West Brom vs West Ham - Saturday 16.09.17 3:00 Match Thread

Slaven_Cups_His_Beard

Sorry perhaps it's just me, "but tried to get him sent off" doesn't sit well.....

Each to their own

Jorderz_Moyes_will_be_Moyes

As I say, there's two different scenarios IMO.

One is that a dangerous tackle has endangered a team-mate's season, in which case I'm glad our captain and other players were livid.

The other is when an opponent hasn't done anything dangerous, and you're surrounding the referee to get him sent off purely to get a sporting advantage.

In my opinion what happened with Foster and Hernandez comes under the first scenario, which is why I think it was justifiable for our players to be angry.

Slaven_Cups_His_Beard

While Foster is out and doesn't make it, I'm not sure how much contact there was if any. I think Hernandez made a bit of a meal
Of it.

Now if it had been a david Luiz type scenario then of course I'd expect us to protect our own

SuzanneClaret

I think Hernandez did make a meal of it (don't like that either) but I don't think it has any bearing on it being a red.

grey_til_I_dye

Slizzy

I don't think either intent or contact come into it.

NEoldiron

Grey, I don't know myself, but is that correct that neither intent nor contact come into it? All the examples you've posted seem to show some contact.

MrsGrey

It's one of those decisions that allows a degree of judgement from the ref.

I don't think if he HAD given a red, and West Brom had appealed it, it would have been overturned, as it wouldn't have been an 'obvious error' on the part of the ref.

For me, I would just like improvements in consistency of decision-making.

NEoldiron

The "endangering the safety of an opponent" is not really clear. If it said "endangering or risk of endangering the safety etc." then contact does not have to be made.

grey_til_I_dye

NE

My interpretation, but I can't see what else it could mean. If a player manages to get his leg out of the way or not, surely the endangering is the same?

We've all seen players sent off when contact wasn't made, or was minimal, but the action was deemed reckless.







That isn't, imo, a player in control, and is a player lunging with excessive force and endangering his opponent.

What would have happened to Hernandez if Foster had made full contact?

NEoldiron

Grey, as I said, I was uncertain, but having read it again I have to agree with you.

Jorderz_Moyes_will_be_Moyes

The pictures show Foster is completely out of control and endangering Hernandez's safety. An outfield player would 100% have seen red for that, so why goalkeepers are somehow excused from the same rules confuses me.

claretandbluesky

The speed the keeper was going and the height of the foot in my opinion makes clear he had no control of his bodyweight at the point of impact and so it was luck that something more serious didn't happen to chico. I feel the ref didn't want to make a big decision so played safe. I imagine if you had 10 refs look at the footage blind without knowing what actually got called that more would send off than didn't, but its not clear cut however and some others wouldn't have, we were unlucky to have got one who didn't.

The real problem is consistency and I think there is enough footage to build a collection of previous decisions which the league and ref's understand as correct, they should all be shown these decisions and told to ref in accordance to these past decisions. We could also use the same for retrospective punishment. This way players and refs would after a little while adapt to play and expect more, nor perfectly, but more consistent decisions. I feel very much players and fans biggest gripe is the inconsistency as we accept a mistake due to positioning etc but when the ref sees what happened but interprets it differently to the ref we had last week it just creates confusion and a sense of injustice.

chicagohammer

Those still shots are pretty damning but in real time I did not think it was a redas it happened so fast that the ball was directed away from the goal making it difficult yet clear goal scoring opportunity was denied.

I am ok with the refs decision, I agree with the comment that the issuing of a red card would have been supportable and "justifiable" but I think it far from iron clad

chicagohammer

Like every other contentious decision, we amateurs have had the benefit of umpteen replays at various angles and speeds.

The only real way that you are going to achieve greater consistency in decision making is to allow teams to challenge calls made on the field and send them for review, other sports do this but I frankly do not think hat we want that sort of disruption of our game.

Unlike many sports which have many natural breaks, football is a very fluid affair and I for one do not wish to see that overly disrupted.

MrsGrey

Isn't the issue of goal scoring opportunity/last man totally irrelevant here?

The debate is about whether or not it was dangerous play?

Unless we are arguing at cross purposes?

tomkinsworldclass

Certainly wasnt last man or clear goal scoring opportunity

IMO not dangerous play either, just more of the hysteria because of the who mane/luiz cards. The keeper has the right to come out for the ball and try to tackle/clear it, he missed and caught the man but wasnt dangerous.

claretandbluesky

I think there is no case for last man but that picture above shows studs facing flush upwards and at knee height, add to it the speed and the fact that he could not stop his forward momentum despite not having both feet forward and I think it looks textbook (if there is such a thing) dangerous.

He did what keepers do when committed and go all or nothing, either win the ball or take the man and he took the man, the question is did he do it in a way which constituted dangerous play, the picture above suggests so. I would send the picture to the ref's association and ask their opinion on the decision so we know as a club what to advise our keepers.

chicagohammer

MrsGrey said:

Isn't the issue of goal scoring opportunity/last man totally irrelevant here?

