Man City v Liverpool, 12.30pm live on Sky Sport

Turtwig

paulbok wrote: »

Worzel Gummage having a w@nk wouldn't be clutching straws as much

Think you may have completely missed the point.

I never stated Mane shouldn't have been sent off. Nor, in the post you quoted, was I directly referring to the Mane incident per se. I was referring purely to the point about an action being within one's right (e.g an official.) meaning they should automatically carry out that action and pointing out my disagreement with that statement. Just because a referee, or any official from sport or otherwise, has the licence and is in their legal right to do something doesn't necessarily mean they ethically should.

Minderbinder

I think they can pack in the plans to use video refs if we can't even agree on this incident.

I think most of us have played the game and have been faced with the same situation. I can always instinctively judge who is getting to the ball first, and if it's really close I recognise my responsibility to not put the opposing player in danger. I think Mane definitely knew the keeper was coming and think it's nonsense talking about having his eyes on the ball. If he didn't know the keeper was there he wouldn't have done the kung fu kick to try to get the ball. He didn't deliberately hurt the keeper but he deliberately made that a big possibility. I think a three game ban is fair because he hasn't done anything even remotely as reckless before, only for that I'd be arguing for a longer ban.

fyfe79

blueser wrote: »

Yep; intent has nothing to do with it any more. If, in the opinion of the referee, the offence is seen as reckless and endangers an opponent, it is to be treated as "serious foul play", which is punishable by a red card. Can't see why people are questioning it.

Yep, agreed that it's reckless, therefore a red.

I think the reaction of opposition players will always tell you if they think a player has gone in intentionally to hurt a team-mate, and to be fair to the City players none of them reacted as such. They recognised the situation for what it was.

No intent, but still reckless. No complaints at all about the red from most Liverpool fans. Some fans, well, will always have differing opinions.

54and56

Deleted User wrote: »

Just like the player who raises an elbow, if he jumps on his own, fair enough, if it connects with another player's cheek and breaks it, he goes off. When you do something wild, you give the ref a decision to make and you can't complain afterwards.

Are you suggesting it's only reckless if it actually results in an injury to another player? If so the logic is it's fine to go throwing your elbow about and raise your boot to head height with studs up providing you don't connect with an opponent.

What Mane did was (unintentionally) reckless but nevertheless reckless so he had to go.

If ref's were consistent they'd pull a red card anytime a player jumps for a header with his elbows raised regardless of whether it ended up connecting with an opponent but they don't. If they did Fellani would only play a handful of games per annum

Liamalone

Just saw MotD. What a dirty challenge by yer Mane, could've took the keeper's head off. Dirty sod.

Title celebrations on hold.

Giggsy11

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Are you suggesting it's only reckless if it actually results in an injury to another player? If so the logic is it's fine to go throwing your elbow about and raise your boot to head height with studs up providing you don't connect with an opponent.

What Mane did was (unintentionally) reckless but nevertheless reckless so he had to go.

If ref's were consistent they'd pull a red card anytime a player jumps for a header with his elbows raised regardless of whether it ended up connecting with an opponent but they don't. If they did Fellani would only play a handful of games per annum

Defending a kung fu kick with all sort of random nonsense, pathetic.

If Mane did the same thing and connected Ederson's knee, would any Liverpool fan defend that? He kicked him in the face sprint at full speed.

Grayditch

I'd happily defend Mane's intent and the ref's decision.

Berserker

Liamalone wrote: »

Just saw MotD. What a dirty challenge by yer Mane, could've took the keeper's head off.

Just watched it this morning. Serious force in that challenge and it was very high. Full contact would have resulted in a very serious injury to the keeper. Ten years ago that challenge would have been acceptable. Today it's a red.

martingriff

Berserker wrote: »

Just watched it this morning. Serious force in that challenge and it was very high. Full contact would have resulted in a very serious injury to the keeper. Ten years ago that challenge would have been acceptable. Today it's a red.

Totally a red. Did Mane mean it no but it was reckless and very high. I know there are some on here saying it was not a red because he did not mean it or was not looking at where it was or did not injure the player but if we take any of those on board then 99% or cards would not be given out

martingriff

Liamalone wrote: »

Just saw MotD. What a dirty challenge by yer Mane, could've took the keeper's head off. Dirty sod.

Title celebrations on hold.

Had to put the dig in at the end didn't you. Yes he served the red and on reflection himself and Klop will think so also. Not dirty just reckless he had eyes on the ball but should have had an idea what was around him

Berserker

That challenge seems to have taken the focus off a pretty poor defensive display by Liverpool. The defending for the first goal, when it was 11 v 11, was woeful. Ditto for most of the other goals. The back four are all over the place.

yabadabado

Liamalone wrote: »

Just saw MotD. What a dirty challenge by yer Mane, could've took the keeper's head off. Dirty sod.

