being worthy of a red card.

In this incident, Kamara did not merely step on the back of the player's heel by accident as he was chasing after him; Kamara clearly makes an extended last stride that lands on the vulnerable heel of his opponent after the ball has gone. I can quite see how a referee would consider this to constitute dangerous play deserving of a sending off.

A tackle doesn't have to be deemed malicious to merit a red card. Sometimes a player whose challenge is clumsy and stupid - as, it appears, was Kamara's - will get the benefit of the doubt; however, the referee is not obliged to give the player such leeway. In this instance, Kamara's luck was out. But he can have no complaints, I think.

Every tackle is inches from serious injury. Welcome to football.

[Arthur]

Every tackle is inches from serious injury. Welcome to football.

I'm not entirely sure what you're point is. But the logical extension of such a blanket statement is that either every tackle is worthy of a red card or, conversely, none is.

Which is not saying anything of value.

[junior white]

Every tackle is inches from serious injury. Welcome to football.

I'm not entirely sure what you're point is. But the logical extension of such a blanket statement is that either every tackle is worthy of a red card or, conversely, none is.

Which is not saying anything of value.

What I think he is getting at is a slight miss timed trip could lead to a big injury while its "just" a trip a slightly awkward landing could disc locate a knee perhaps. So a minor could could lead to a major injury/

I do not think he was saying every tackle is a red card  or making a blanket statement. It is just the nature of football

[Woolly Mammoth]

For those saying it's not a red, would you still say it if he had of ruptured the other guys achilles? What if it was our player.

Regardless of his intentions you cant go around stomping on people's heals. His one half decent attribute is that he is supposed to be one of the fastest players on the pitch yet why is it that he always seems to be half a step behind the pace and putting in these clumsy tackles. Answer is he's a bang average player. To me he is the worst player we have had since Amorebieta

We have had far worse since Amorebieta, enough to sink a ship, so many I forgot their names as some played only very few matches or only one and were filed in a cabinet as soon as the club had realised they were impersonating a footballer.
As for AK47 and his latest shenanigans, I can see both sides of the debate, I suppose it depends on how the referee saw it and he was close to AK47.
To me it looked harsh from where I was standing, nevertheless sometimes little things like an itch keep reminding you that some players seem to always be in some kind of drama or issue or a crisis and AK unfortunately falls into that category.
So the question is, is he worth it, do the positives outweigh the negative.
I use to like him as he was different and when he had the ball you never knew what he was going to do with it including him. He grew on me a little because he battled and his work rate was good.
However my conclusion is that he is more trouble than he is worth.
I would not say he was toxic or a bad apple, more a loose cannon. 

[Statto]

Every tackle is inches from serious injury. Welcome to football.

I'm not entirely sure what you're point is. But the logical extension of such a blanket statement is that either every tackle is worthy of a red card or, conversely, none is.

Which is not saying anything of value.

Well I think his point is that the determinative factor as to whether a tackle is worth of a red card shouldn't be whether it was inches from serious injury

[blingo]

For those saying it's not a red, would you still say it if he had of ruptured the other guys achilles? What if it was our player.

Regardless of his intentions you cant go around stomping on people's heals. His one half decent attribute is that he is supposed to be one of the fastest players on the pitch yet why is it that he always seems to be half a step behind the pace and putting in these clumsy tackles. Answer is he's a bang average player. To me he is the worst player we have had since Amorebieta

We have had far worse since Amorebieta, enough to sink a ship, so many I forgot their names as some played only very few matches or only one and were filed in a cabinet as soon as the club had realised they were impersonating a footballer.
As for AK47 and his latest shenanigans, I can see both sides of the debate, I suppose it depends on how the referee saw it and he was close to AK47.
To me it looked harsh from where I was standing, nevertheless sometimes little things like an itch keep reminding you that some players seem to always be in some kind of drama or issue or a crisis and AK unfortunately falls into that category.
So the question is, is he worth it, do the positives outweigh the negative.
I use to like him as he was different and when he had the ball you never knew what he was going to do with it including him. He grew on me a little because he battled and his work rate was good.
However my conclusion is that he is more trouble than he is worth.
I would not say he was toxic or a bad apple, more a loose cannon. 

Blingo is in the Ferny camp here. AK lost it all for me from the moment he decided he would take the penalty and not Mitro.

[Arthur]

Thank you, Junior White & Statto, for your interpretation of Putney's post.