Not if we think, and I think it probable, that the ref was thinking along the lines of was it a clear goal scoring opportunity

MrsGrey said:

The debate is about whether or not it was dangerous play?

In our post event minds it is as the slow motion replays and still shots do seem to highlight the dangerous nature of the challenge.

I think the real debate is centered on what we consider should have driven the refs decision at the time of the incident, and the only man who can really clear that up is the ref himself

jay_in_cpt

IMO ref made correct call.
Dermot Gallagher ( useless I know ) was going on that when a GK comes out his area he is then considered an outfield player not a GK... If that makes sense, saying all that I still reckon rookie ref Tierney made correct call...

alderz

TWC how was this related to "hysteria" about the Luiz red if that happened the next day?

IronHerb

The only difference between this tackle and Cahills is that Cahill caught the opponent full on.
Jumping in, both feet off the ground, studs up! If thats not a red then we may as well get rid of any rules regarding foul play.

MrsGrey

chicago, just did a bit of tidying up to your post to differentiate between the quotes and your comments ;ok

grey_til_I_dye

twc

No hysteria from me. I'm simply looking at the laws of the game, and wondering why refs interpret them differently.

The keeper has the right to come out for the ball and try to tackle/clear it

Who said he didn't?

However, neither he, nor any other player, has the right to challenge for the ball foot high, studs up.

wasnt dangerous

That's your opinion, fair enough, but I don't really understand how you reach it.

In my opinion, if Hernandez had been caught full on by the extended leg, he would have suffered serious injury.

Lunge? Yes

Excessive force? Yes

Endangering an opponent? Yes

Moojor

It's a red card. If our keeper went in on a player like that I would be having a right moan about him being stupid and doing such a dangerous tackle.

SuzanneClaret

Under the rules of the game it is a red card.

You might not like it or agree with the law.

But it is a red card offence.

tomkinsworldclass

Alderz, not directly, but since Mane and to a lesser extent Luiz theres been a whole new interpretation/discussion about tackling/high foot/ excessive force, etc etc, which can distort some basic norms of football; certainly aided by super slow motion replays, multiple camera angles and screen capture images which can pretty much be made to look however you want them to.

Grey, it was in no way directed at you just more generally speaking esp on social media. IMO its down to interpretation and like a lot of things in football it is in one of footballs grey areas; its subjective and down to each individual because otherwise the game becomes very sanitised if things become too black and white; thats why I disliked the Mane red as it stripped away alot of context and has set a bad precedent, as shown in most games post LFC-MCFC and as shown by WHU's incredulous reaction to the foster tackle.

I believe for the good of the game, the keeper, like any other defender has the right to come out and try to win the ball in a safe way however, they are always liable to being slightly late and fouling the player but that doesnt make it a dangerous tackle only fractionally mistimed and should therefore IMO be dealt with more conservatively. I disagree that it was dangerous, foster slid in early which reduces the impact and allows greater control over the force, height and follow through; he also led with his left foot which was going across Hernandez which also made it less dangerous as if he had gone in with his right the force would have been directly through hernandez and much straighter which would've given lesser control. IMO foster only at fault for putting in a mistimed tackle and a yellow was spot on.

grey_til_I_dye

twc

If you don't think Mane was a red, we're not using the same book, never mind being on the same page.

alderz

How anyone can look at that challenge and not recognise that it is a dangerous studs up challenge is beyond me. It is essentially the dictionary definition.

thornburyiron

The problem is unless you ban any player making any kind of sliding tackle ie players must be on their feet at all times these sort of instances will occur. It is impossible to slide across the pitch or anywhere else for that matter and have your studs firmly on the ground as at the very least your studs will be pointing out in front of you. The criteria should be based upon whether the foot is off the ground because if it is then the odds are that it will be above the ball (unless it's a bouncing ball).

MrsGrey

thornburyiron said:

The problem is unless you ban any player making any kind of sliding tackle ie players must be on their feet at all times these sort of instances will occur.

Agree that these sort of instances will occur, but I don't think we need to ban all sliding tackles to eliminate the problem.

The sliding tackle can be seen in different scenarios, not all of which are excessively dangerous.

I think it is fair enough to have a rule designed to allow tackling (or competing for 50-50 balls) but to discourage (and punish) the sorts of sliding tackles that can cause serious injury to your fellow professionals.

thornburyiron said:

It is impossible to slide across the pitch or anywhere else for that matter and have your studs firmly on the ground as at the very least your studs will be pointing out in front of you.

Not if your outstretched leg has the foot pointing forward.

thornburyiron said:

The criteria should be based upon whether the foot is off the ground

I don't know about 'should be'... it is, isn't it? (One of the factors the refs take account of to judge if it is a dangerous tackle, I mean.)