Title celebrations on hold.[/QUOTE]
:eek:

Liam O

martingriff wrote: »

Had to put the dig in at the end didn't you. Yes he served the red and on reflection himself and Klop will think so also. Not dirty just reckless he had eyes on the ball but should have had an idea what was around him

The idea that he was not aware of Ederson doesn't really sit with me tbh.

Je_suis_Jean

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Are you suggesting it's only reckless if it actually results in an injury to another player?

No. Not at all. But that for an action to be dangerous...well it must present a danger. Yesterday the point was made that if in raising his foot Mane had flicked the ball over the keeper and scored it would have stood. Which may be true.

Berserker

Deleted User wrote: »

Yesterday the point was made that if in raising his foot Mane had flicked the ball over the keeper and scored it would have stood.

That would have been a free for dangerous play. If a player raises his foot that high in the middle of the park to control the ball, it's a free. We've seen that on countless occasions down the years.

Berserker

Berserker wrote: »

That would have been a free for dangerous play. If a player raises his foot that high in the middle of the park to control the ball, it's a free. We've seen that on countless occasions down the years.

Oh possibly. But the point was made in defending Mane that raising the foot is not per se a sending off, and they quoted some Dermot Gallagher type ex ref to say if he scored it would have stood. And I was saying that, like a player who throws out an elbow when no one is around, it's the presence of another's head in the area that makes it dangerous. He can have no complaints about the decision, it was clearly dangerous even if he did not intend it.

niallo27

Berserker wrote: »

That would have been a free for dangerous play. If a player raises his foot that high in the middle of the park to control the ball, it's a free. We've seen that on countless occasions down the years.

For a example so, should have Rooneys bicycle kick years ago been disallowed for a high foot.

Robson99

niallo27 wrote: »

For a example so, should have Rooneys bicycle kick years ago been disallowed for a high foot.

Rooney wasn't reckless though. Mane was.
While you bring it up some goal that was

niallo27

Robson99 wrote: »

Rooney wasn't reckless though. Mane was.
While you bring it up some goal that was

The poster said if the a player raises his foot that high it should be a free. It wasn't reckless because there was no one near him.

Liam McPoyle

niallo27 wrote: »

For a example so, should have Rooneys bicycle kick years ago been disallowed for a high foot.

Rooney didn't kick someone in the face.



If Mane hadn't his boot as high he would not have connected with the keepers face and Ederson would moat likely have gotten the line for clattering him.

Zlatan got frees against him last year in a couple of games where he tried to hook the ball down from a height, if he had kicked anyone in the head with them then he would have gotten cards.

mightyreds

martingriff wrote: »

Had to put the dig in at the end didn't you. Yes he served the red and on reflection himself and Klop will think so also. Not dirty just reckless he had eyes on the ball but should have had an idea what was around him

I think he means after he seen the stoke result

citytillidie

Post by Rio himself, Chelsea did not even get a free kick

https://twitter.com/rioferdy5/status/906620383465558017

niallo27

Business Cat wrote: »

Rooney didn't kick someone in the face.



If Mane hadn't his boot as high he would not have connected with the keepers face and Ederson would moat likely have gotten the line for clattering him.

Zlatan got frees against him last year in a couple of games where he tried to hook the ball down from a height, if he had kicked anyone in the head with them then he would have gotten cards.

Read the posts first man. I am saying just because a person raises his foot high doesn't mean its automatically a free kick. I am talking about circumstances where nobody is near the ball.

Kalel

Any tackle where you go in studs up 6 inches off the ground is deemed a dangerous tackle and a straight red so can't see why when you go in studs up nearly 6 feet of the ground can be deemed anything other than dangerous and a straight red..

Skylinehead

citytillidie wrote: »

Post by Rio himself, Chelsea did not even get a free kick

https://twitter.com/rioferdy5/status/906620383465558017

What's his point? Chelsea should have had a free there, pretty obvious.

A Dub in Glasgo

citytillidie wrote: »

Post by Rio himself, Chelsea did not even get a free kick

https://twitter.com/rioferdy5/status/906620383465558017

Not sure the point Rio is making

sReq | uTeK

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not

Switch the players in the actual incident, if Mane had got the ball with his head and Ederson came out with his studs up at about 5 feet and clattered Mane in the face, would Ederson got a red?

Maybe. But I'd argue that Edison can see the field of play ahead of him. He 110% knows mane is going for that ball. Mane on the other hand has no idea where the keeper is or whether he's coming off his line.

