Football 2020 - 2021

[ad_orientem]

Florentino Perez: "People say this isn't about football merit, but it's wrong. Those 15 clubs earned it on the pitch, they've been winning trophies for the last 20 years. How can you say they haven't earned it?"

LOL!

[Nearly Sane]

Florentino Perez: "People say this isn't about football merit, but it's wrong. Those 15 clubs earned it on the pitch, they've been winning trophies for the last 20 years. How can you say they haven't earned it?"

LOL!

Spurs have a sniff of the Carabao Cup this weekend...

[ad_orientem]

Spurs have a sniff of the Carabao Cup this weekend...

Elite!

[jeremyp]

This is how deluded these big clubs are.

Florentino Perez: “It cannot be that in England, the six lose money, and 14 make money. In Spain the top three lose money, and the others make money. It cannot continue - at the moment the rich are those who are losing money.”

Paying over £100 million on a 28 year old player on £400,000 a week wages doesn't help mate. Is this not your own fault?

Whither financial fair play?

[ad_orientem]

Whither financial fair play?

FFP is a joke. We all know it, these clubs know it too and that's why they continue to do what they do. Barcelona and Real Madrid are in deep shit. It's their fault and I have absolutely no sympathy with them.

[jeremyp]

I've just listened to a very interesting podcast from Dan Snow entitled Football, Money and the European Super League

Some very interesting nuggets. For example, Everton - one of the clubs very anti-the ESL - was one of the "big six" that started the English Premier League. Also, the interviewee - Jonathan Wilson - managed to enumerate a number of reasons why the ESL could never have worked.

[ad_orientem]

Cheers! I'll listen to that later.

[ad_orientem]

Balbuena sending off biggest joke of the season so far. Sent off for kicking the ball.

[ad_orientem]

Balbuena sending off biggest joke of the season so far. Sent off for kicking the ball.

Unsurprisingly the red card has been overturned. Second time this season. The standard of refereeing is shocking.

[jeremyp]

Balbuena sending off biggest joke of the season so far. Sent off for kicking the ball.

No he wasn't. He was sent off for using his studs on another player. You can argue that it was accidental (and that seems to have been successful) but his studs definitely made contact with another player's leg.

[ad_orientem]

No he wasn't. He was sent off for using his studs on another player. You can argue that it was accidental (and that seems to have been successful) but his studs definitely made contact with another player's leg.

He kicked the ball. His leg had forward momentum. Chilwell came rushing in. Where was he meant to put his leg? Wasn't even a foul.

[ProfessorDavey]

No he wasn't. He was sent off for using his studs on another player. You can argue that it was accidental (and that seems to have been successful) but his studs definitely made contact with another player's leg.

Clearly he wasn't as the card has been overturned.

But it was a crazy decision in the first place - Balbuena kicked the ball and his natural follow-through meant he kicked Chilwell. There was no malice, no intent to foul - he just kicked the ball and guess what, football is about kicking the ball. I don't think it was even a foul let alone a card.

Jeremy - just because one players studs contact another player doesn't make it a foul or a card offence. You seem to be implying that contact of one players studs on another player somehow necessary constitutes a foul - it doesn't.

[jeremyp]

Clearly he wasn't as the card has been overturned.

But it was a crazy decision in the first place - Balbuena kicked the ball and his natural follow-through meant he kicked Chilwell. There was no malice, no intent to foul - he just kicked the ball and guess what, football is about kicking the ball. I don't think it was even a foul let alone a card.

Jeremy - just because one players studs contact another player doesn't make it a foul or a card offence. You seem to be implying that contact of one players studs on another player somehow necessary constitutes a foul - it doesn't.

I was just commenting on being carded for kicking the ball. That’s just not true. He wasn’t.

[ProfessorDavey]

I was just commenting on being carded for kicking the ball. That’s just not true. He wasn’t.

But your response clearly implied that if a players studs made contact with another player that necessarily constituted a foul (or even a card) - that isn't the case.

I think you are on a losing wicket on this one given that pretty well universally the one decision was condemned as being crazy and indeed the authorities ultimately agreed too and rescinded the wrongly awarded red card.

[Nearly Sane]

Real Madrid player may miss 2nd leg semi final Champions League because of polling duty. Didn't know Spain had this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56915346

[jeremyp]

But your response clearly implied that if a players studs made contact with another player that necessarily constituted a foul (or even a card) - that isn't the case.

No it doesn't. It implies that the referee looked at the studs making contact with another player (dangerously, even if accidental, I might add) and sent the player off for doing that, not for kicking the ball.

I think you are on a losing wicket on this one given that pretty well universally the one decision was condemned as being crazy and indeed the authorities ultimately agreed too and rescinded the wrongly awarded red card.

I'm not arguing for or against the decision at all. I'm merely pointing out that ad_o's assertion that he was sent off for kicking the ball is wrong.

[ProfessorDavey]

No it doesn't. It implies that the referee looked at the studs making contact with another player (dangerously, even if accidental, I might add) and sent the player off for doing that, not for kicking the ball.

But realistically neither AdO nor your assertion is really correct. So the ref didn't send the player off for kicking the ball, nor did he send the player off because his studs hit another player (as you've claimed) - he sent the player off, presumably, because he saw it as dangerous play. Now he was wrong in that view as the card has been rescinded. The reality is that had the contact between the onrushing Chilwell (who didn't come close to getting the ball) and Balbuena (who perfectly legitimately cleared the ball) been slightly different, then it would be considered a foul committed by Chilwell, not Balbuena.

[jeremyp]

But realistically neither AdO nor your assertion is really correct. So the ref didn't send the player off for kicking the ball, nor did he send the player off because his studs hit another player (as you've claimed) - he sent the player off, presumably, because he saw it as dangerous play.

