|
|
Post by Million Dollar Babies on Dec 31, 2023 10:02:12 GMT 1
Has anyone got footage of it?
Pretty sure it was worse than what Saville gets sent off for at the end of this game. Just shows that referees do not interpret the laws in the same way.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevvy on Dec 31, 2023 10:11:30 GMT 1
Looking at that tackle, yeah I'd say the one on Burgzorg is absolutely worse. He got a 3 game ban for that tackle too.....
|
|
wildhogg
Darren Bullock Terrier
Posts: 910
|
Post by wildhogg on Dec 31, 2023 10:26:23 GMT 1
However horrid the tackle was (and it was absolutely horrid), it should have been a straight red as it denied a clear goalscoring opportunity. The Zorg was through, irrespective of him heading on a slight angle away from the goal at the point of being hacked down. There's nothing in the rule book saying that the player needs to be heading in a straight line direct towards the dead centre of the goal if a red card is going to be given. Pathetic refereeing.
|
|
|
|
Post by philstarbuckscoffee on Dec 31, 2023 11:08:27 GMT 1
Not trying to be argumentative. At the time of seeing it in the ground, I didn’t expect a red (due to denying a goal scoring opportunity) as due to the distance out and the angle, there was scope for a defender, for example the right back, to have got across.
The tackle was dirty and very cynical as if he hadn’t been taken out then he might have scored a stunning solo goal. But we will never know. Real shame as Burgzorg looked class and hopefully is coming into form for us.
Fingers crossed he is back soon and wish one of our players had made a similar tackle when that Plymouth player waltzed through our team on the opening game of the season!
|
|
|
|
Post by rockwall on Dec 31, 2023 11:21:40 GMT 1
Not trying to be argumentative. At the time of seeing it in the ground, I didn’t expect a red (due to denying a goal scoring opportunity) as due to the distance out and the angle, there was scope for a defender, for example the right back, to have got across. The tackle was dirty and very cynical as if he hadn’t been taken out then he might have scored a stunning solo goal. But we will never know. Real shame as Burgzorg looked class and hopefully is coming into form for us. Fingers crossed he is back soon and wish one of our players had made a similar tackle when that Plymouth player waltzed through our team on the opening game of the season! 1. From behind 2. Feet off the floor 3. Professional foul 4. Burgzorg is about to go into space towards goal. At least 2 of those points are yellows. Straight red all day long. |
|
|
|
Post by detox on Dec 31, 2023 11:36:20 GMT 1
all refs are shit....in every league...
|
|
|
|
Post by themanfromatlantis on Dec 31, 2023 12:06:11 GMT 1
The Ref could have consulted his linesman on this one. Their no. 17 knew he’d dodged one there. We rarely attacked him after that though, he should have been targeted for a second yellow by the forwards.
I can’t remember how far behind the Ref was on this one.
Edit to say he had a great view of this, no attempt to play the ball should always be a red for me anyway. I suspect he thought he’d clipped his ankle rather than raked his studs on Burgzorg. Dirty git regardless.
3.10 in.
|
|
|
|
Post by ilsonterrier on Dec 31, 2023 12:20:24 GMT 1
At the time I didn't think it was a red card as there were 2 covering defenders. However, on seeing the replay, the player was nowhere near getting the ball. He wasn't even close, it was just a cynical challenge to stop Burgzorg, and it should have been a red card
|
|
|
|
Post by Jello Biafra on Dec 31, 2023 12:25:51 GMT 1
At the time I didn't think it was a red card as there were 2 covering defenders. However, on seeing the replay, the player was nowhere near getting the ball. He wasn't even close, it was just a cynical challenge to stop Burgzorg, and it should have been a red card Yup, saw it again last night, and the defender is at least 6ft away from the ball when he launches himself into the back of Dela. He’s that far away that it’s virtually an-off-the ball assault. Straight red. |
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Dec 31, 2023 12:28:14 GMT 1
Had he viciously kicked the ball away or held up a free kick which ended a fellow professionals season, he would have been sent off, no doubt🙄
This 'taking one for the team' foul has to be eradicated.
You may as well kick the bloke getting off the coach in the car park when assaults absolutely nowhere near the ball are being committed on the pitch and not getting a red.
These fouls are always blindingly obvious to see by the refs, they are not any reasonable part of the game and need removing. When there is NO ATTEMPT to play the ball and some of these rugby tackles from behind or just trips, lunges etc are ludicrous, then its a red card.
|
|
|
|
Post by impact on Dec 31, 2023 14:52:03 GMT 1
It could have been a red card for DOGSO.
