Match reaction vs Chavs

[fakeyank]

He was great in this game. A superb defender.

Isnt that considered a red card tackle? Studs up and all?

Either way, it looks freaking awesome.. one of the best players for Arsenal this season!

[Syn]

Dunno, maybe. It's hard to tell how close Koscielny was to Sturridge from that angle. He might be well in front of him - so it's not like Sturridge jumped over him; he's just holding back from going to the ball.

But even if he was in line, we'll never know because Sturridge isn't a team player and won't sacrifice a broken leg to leave Chelsea's rivals missing their best CB then. The selfish twat.

[Olivier's xmas twist]

Isnt that considered a red card tackle? Studs up and all?
Either way, it looks freaking awesome.. one of the best players for Arsenal this season!

No as The Commentator saidm Kos got his footing just right, had he mis timed it he could have been off.

[Coney]

No as The Commentator saidm Kos got his footing just right, had he mis timed it he could have been off.

It is also clear - see where he is looking - that he is targetting and aiming for the ball, after which his foot starts to come down - he is guiding it away with no intent to hit the other player. Worst case is that he could be considered a bit reckless. When Balotelli tackled Song the other week, he kept his foot up and if you see where he is looking, he is not aiming at the ball - there is definite intent to hit Song's leg. That is why the idea of such incidents not being reviewed after the game - even if the ref says he saw it - is ludicrous.

[Syn]

It is also clear - see where he is looking - that he is targetting and aiming for the ball, after which his foot starts to come down - he is guiding it away with no intent to hit the other player. Worst case is that he could be considered a bit reckless. When Balotelli tackled Song the other week, he kept his foot up and if you see where he is looking, he is not aiming at the ball - there is definite intent to hit Song's leg. That is why the idea of such incidents not being reviewed after the game - even if the ref says he saw it - is ludicrous.

I don't think intent is relevant but what works in Kos' favour is that the ball was in the air - if Sturridge went for it, he'd have to jump for it anyway, so Kos can't make any contact with a standing leg. In some ways, it's similar to how Van Persie broke his foot in 2009 from Cheillini's (? sp?) challenge...they're both taking a risk. But the ball wasn't on the ground and Kos didn't go over the ball. I don't think there is much danger as long as he gets the ball. If he doesn't get it and Sturridge goes for it, it could be nasty. But he did get the ball so who gives a fuck. You don't award penalties on the basis that 'if he didn't time it properly, it'd be a foul'.

[Coney]

I don't think intent is relevant but what works in Kos' favour is that the ball was in the air - if Sturridge went for it, he'd have to jump for it anyway, so Kos can't make any contact with a standing leg. In some ways, it's similar to how Van Persie broke his foot in 2009 from Cheillini's (? sp?) challenge...they're both taking a risk. But the ball wasn't on the ground and Kos didn't go over the ball. I don't think there is much danger as long as he gets the ball. If he doesn't get it and Sturridge goes for it, it could be nasty. But he did get the ball so who gives a fuck. You don't award penalties on the basis that 'if he didn't time it properly, it'd be a foul'.

Intent is highly relevant in cleaning up the game.

You don't award penalties on the basis that 'if he didn't time it properly, it'd be a foul'

In a sense, yes. However, if the player is overly reckless, then it needs penalising. A reckless tackle is a cardable offence, thus a foul and therefore if it happens in the box, it is a penalty.

If two players both 'recklessly' go for a ball then I don't see how you could award a foul either way on that basis, though. It has to be one-sided to be penalised, I reckon.

[Syn]

Intent is pretty much impossible to prove though. I agree that you shouldn't look at the result. I think the only thing that should be looked at is if it's dangerous. Not intent. Not the result. You can bet that if Balotelli had snapped Song's leg, the same challenge would've got a red card. Intent might've been more easy to see in that case but in Shawcross or Taylor's case, you can't accuse them of intent. Only stupidity - and that's what should be punished.

[Coney]

Intent is pretty much impossible to prove though. I agree that you shouldn't look at the result. I think the only thing that should be looked at is if it's dangerous. Not intent. Not the result. You can bet that if Balotelli had snapped Song's leg, the same challenge would've got a red card. Intent might've been more easy to see in that case but in Shawcross or Taylor's case, you can't accuse them of intent. Only stupidity - and that's what should be punished.

The requirement for a broken leg seems to be needed for anything to happen - well, serious contact anyway.

For me it is like having kids drive round an estate at 90 miles an hour. If the kill a kid, then they get a big sentence. If the don't, they get a trivial sentence. This is insane. The fact of doing the act is no different. Punishment should take place even if there was not a bad result (due to luck).

[Kano]

Intent is highly relevant in cleaning up the game.



In a sense, yes. However, if the player is overly reckless, then it needs penalising. A reckless tackle is a cardable offence, thus a foul and therefore if it happens in the box, it is a penalty.

If two players both 'recklessly' go for a ball then I don't see how you could award a foul either way on that basis, though. It has to be one-sided to be penalised, I reckon.

referees can award a penalty without contact.

the rules state that kicking or attempting to kick or stop an opponent in the box can be a foul.

[Niall_Quinn]

referees can award a penalty without contact.

Correct, or else Rooney and Young would be fucked.