If Putney disagrees with the way referees have been told to interpret the rules, that is absolutely his prerogative. He wouldn't be the only supporter who does - far from it, I'm sure. But then his 'Welcome to football' remark is misplaced. Because red cards are given out on the basis of the potential to cause injury. It's most certainly not the case that actual harm has to be done. Robinson's recent sending off being one such example; his tackle was 'inches away', yet he still saw red.

[St Eve]

I see the AK muckrakers are out in force based on their long term and well observed prejudices against the guy.  If the guy accidentally knocked someone over in the street you'd be there damning the guy based not on what you really observed but on what you already falsely believed about a guy you know so little about.

Shameful.  IMO.

I agree. Always thought he had tremendous potential, but now he is on " the list" and apparently is in the category that" he should never wear the shirt again". There are always players singled out in our squad and trashed like Ream, Onomah, Hector, Mitro, Cav, RLC and most recently Robinson. We are a fickle bunch

[Jim©]

Thank you, Junior White & Statto, for your interpretation of Putney's post.

If Putney disagrees with the way referees have been told to interpret the rules, that is absolutely his prerogative. He wouldn't be the only supporter who does - far from it, I'm sure. But then his 'Welcome to football' remark is misplaced. Because red cards are given out on the basis of the potential to cause injury. It's most certainly not the case that actual harm has to be done. Robinson's recent sending off being one such example; his tackle was 'inches away', yet he still saw red.

Sorry, but I don't agree at all.
A "clumsy" tackle, like this is two players running at full pelt and a tangle of legs as this was. If you slow the video down, AK places his foot at the exact point his opponent's foot has just begun the forward movement. It's not reckless, it's not dangerous it's unfortunate. Compare to a reckless two footed challenge and work out the intent.

If a red card was given every time there was a potential injury then two players going up for a header together will both require a red card. We'd be left with many abandoned matches under your view of the game.

[Woolly Mammoth]

For those saying it's not a red, would you still say it if he had of ruptured the other guys achilles? What if it was our player.

Regardless of his intentions you cant go around stomping on people's heals. His one half decent attribute is that he is supposed to be one of the fastest players on the pitch yet why is it that he always seems to be half a step behind the pace and putting in these clumsy tackles. Answer is he's a bang average player. To me he is the worst player we have had since Amorebieta

We have had far worse since Amorebieta, enough to sink a ship, so many I forgot their names as some played only very few matches or only one and were filed in a cabinet as soon as the club had realised they were impersonating a footballer.
As for AK47 and his latest shenanigans, I can see both sides of the debate, I suppose it depends on how the referee saw it and he was close to AK47.
To me it looked harsh from where I was standing, nevertheless sometimes little things like an itch keep reminding you that some players seem to always be in some kind of drama or issue or a crisis and AK unfortunately falls into that category.
So the question is, is he worth it, do the positives outweigh the negative.
I use to like him as he was different and when he had the ball you never knew what he was going to do with it including him. He grew on me a little because he battled and his work rate was good.
However my conclusion is that he is more trouble than he is worth.
I would not say he was toxic or a bad apple, more a loose cannon. 

Blingo is in the Ferny camp here. AK lost it all for me from the moment he decided he would take the penalty and not Mitro.

Yes that was a very big error of judgement which shows that he is a loose cannon.

[love4ffc]

I can see why a red was given.  Very high on the back of the leg and with studs.  As said above, could easily hurt/ruptured the other player's achilles. 

Over all I would agree with those who say it was a clumsy challange. 

[bobbo]

I'm not sure it was intentional . However I hope he doesn't ever come back , been trouble with a capital T

Note it's out of character for me to nail a player to the floor, but he's a problem.

[Twig]

I don't really care about this pen. He's not playing for us and any suspension doesn't affect us. A lot of the debate about it on here just seems like an excuse to have an argument.
AK has had a troubled past with FFC, there's no denying that and in general I would prefer to retain players who fit more comfortably into a team and club ethos.  However my main reason for preferring to see him leave is because I just don't think he was good enough.  I completely disagree with those who think he had huge potential for us or was at least a valuable impact sub. The AK I watched had pace and some strength but little else.  His ball control was poor, his positional awareness and ability to pick a pass lacking and his finishing unpredictable.

[YankeeJim]

If you watch AK's pacing, the last step is a stretch as if he was looking for that ankle. Petty shot for a petty man. I hope he doesn't come back. He only looked good on occasion and that only compared with the rest of our attackers.

[BarryP]

Trying to set aside all preconceived opinions of AK and only looking at the play I asked myself a few questions:

1. Was AK attempting to play the ball? For me that is a no because the opposing player is between AK and the ball with AK having no chance to reach the ball.