It definitely was a red card for serious foul play. He left the ground which should mean any contact is a red card. He has made no intention to play the ball, he has just played the man. The ankle has buckled under the weight of the challenge. There was excessive force. Any of those points is a red card.
It was a coward's challenge.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockwall on Dec 31, 2023 15:24:08 GMT 1
Do that to someone in the street and you would be arrested for ABH!!
|
|
|
|
Post by philstarbuckscoffee on Jan 1, 2024 19:55:01 GMT 1
Not trying to be argumentative. At the time of seeing it in the ground, I didn’t expect a red (due to denying a goal scoring opportunity) as due to the distance out and the angle, there was scope for a defender, for example the right back, to have got across. The tackle was dirty and very cynical as if he hadn’t been taken out then he might have scored a stunning solo goal. But we will never know. Real shame as Burgzorg looked class and hopefully is coming into form for us. Fingers crossed he is back soon and wish one of our players had made a similar tackle when that Plymouth player waltzed through our team on the opening game of the season! 1. From behind 2. Feet off the floor 3. Professional foul 4. Burgzorg is about to go into space towards goal. At least 2 of those points are yellows. Straight red all day long. Yes completely agree it was a red. I was just commenting on when I first saw it and the position of their players. When I saw It back on a replay it was 100% a red. The referee was a lot closer than me so should have been able to make the right call |
|
|
|
Post by Terriersmad on Jan 1, 2024 21:41:04 GMT 1
It could have been a red card for DOGSO. It definitely was a red card for serious foul play. He left the ground which should mean any contact is a red card. He has made no intention to play the ball, he has just played the man. The ankle has buckled under the weight of the challenge. There was excessive force. Any of those points is a red card. It was a coward's challenge. My only disagreement - it's not DOGSO because of where is it on the pitch and too many covering defenders. He wasn't about to get a shot off in a great position, nor was he moving into one particularly. The FA overturned a ban for Barry Bannan recently despite him tripping a player as he was about to shoot on the edge of the area with most of the goal to aim at, so no chance of a red card when 40 yards out! (For what it's worth, I actually thought the Bannan one was a red and the ref got it right, but there you go). On serious foul play - spot on. You're looking for a dangerous challenge, the hallmark of which is excessive force, indicators for which may include being off the ground. Replays clearly show both feet off the floor and a lunging motion (contact is also made with a downwards motion, with a straight leg - from behind, to boot. Full contact with Burgzorg breaks his leg/ankle, which is more likely in this situation as it is from behind and Burgzorg has no opportunity to avoid the challenge). I'd also argue violent conduct. It's an attempt to play the man with the ball nowhere near. I quote the definition of violent conduct: 'Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.' He's not challenging for the ball. He's gone to do Burgzorg with no intent for the ball. It's the worst challenge I've seen in 10 years, since Dale Stephens' thigh-high challenge on Adam Hammill in the Cup, a challenge that also only somehow brought a yellow card. |
|
|
|
Post by spenvalleyterrier on Jan 5, 2024 20:51:48 GMT 1
So Burgzorg is out for the foreseeable future thanks to that appalling tackle by Blackburn’s Carter.
He made no attempt to play the ball and whilst deserving a straight red for dangerous play he escaped with a yellow.
As a result the FA can’t take any retrospective action.
To my mind any player deliberately setting out to injure a player like Carter did shouldn’t be allowed to play again until the injured player returns from injury.
|
|
|
|
Post by keithAM11532 on Jan 5, 2024 20:53:52 GMT 1
Bumping
|
|
|
|
Post by sapphireblue on Jan 5, 2024 22:21:36 GMT 1
So Burgzorg is out for the foreseeable future thanks to that appalling tackle by Blackburn’s Carter. He made no attempt to play the ball and whilst deserving a straight red for dangerous play he escaped with a yellow. As a result the FA can’t take any retrospective action. To my mind any player deliberately setting out to injure a player like Carter did shouldn’t be allowed to play again until the injured player returns from injury. Every card, for everything, in the pro game, should be reviewed by the VAR system. What harm could it do and.... It just might find some Clear And Obvious Errors |
|
|
|
Post by rockwall on Jan 5, 2024 22:23:45 GMT 1
So Burgzorg is out for the foreseeable future thanks to that appalling tackle by Blackburn’s Carter. He made no attempt to play the ball and whilst deserving a straight red for dangerous play he escaped with a yellow. As a result the FA can’t take any retrospective action. To my mind any player deliberately setting out to injure a player like Carter did shouldn’t be allowed to play again until the injured player returns from injury. Reminds me of that twat Ledson when he did it to Elphick. Ref gave a yellow, Elphick never played again. Burgzorg will play again, that wasn't my point haha. |
|
|
|
Post by softboy on Jan 5, 2024 22:25:36 GMT 1
And I assume he will miss the Blackburn away game in 2 weeks, whereas their player will be fit and raring to go and find another victim!