Yes. But it wasn't kicking the ball he thought was dangerous.

Now he was wrong in that view as the card has been rescinded. The reality is that had the contact between the onrushing Chilwell (who didn't come close to getting the ball) and Balbuena (who perfectly legitimately cleared the ball) been slightly different, then it would be considered a foul committed by Chilwell, not Balbuena.

Have you even seen the incident?

[ProfessorDavey]

Have you even seen the incident?

Yes several times. Had Chilwell and Balbuena collided in a slightly different manner - (Chilwell clattering into Balbuena's outstretched follow through leg rather than Balbuena's outstretched follow through ending up planted on Chilwells calf) then it would have been a foul to West Ham at the very least. Why - because Balbuena had the ball and had legitimately cleared it prior to the collision.

[jeremyp]

Here's the BBC's clip for the record.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56907307

Yes several times. Had Chilwell and Balbuena collided in a slightly different manner

Well they didn't did they. Chilwell was nowhere near clattering Balbuena as he'd already pulled out of the "tackle" (or was turning away because the ball was flying past him).

- (Balbuena's outstretched follow through ending up planted on Chilwells calf)

Actually, his foot spanned the lower thigh, knee and upper calf. Chilwell could have ended up with a serious injury if his leg had been more side on or if Balbuena had made contact lower down. This is why I said it was dangerous.

But it's pretty obvious that Balbuena was carded not for the kick of the ball but the subsequent contact with Chilwell. Both ad_o and Gary Lineker were wrong to say he was carded for kicking the ball.

[ProfessorDavey]

Here's the BBC's clip for the record.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56907307

Yes - as I say I've seen it serval times.

Well they didn't did they. Chilwell was nowhere near clattering Balbuena as he'd already pulled out of the "tackle" (or was turning away because the ball was flying past him).

So what - in fact the the only scenario where it might have been Balbuena rather than Chilwell sanctioned was the scenario that actually occurred. Had Balbuena's leg been in any other position and there had been contact between the two of them with the ball long gone then it would have been a foul against Chilwell.

Actually, his foot spanned the lower thigh, knee and upper calf. Chilwell could have ended up with a serious injury if his leg had been more side on or if Balbuena had made contact lower down.

That a player might have been injured or was actually injured doesn't necessarily indicate that a foul has been committed, let alone a card offence. Players can, and do, get injured all the time in perfectly legitimate challenges.

This is why I said it was dangerous.

Well I, and the officials who over-ruled the card, don't agree. There was nothing inherently dangerous (in terms of the laws of the game) in what Balbuena did. He legitimately kicked the ball, his follow through was natural and not excessively high. His only issue was that Chilwell's leg happened to be in the place where his natural follow through took him. He did nothing wrong even though the unfortunate set of events could have ended with one, or both of them injured - but to reiterate, just because a player might have been (or even is) injured in a collision doesn't mean it is an offence or considered to be dangerous under the laws of the game.

[ProfessorDavey]

Actually, his foot spanned the lower thigh, knee and upper calf. Chilwell could have ended up with a serious injury if his leg had been more side on or if Balbuena had made contact lower down. This is why I said it was dangerous.

To reiterate - just because a player might be injured in a tackle or a collision, or even is injured, doesn't mean it is an offence, let alone a card offence.

You may remember this incident which in many ways was similar except Gomes suffered a horrendous injury in the tackle. As with Balbuena, Son was ultimately found not to have committed any offence and the card was rescinded.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/50309594.amp

[Nearly Sane]

From Danny Baker on twitter


The greatest thing, as a script writer, would be if Chelsea make the final tonight.
Chelsea then sign retired John Terry again because they have a hunch.
Final goes to penalties
They bring on JT.
World holds its breath.
And on the run up he slips over, fucking it up again.

[jeremyp]

Yes - as I say I've seen it serval times.
So what - in fact the the only scenario where it might have been Balbuena rather than Chilwell sanctioned was the scenario that actually occurred. Had Balbuena's leg been in any other position and there had been contact between the two of them with the ball long gone then it would have been a foul against Chilwell.
That a player might have been injured or was actually injured doesn't necessarily indicate that a foul has been committed, let alone a card offence. Players can, and do, get injured all the time in perfectly legitimate challenges.
Well I, and the officials who over-ruled the card, don't agree. There was nothing inherently dangerous (in terms of the laws of the game) in what Balbuena did. He legitimately kicked the ball, his follow through was natural and not excessively high. His only issue was that Chilwell's leg happened to be in the place where his natural follow through took him. He did nothing wrong even though the unfortunate set of events could have ended with one, or both of them injured - but to reiterate, just because a player might have been (or even is) injured in a collision doesn't mean it is an offence or considered to be dangerous under the laws of the game.

Oh FFS. For an intelligent person, your reading for comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. I haven't said anything about whether I consider the incident to be a foul or not. All I have said, and defended, is that the idea he was sent off for kicking the ball is false.

[jeremyp]

There was nothing inherently dangerous (in terms of the laws of the game) in what Balbuena did. He legitimately kicked the ball, his follow through was natural and not excessively high. His only issue was that Chilwell's leg happened to be in the place where his natural follow through took him. He did nothing wrong even though the unfortunate set of events could have ended with one, or both of them injured - but to reiterate, just because a player might have been (or even is) injured in a collision doesn't mean it is an offence or considered to be dangerous under the laws of the game.

Things can be dangerous without being deliberate or anybody's fault. Chilton could have been injured by what happened. How you can say that such a contact with a player's knee is not dangerous is beyond me.

But whether something is dangerous is a different question to whether somebody has to be punished for it.