2. Was the play intentional or incidental? Given my conclusion that AK was not trying the play the ball I must conclude he intentionally fouled the player in an effort to stop the play. This does not mean I think his action was malicious.

3. Did the incident rise to the level of a serious foul play? AK lunged at the opponent with his studs showing so the answer is yes regardless of where the studs landed.

In my opinion the red card is warranted.

I wish AK nothing but the best but how I feel about him shouldn't influence how I evaluate this play.

[Arthur]

Thank you, Junior White & Statto, for your interpretation of Putney's post.

If Putney disagrees with the way referees have been told to interpret the rules, that is absolutely his prerogative. He wouldn't be the only supporter who does - far from it, I'm sure. But then his 'Welcome to football' remark is misplaced. Because red cards are given out on the basis of the potential to cause injury. It's most certainly not the case that actual harm has to be done. Robinson's recent sending off being one such example; his tackle was 'inches away', yet he still saw red.

Sorry, but I don't agree at all.
A "clumsy" tackle, like this is two players running at full pelt and a tangle of legs as this was. If you slow the video down, AK places his foot at the exact point his opponent's foot has just begun the forward movement. It's not reckless, it's not dangerous it's unfortunate. Compare to a reckless two footed challenge and work out the intent.

If a red card was given every time there was a potential injury then two players going up for a header together will both require a red card. We'd be left with many abandoned matches under your view of the game.

Thank you for your reply.

What you assign as 'my view of the game' is not an opinion of mine; as far as I'm aware, it is a statement of fact: a player can be sent off for a challenge that has the potential to cause injury, even if no injury is caused.

If you thought my statement not to be factual, you had the opportunity to explain why Robinson's red card, last month, doesn't prove the point. And yet, despite that I had used this incident - making it the obvious point to overturn - you ignore it completely. Instead, you attempt to refute my statement by offering the example of players jumping for a header. My response is that there is no contradiction as it is not contrary to the laws of the game to 'go up for a header'. For a player to be sent off, he has to contravene the laws. Comparing challenges that do (I am assuming you agree both Robinson's and Kamara's were fouls) with that which doesn't (jumping to head the ball) is meaningless.

Nonetheless, I do see what you are implying: every challenge - including those that are fair - has the potential to cause injury. But you are wrong to either infer or imply I am saying every challenge that has the potential to cause injury should - or might - receive a red card. What I have said is that I believe referees are being told to interpret the laws of the game differently. Whereas, in the past, Kamara's clumsy lunge would not have been deemed serious enough to merit a red card, now it is. And whereas, in years gone by, Robinson's challenge on Azpilicueta may have received a yellow card more often than now, referees are erring more strongly towards a red card, irrespective of whether an injury is caused. (I agree that Kamara's challenge isn't as reckless as many others that see red - Robinson's, for instance - but it's not me who has redrawn the 'line in the sand' to include Abou's foul among the offences that can be punished with a sending off; it is merely my belief this is how it is.) 

The opinions I do offer: that Kamara cannot consider his red card to be unjust; that Robinson was sent off because he might have caused injury; these are based on my understanding as to how referees are being told to interpret the laws. My understanding may be awry.

Are you saying the decisions to send off Robinson and Kamara are examples of referees misinterpreting the laws? That they are clearly mistakes? You may be right, even if I think not. (That the Club did not appeal Robinson's dismissal, however, is, I suggest, in my favour; I shall wait to see whether Dijon do for Kamara.)

If your opinion is that the way in which referees are now interpreting the laws should be changed - so that Kamara's challenge can receive nothing more than a yellow and Robinson's a red only if the opponent is injured - you're disagreeing with those who make the laws more than you are me.

And it would make no sense to agree with my saying referees are interpreting the laws differently and then disagree with the fate suffered by both Kamara and Robinson.

[RaySmith]

Intent is always  hard to be certain of, and i usually err on the side of the  perpetrator, because of the era I grew up in an first watched and played the game I suppose, but watching the vid, if I had to come down one way or the other, i would say that AK did try to do the  player, with the studs down the back of the Achilles being a tried and tested way of injuring an opponent.

The balls was too far away to think AK  genuinely tried to get it when he made contact with the player, I think. Though you can never be certain, but to me that was much more of  a red than Reed's v Chelsea, which i thought a genuinely spontaneous  mistimed  tackle, and attempt to get the ball.
But I've seen a yellow given for that type of challenge, and worse.