|
|
|
|
Post by Terriersmad on Jan 5, 2024 23:01:49 GMT 1
So Burgzorg is out for the foreseeable future thanks to that appalling tackle by Blackburn’s Carter. He made no attempt to play the ball and whilst deserving a straight red for dangerous play he escaped with a yellow. As a result the FA can’t take any retrospective action. To my mind any player deliberately setting out to injure a player like Carter did shouldn’t be allowed to play again until the injured player returns from injury. Reminds me of that twat Ledson when he did it to Elphick. Ref gave a yellow, Elphick never played again. Burgzorg will play again, that wasn't my point haha. Footballing sanctions are a joke, especially the 'no retrospective action' rule. Misjudge a challenge that, slowed down, looks bad and has a raised boot? Three match ban. Deliberately put someone out of the game and inflict a medium-term injury? Three match ban. Punch someone in the head at a corner? Three match ban. Push someone in the neck? Three match ban. Those are subject to being seen by a man on the ground who has a split second to make a decision in the context of a sporting context. Red or yellow? Get it wrong? Well, the FA will support the original decision, right or wrong. Bit of a soft red? Red stands, you miss three games. Ref's missed one and a player's out of action for a couple of months? Don't worry, you miss nothing whatsoever because the ref on the day made a mistake. It's utter rubbish. Because those sanctions are so completely haphazard and devoid of any kind of natural justice, thugs get away with attempted GBH while players who make a mistake get punished disproportionately because of a split-second subjective judgement that's not subject to review in 95% of cases. The fact is that when a player can be shown to have inflicted injury in an incident where there has been no intent for the ball and the force is objectively disproportionate, even if the ref makes a mistake at the time, the FA should be stepping in and banning those players for the good of the game. There cannot be sporting integrity where the governing body doesn't sanction extreme foul play, teams are left with players injured because of intentional harm being done in incidents while the perpetrators get away scot free. |
|
|
|
Post by colnevalleyblue on Jan 5, 2024 23:13:03 GMT 1
Anyone an idea what kind of injury it is?
Asking so we could speculate on the timescale of his absence.
Id' had several pints pre match but to my recollection Burgzorg completed the match.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockwall on Jan 5, 2024 23:45:22 GMT 1
Reminds me of that twat Ledson when he did it to Elphick. Ref gave a yellow, Elphick never played again. Burgzorg will play again, that wasn't my point haha. Footballing sanctions are a joke, especially the 'no retrospective action' rule. Misjudge a challenge that, slowed down, looks bad and has a raised boot? Three match ban. Deliberately put someone out of the game and inflict a medium-term injury? Three match ban. Punch someone in the head at a corner? Three match ban. Push someone in the neck? Three match ban. Those are subject to being seen by a man on the ground who has a split second to make a decision in the context of a sporting context. Red or yellow? Get it wrong? Well, the FA will support the original decision, right or wrong. Bit of a soft red? Red stands, you miss three games. Ref's missed one and a player's out of action for a couple of months? Don't worry, you miss nothing whatsoever because the ref on the day made a mistake. It's utter rubbish. Because those sanctions are so completely haphazard and devoid of any kind of natural justice, thugs get away with attempted GBH while players who make a mistake get punished disproportionately because of a split-second subjective judgement that's not subject to review in 95% of cases. The fact is that when a player can be shown to have inflicted injury in an incident where there has been no intent for the ball and the force is objectively disproportionate, even if the ref makes a mistake at the time, the FA should be stepping in and banning those players for the good of the game. There cannot be sporting integrity where the governing body doesn't sanction extreme foul play, teams are left with players injured because of intentional harm being done in incidents while the perpetrators get away scot free. 100% I look at the tackles on Burgzorg, Elphick etc. Even other games not involving us. How can some players not get a retrospective punishment? Then you have Camvert-Lewim last night, in my opinion, it wasn't even a foul! VAR and referee going to a screen give him a red. It's absolute ludicrous. I have mentioned before, VAR should be a review system. If the captain feels the officials have missed something, 1 review per half. Instances, again for us, involve handballs V Southampton and Middlesbrough, Swansea foul on Hogg for the equaliser, and I'm sure there are many more. Hogg/Helik question it (if VAR was in use in the Championship) and we more than likely get those decisions in our favour. There would be no talk of referees or VAR making human / technological error. But for me, football doesn't want to follow what works with other sports. They believe they are the best and want to make sure they do it their way, which right now is abysmal. Assistant to the assistant on VAR?  Wow. |
