PL Season opening weekend - 10/08/18

2»

Comments

  • Just cut to the wolves bench, why aren’t the subs already dressed and wearing a shirt and why was he wearing a women’s sports bra

    Well it made me smile
  • Heart rate monitor, I think a fair few clubs use them these days.
  • edited August 2018
    Thanks, makes sense, however, I think that if I had turned up at Donkey Lane wearing one, I might have found myself in a bit of trouble ;wink
  • 2-2 ;biggrin
  • 2 on 1 for Everton and Coleman misses the other blue shirt. Shame ;lol
  • I missed the first half and thus did not see the incident, for me it is a clear red, his touch was poor and he lost possession of the ball and his attempt to recover resulted in a challenge that was desperate and reckless.

    He clearly caught the guy on the ankle with studs up and whilst there is debate as to the validity of denial of a goal scoring opportunity as a reason, I think that a red was the correct decision.

    For me, the recklessness of the challenge would have been enough reason but if he had not made the challenge, there is little doubt that the striker would have had a clear run on goal so imo, denial of a goal scoring opportunity also had merit.
  • I'm struggling to phrase this right, as it's not right that a player should get injured through the actions of another and I don't live in the dark ages and think just because something wasn't even a yellow 30 years ago means it shouldn't be a red now (I appreciate that the game has moved on). However, let's not forget football is a contact sport.

    Also, I understand that the red was technically given for denying a goal scoring opportunity (still harsh imo). I also get that it was only his poor touch that put Jagielka in the position to have to make the challenge.

    However, imo, he didn't dive in, he reached as he'd let the ball get away from him, he got the ball first, his foot wasn't high (he went through the ball not over it) even though it was with his studs as he was reaching away from himself so it was natural rather than deliberate. Yes, the freeze frame of the contact doesn't look good, but that wasn't the intention, or even an inevitable outcome of his action (bearing in mind he got the ball first), so to instantly say it's a red (for the tackle) seems harsh and possibly a slippery slope to over-santising the game (all imo of course).

    Likewise, although I get Suzanne's point about interpretation being the issue for consistency, but my point is that this could (again imo) easily be called or interpreted differently to justify (not that refs ever justify anything) if only to themselves a different decision.
  • I think it is safe to say that on another day it could easily have been a yellow and on another day, it might not even have been a foul.
  • Yellow card at best imo.
  • Sorry, Preston, maybe in another era that isn't a foul, but I'd be astonished if that wasn't seen as a foul in today's game.

    Thought it was a red, as he was out of control, and endangered an opponent as a result.
  • I guess the letter of the law makes it a red in terms of denying a goal scoring opportunity.

    I do however feel that there was no intent by Jagielka to do anything other than get the ball, which he did. If he hadn't attempted a tackle the player was clear on goal. Jagielka in that split second did what I think and would hope most defenders would do and attempt to get the ball back. However, he was not in full control and caught the players foot. It was unfortunate that he was sent off and a goal was also scored.

    Perhaps a few seasons ago a sharper Jagielka would have made the tackle, or not given the ball away in the first place.
  • Grey.

    Let me clarify. I think it was a red. What I am saying is on a different day with a different ref it could be given as just a foul, just a yellow, a straight red or in a rare occasion, not even a foul.

    For example a couple of seasons ago when we played Chelsea, Diego Costas challenge on Adrian was most definitely a straight red but, the ref only gave a free kick.
  • Watching MotD, saw Scott Parker on the Fulham bench, he signed as first team coach in July having spent a year as Spurs U-18 coach.
  • preston ;ok

    Yes, what I meant was that I don't think a ref who sees that clearly could not consider it a foul.
  • edited August 2018
    With all the changes in football its nice to know we can still rely on something to remain consistent. In his post match interviews after Cardiff had lost 2-0 Colin moaned about the ref, moaned about injured players being unavailable and moaned that the ones that played were "nervous". So not his fault...

    I'd forgotten that Huddersfield have those clapper things, they deserve relegation just for that.

    Is it me or are the Wolves shirts a bit too yellow to be "Old Gold"?
  • Kammy on GoS suggests that the sending off was confirmed as for 'denying a goal scoring opportunity', so 1 game ban rather than 3.
  • I thought the Everton player got the ball first and then fouled the player.
  • Citeh 1 up at Arsenal.

    Normal service resumed.
  • Orzil looks like he is not interested
  • Orzil looks like he is not interested

    normal service resumed
  • Just another two Man City goals and we will only be joint bottom

    #reasonstobecheerful
  • as ridiculous as it sounds given they have just played City, but I think that Arsenal are going to struggle this year

  • One can only hope ;biggrin
  • No MNF ;weep
Sign In or Register to comment.