But, I do have sympathy for AK, and am  sorry  he isn't with us to provide  that option form the  bench , maybe in the closing stages of a game, where you want an attacking outlet, and someone  who can put in a tackle in defence.

I can see that  a player should never get away with not obeying a coach's instructions, though, and he's always  seems to have issues with authority while at Fulham.
I suppose the club  needed to lose some players from the squad anyway. If they they really wanted him to stay,  they could have disciplined him, and kept him.

That's my two penneth anyway.

[Statto]

Without wanting to get too deep into these weeds one observation I have on this thread is that the idea of stepping on someone's heel seems to generate a grossly disproportionate level of concern to the actual risk attached to it IMO.

The tendon there is in an exposed position and the idea of someone "raking their studs down it" of course sends a shudder down the spine. But I'm pretty sure you'd have to rake extremely bloody hard to do anything more than superficial damage. I've taken all sorts of knocks there over the years and had some nasty grazes but never seriously damaged the tendon.

I'm no expert but I should imagine the force of the average "raking" in that manner, like Kamara did here, is absolutely nothing compared to the force that's applied to the tendons in the knee and ankle when a player lands awkwardly on a foot that's slightly off balance and the foot or leg gets bent under their own body weight, such as will often happen when a player who's sprinting gets a light shoulder barge and stumbles at pace.

Therefore a light shoulder barge probably carries more risk of injury than what Kamara did here.

Which again reinforces the point that it shouldn't be (and isn't) purely the risk of injury which determines the punishment.

[toshes mate]

What you assign as 'my view of the game' is not an opinion of mine; as far as I'm aware, it is a statement of fact: a player can be sent off for a challenge that has the potential to cause injury, even if no injury is caused.

If you thought my statement not to be factual, you had the opportunity to explain why Robinson's red card, last month, doesn't prove the point. And yet, despite that I had used this incident - making it the obvious point to overturn - you ignore it completely. Instead, you attempt to refute my statement by offering the example of players jumping for a header. My response is that there is no contradiction as it is not contrary to the laws of the game to 'go up for a header'. For a player to be sent off, he has to contravene the laws. Comparing challenges that do (I am assuming you agree both Robinson's and Kamara's were fouls) with that which doesn't (jumping to head the ball) is meaningless.

Nonetheless, I do see what you are implying: every challenge - including those that are fair - has the potential to cause injury. But you are wrong to either infer or imply I am saying every challenge that has the potential to cause injury should - or might - receive a red card. What I have said is that I believe referees are being told to interpret the laws of the game differently. Whereas, in the past, Kamara's clumsy lunge would not have been deemed serious enough to merit a red card, now it is. And whereas, in years gone by, Robinson's challenge on Azpilicueta may have received a yellow card more often than now, referees are erring more strongly towards a red card, irrespective of whether an injury is caused. (I agree that Kamara's challenge isn't as reckless as many others that see red - Robinson's, for instance - but it's not me who has redrawn the 'line in the sand' to include Abou's foul among the offences that can be punished with a sending off; it is merely my belief this is how it is.) 

The opinions I do offer: that Kamara cannot consider his red card to be unjust; that Robinson was sent off because he might have caused injury; these are based on my understanding as to how referees are being told to interpret the laws. My understanding may be awry.

Are you saying the decisions to send off Robinson and Kamara are examples of referees misinterpreting the laws? That they are clearly mistakes? You may be right, even if I think not. (That the Club did not appeal Robinson's dismissal, however, is, I suggest, in my favour; I shall wait to see whether Dijon do for Kamara.)

If your opinion is that the way in which referees are now interpreting the laws should be changed - so that Kamara's challenge can receive nothing more than a yellow and Robinson's a red only if the opponent is injured - you're disagreeing with those who make the laws more than you are me.

And it would make no sense to agree with my saying referees are interpreting the laws differently and then disagree with the fate suffered by both Kamara and Robinson.

I really cannot fault this analysis and I have found all your comments about referees and their decision making that I have read to be pragmatic.   I think your summary concerning rules and how referees are interpreting them is spot on, although we could still have a debate about genuine (as compared to fanciful) consistency of application. 

As to your opinion that Kamara cannot consider his red card to be unjust would only be applicable IMO were referees up to the same standards of ability and consistency.  I argue that because only when rules are clearly laid down and enforced in every case can any of us know when we deserve to be punished for breaching them.   Kamara is, despite some of the content on this thread, a human being and his behaviour therefore, good, bad or indifferent, is determined by how he is handled by all his many 'handlers' which includes all the referees etc controlling the games he is involved in.