|
goodbet
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Posts: 4,610
|
Post by goodbet on Jan 6, 2024 0:12:42 GMT 1
Footballing sanctions are a joke, especially the 'no retrospective action' rule. Misjudge a challenge that, slowed down, looks bad and has a raised boot? Three match ban. Deliberately put someone out of the game and inflict a medium-term injury? Three match ban. Punch someone in the head at a corner? Three match ban. Push someone in the neck? Three match ban. Those are subject to being seen by a man on the ground who has a split second to make a decision in the context of a sporting context. Red or yellow? Get it wrong? Well, the FA will support the original decision, right or wrong. Bit of a soft red? Red stands, you miss three games. Ref's missed one and a player's out of action for a couple of months? Don't worry, you miss nothing whatsoever because the ref on the day made a mistake. It's utter rubbish. Because those sanctions are so completely haphazard and devoid of any kind of natural justice, thugs get away with attempted GBH while players who make a mistake get punished disproportionately because of a split-second subjective judgement that's not subject to review in 95% of cases. The fact is that when a player can be shown to have inflicted injury in an incident where there has been no intent for the ball and the force is objectively disproportionate, even if the ref makes a mistake at the time, the FA should be stepping in and banning those players for the good of the game. There cannot be sporting integrity where the governing body doesn't sanction extreme foul play, teams are left with players injured because of intentional harm being done in incidents while the perpetrators get away scot free. 100% I look at the tackles on Burgzorg, Elphick etc. Even other games not involving us. How can some players not get a retrospective punishment? Then you have Camvert-Lewim last night, in my opinion, it wasn't even a foul! VAR and referee going to a screen give him a red. It's absolute ludicrous. I have mentioned before, VAR should be a review system. If the captain feels the officials have missed something, 1 review per half. Instances, again for us, involve handballs V Southampton and Middlesbrough, Swansea foul on Hogg for the equaliser, and I'm sure there are many more. Hogg/Helik question it (if VAR was in use in the Championship) and we more than likely get those decisions in our favour. There would be no talk of referees or VAR making human / technological error. But for me, football doesn't want to follow what works with other sports. They believe they are the best and want to make sure they do it their way, which right now is abysmal. Assistant to the assistant on VAR? Wow. I don't have your faith in the footballing authorities, I think that they just want to control results and get big clubs rewarded. |
|
|
|
Post by detox on Jan 6, 2024 1:03:36 GMT 1
Anyone an idea what kind of injury it is? Asking so we could speculate on the timescale of his absence. Id' had several pints pre match but to my recollection Burgzorg completed the match. 8 weeks...? |
|
|
|
Post by htafcokay on Jan 6, 2024 11:01:13 GMT 1
It could have been a red card for DOGSO. It definitely was a red card for serious foul play. He left the ground which should mean any contact is a red card. He has made no intention to play the ball, he has just played the man. The ankle has buckled under the weight of the challenge. There was excessive force. Any of those points is a red card. It was a coward's challenge. My only disagreement - it's not DOGSO because of where is it on the pitch and too many covering defenders. He wasn't about to get a shot off in a great position, nor was he moving into one particularly. The FA overturned a ban for Barry Bannan recently despite him tripping a player as he was about to shoot on the edge of the area with most of the goal to aim at, so no chance of a red card when 40 yards out! (For what it's worth, I actually thought the Bannan one was a red and the ref got it right, but there you go). On serious foul play - spot on. You're looking for a dangerous challenge, the hallmark of which is excessive force, indicators for which may include being off the ground. Replays clearly show both feet off the floor and a lunging motion (contact is also made with a downwards motion, with a straight leg - from behind, to boot. Full contact with Burgzorg breaks his leg/ankle, which is more likely in this situation as it is from behind and Burgzorg has no opportunity to avoid the challenge). I'd also argue violent conduct. It's an attempt to play the man with the ball nowhere near. I quote the definition of violent conduct: 'Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.' He's not challenging for the ball. He's gone to do Burgzorg with no intent for the ball. It's the worst challenge I've seen in 10 years, since Dale Stephens' thigh-high challenge on Adam Hammill in the Cup, a challenge that also only somehow brought a yellow card. Adam Hammill was never the same after that, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Bassingham Terrier on Jan 6, 2024 11:24:48 GMT 1