On further analysis it's a red by the letter of the law...but it's unfortunate as there is no intent and he's just doing what every striker would do and try and take the ball down

Robson99

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Maybe. But I'd argue that Edison can see the field of play ahead of him. He 110% knows mane is going for that ball. Mane on the other hand has no idea where the keeper is or whether he's coming off his line.

On further analysis it's a red by the letter of the law...but it's unfortunate as there is no intent and he's just doing what every striker would do and try and take the ball down

Why go so high with his foot if he thought Edison wasn't very close to him

A Dub in Glasgo

The belief that Mane had no idea the goalkeeper was going for the same ball is cloud cuckoo land material

54and56

Robson99 wrote: »

Why go so high with his foot if he thought Edison wasn't very close to him

There's no other reason a player would try to control a ball so high with his foot unless he knew there was an incoming challenge and if you look a the replay you can see that Mane looked towards the goal and must have seen Edison on his way out. That was when he decided to raise his boot to control the ball or nick it away from the inbound keeper. No one thinks he set out to make contact with the keeper but he knew he was incoming and what he did was dangerous according to the rules so he head to go.

Spoiled the game but that's life.

The Talking Bread

I love the phrase "no intent" that those who are defending Mane's actions are pulling out of the bag! As if they are suggesting that the fact he didn't actually mean to almost take the head off Ederson means anything in this instance! Because every other aspect of that incident he did intend.

54and56

The Talking Bread wrote: »

I love the phrase "no intent" that those who are defending Mane's actions are pulling out of the bag! As if they are suggesting that the fact he didn't actually mean to almost take the head off Ederson means anything in this instance! Because every other aspect of that incident he did intend.

Are you saying that someone going out with the deliberate intent to kick the head off an opponent is the equivalent of someone who had no such intent?

The Talking Bread

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Are you saying that someone going out with the deliberate intent to kick the head off an opponent is the equivalent of someone who had no such intent?

No but it means absolutely nothing in this incident. It is the actus reus of the incident itself. Mens rea means f*ck all when it comes to recklessness

pjohnson

The Talking Bread wrote: »

No but it means absolutely nothing in this incident. It is the actus reus of the incident itself. Mens rea means f*ck all when it comes to recklessness

Did Mané's boot get you aswell?

The Talking Bread

pjohnson wrote: »

Did Mané's boot get you aswell?

No.

Skylinehead

pjohnson wrote: »

Did Mané's boot get you aswell?

They're legitimate terms. Did it get you :pac:

niallo27

Skylinehead wrote: »

They're legitimate terms. Did it get you :pac:

Well I had to Google it and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Harry Palmr

The Talking Bread wrote: »

No but it means absolutely nothing in this incident. It is the actus reus of the incident itself. Mens rea means f*ck all when it comes to recklessness

Pretty sure we never did sign Reus.

The Talking Bread

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Pretty sure we never did sign Reus.

poor.....very poor!!

Agent Coulson

niallo27 wrote: »

Well I had to Google it and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Danny Rose did as well and found out that actus reus is Marco's younger brother :P

Giggsy11

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

There's no other reason a player would try to control a ball so high with his foot unless he knew there was an incoming challenge and if you look a the replay you can see that Mane looked towards the goal and must have seen Edison on his way out. That was when he decided to raise his boot to control the ball or nick it away from the inbound keeper. No one thinks he set out to make contact with the keeper but he knew he was incoming and what he did was dangerous according to the rules so he head to go.

Spoiled the game but that's life.

I don't think anyone said Mane did it deliberately, argument is it's a clear cut red card for kicking someone in the face, running at full speed.

Cantona's Collars

Giggsy11 wrote: »

I don't think anyone said Mane did it deliberately, argument is it's a clear cut red card for kicking someone in the face, running at full speed.

Not as deliberate as this which got no red card.

the whole year inn

zerks wrote: »

Not as deliberate as this which got no red card.

What that got to do with this incident.
It was a clear red and the ref gave the red.
Move on.

blueser

https://twitter.com/trevor8sinclair/status/907267648525885441

He was playacting, according to someone on here on saturday.

super_furry

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Pretty sure we never did sign Reus.

He's coming. Along with Dani Alves and Nuno Gomes.

super_furry

zerks wrote: »

Not as deliberate as this which got no red card.

That's still pretty hilarious in fairness.

A Dub in Glasgo

zerks wrote: »

Not as deliberate as this which got no red card.

Are you saying the ref got that decision right?

Giggsy11

blueser wrote: »

https://twitter.com/trevor8sinclair/status/907267648525885441

He was playacting, according to someone on here on saturday.

Oh God, that looks way way worse.

Cantona's Collars

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Are you saying the ref got that decision right?

In Uruguay it's a traditional greeting:):)