My only disagreement - it's not DOGSO because of where is it on the pitch and too many covering defenders. He wasn't about to get a shot off in a great position, nor was he moving into one particularly. The FA overturned a ban for Barry Bannan recently despite him tripping a player as he was about to shoot on the edge of the area with most of the goal to aim at, so no chance of a red card when 40 yards out! (For what it's worth, I actually thought the Bannan one was a red and the ref got it right, but there you go). On serious foul play - spot on. You're looking for a dangerous challenge, the hallmark of which is excessive force, indicators for which may include being off the ground. Replays clearly show both feet off the floor and a lunging motion (contact is also made with a downwards motion, with a straight leg - from behind, to boot. Full contact with Burgzorg breaks his leg/ankle, which is more likely in this situation as it is from behind and Burgzorg has no opportunity to avoid the challenge). I'd also argue violent conduct. It's an attempt to play the man with the ball nowhere near. I quote the definition of violent conduct: 'Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.' He's not challenging for the ball. He's gone to do Burgzorg with no intent for the ball. It's the worst challenge I've seen in 10 years, since Dale Stephens' thigh-high challenge on Adam Hammill in the Cup, a challenge that also only somehow brought a yellow card.Adam Hammill was never the same after that, in my opinion. Remember this very well. Happened right in front of me. Yellow card. Unbelievable. |
|
|
|
Post by htafcokay on Jan 6, 2024 11:25:35 GMT 1
Adam Hammill was never the same after that, in my opinion. Remember this very well. Happened right in front of me. Yellow card. Unbelievable. Yes, disgusting challenge and one that always sticks in my memory whenever I see Dale Stephens on the telly. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Mcgee on Jan 6, 2024 11:30:39 GMT 1
Time to bring in the "Orange" card for deliberate, 'tactical' fouls like this (or slightly lesser ones if you believe that was a red). 20 minute sin-bin results.
Currently, players can cynically trip, pull back and prevent a really dangerous situation developing and get away pretty much scot free, apart from the obligatory, meaningless yellow.
If they were gonna go off for 20 minutes they'd soon stop. Use it sparingly - just for blatant stuff - need to make sure the refs don't fuck it up like they have with VAR though.
|
|
|
|
Post by detox on Jan 6, 2024 12:12:53 GMT 1
Time to bring in the "Orange" card for deliberate, 'tactical' fouls like this (or slightly lesser ones if you believe that was a red). 20 minute sin-bin results. Currently, players can cynically trip, pull back and prevent a really dangerous situation developing and get away pretty much scot free, apart from the obligatory, meaningless yellow. If they were gonna go off for 20 minutes they'd soon stop. Use it sparingly - just for blatant stuff - need to make sure the refs don't fuck it up like they have with VAR though. while I agree in principle to sin binning I just think the fans will then suffer10/20 minutes of time wasting, feigned injuries etc etc.. It's bad enough now,,,and anyway what if a Player gets sin binned with just 5 minutes on the clock?
Rules are rules and refs should start applying them properly...
|
|
|
|
Post by richhtfc on Jan 6, 2024 12:49:04 GMT 1
It could have been a red card for DOGSO. It definitely was a red card for serious foul play. He left the ground which should mean any contact is a red card. He has made no intention to play the ball, he has just played the man. The ankle has buckled under the weight of the challenge. There was excessive force. Any of those points is a red card. It was a coward's challenge. My only disagreement - it's not DOGSO because of where is it on the pitch and too many covering defenders. He wasn't about to get a shot off in a great position, nor was he moving into one particularly. The FA overturned a ban for Barry Bannan recently despite him tripping a player as he was about to shoot on the edge of the area with most of the goal to aim at, so no chance of a red card when 40 yards out! (For what it's worth, I actually thought the Bannan one was a red and the ref got it right, but there you go). On serious foul play - spot on. You're looking for a dangerous challenge, the hallmark of which is excessive force, indicators for which may include being off the ground. Replays clearly show both feet off the floor and a lunging motion (contact is also made with a downwards motion, with a straight leg - from behind, to boot. Full contact with Burgzorg breaks his leg/ankle, which is more likely in this situation as it is from behind and Burgzorg has no opportunity to avoid the challenge). I'd also argue violent conduct. It's an attempt to play the man with the ball nowhere near. I quote the definition of violent conduct: 'Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.' He's not challenging for the ball. He's gone to do Burgzorg with no intent for the ball. It's the worst challenge I've seen in 10 years, since Dale Stephens' thigh-high challenge on Adam Hammill in the Cup, a challenge that also only somehow brought a yellow card. Wasn’t as bad as Charlie Austin kicking Lossl in the face, that’s the worst foul I’ve ever seen. He was charged with violent conduct afterwards but no card in the game as I remember it? |
|
Wow. 
