There's a massive difference between going in to head the ball and flying in with your studs showing above waist height. Mane didn't mean to hit the keeper but any reasonable person would know that the keeper was coming out and so by doing that you're putting them in danger.
Either way, if someone goes in for a head recklessly then they can be sent off as well.
So waving your arms in an aerial duel, smashing somones face in with your elbow shouldn't warrant a red card?Not a red for me. There is no intent at all, it's just an unfortunate collision.
Furthermore both players are instinctively acting quickly so it's difficult to judge either when the pace of the game is so quick.
If another player attempts an over head kick and catches someone in the face with their follow through, having only eyes for the ball, do they get sent off as well?
Had that red been for a smaller team I doubt any of the pundits would have said a damn thing. Since its Liverpool it is some kind of travesty.
What part of kicking someone in the face (studs first) isn't a red card?
"He was looking at the ball" - well perhaps as a pro footballer who is supposed to be aware of what is going on around him he should work on that particular skill?
"There was no intent" - doesn't need to be intentional if it is dangerous.
"the ref ruined the game" - no he applied the rules, when a player has broken the rules and in such a dangerous way that there was serious concern for the health of the GK,then the ref has no choice!
"I would go for that ball every time" - And you would get sent off every time you made contact with the keeper. You were a dirty wanker as a player Alan we all know that, but you can't seriously be suggesting there was nothing wrong with that challenge. Even if he had won the ball the ref could have still blown for a high dangerous foot next the the keepers head.
Intent not a factor.Not a red for me. There is no intent at all, it's just an unfortunate collision.
Furthermore both players are instinctively acting quickly so it's difficult to judge either when the pace of the game is so quick.
If another player attempts an over head kick and catches someone in the face with their follow through, having only eyes for the ball, do they get sent off as well?
So waving your arms in an aerial duel, smashing somones face in with your elbow shouldn't warrant a red card?
You are mixing argument and points all swirled inside flawed logic. Just because a player has a right to challenge for a ball does not entitle him to maim another player. It also doesn't protect them from any punishments resulting from the challenge.I hate Liverpool with a passion, and laughed when he got sent off but that's massively ott. I acually agree with the motd pundits. If Kane had a chance to get a 50/50 ball in a similar situation what course of action would appease you. I know if he didn't even challenge I'd be dissapointed,
Mane knew he couldn't make it with his head so he took a gamble by trying to knock the ball past the keeper with his foot, if it had worked, it would of been brilliant forward play, as it didn't it looks bad, but aggravated assault...marone.
I'll say it now, I don't think it was a red. That's the game
Alli's was a petulent hack. Totally different
Usually love your post...this is not one of them. Please explain to me how you judge a man's intent? Before you waste any time trying to conjure up anything the answer is 'you can't'. You can look for proxies but you can never tell what is in a man's mind. Mane has form for leaving a little in challenges. Think of how many times he did it to Danny last year at the lane. He probably should have been sent off twice that game. I am NOT saying he intended to foot him in the face. I AM saying that he was reckless and endangered another player so it was a red. All the other stuff you write is immaterial to the referees decision.Not a red for me. There is no intent at all, it's just an unfortunate collision.
Furthermore both players are instinctively acting quickly so it's difficult to judge either when the pace of the game is so quick.
If another player attempts an over head kick and catches someone in the face with their follow through, having only eyes for the ball, do they get sent off as well?
I am probably in the minority here but I don't think it was a Red Card. Your last comment sums this up imo. If he had won the ball it "may" have been a booking. He had every right to go for that ball, he was not looking at the keeper and should not have 100% expected him to be there that far outside the box. If Ederson had stayed on his line and Sane had raised his foot to bring the ball under control in acres of space should that be a booking.
If Ederson had got straight up again there woukd not be as much controversy surrounding it. Unfortunately he did have to go off the pitch but that isn't the reason to automatically declare it a red card.
Yes there are rules that are there to protect players, but they do include malicious and intent. Yes his boot was high but there is no direct rule against that. There was no intent and I would say it was an innocent attempt to get the ball. Hence should have been a yellow and not red.
It is similar to why we have murder and manslaughter charges in the UK. They both cover the same crime but mitigating circumstances reflect different (and normally appropriate) punishments.
That wasn't a flick of the boot, it was studs up flying kick. There may not have been intent but he was running full pelt and jumped with an extended leg to get the ballNot sure about that. A flick of a boot might not be as bad as a full blooded clash of heads. It's not like Mane was about to blast the ball with his foot, now that would be much different imo.
It is in paragraphs...but you're right I could break it up further. I just got a little pissed.Perhaps you need to break that up into paragraphs.
The mitigating circumstances in this case should see a reduced suspension however there is absolutely no way that he should have stayed on the pitch.
I think he is more likely to see an enhanced suspension than a reduced suspension. In addition to the seriousness of the offense, Mane also lingered on the pitch a while before one of his teammates escorted him off the pitch.
The fact that Ederson's injuries look not to be severe, probably keep this as a 3-match suspension - as it would for any straight red.
Exactly! The reason he had his foot so high was due to the fact that he knew he had to get that high to beat the GK to the ball, therefore he knew the risk and knew exactly where Ederson was.Who suggested it was a red card just for a high boot with nobody around him? So you agree it may have been a booking even if he won the ball? Not sure I understand what point you are trying to make.
There does not need to be malicious intent to be an offence:
I certainly am not suggesting he should have been sent off because of the resulting injury, he was correctly sent off for gambling with the safety of another player. If his foot was lower and caught him on the knee it would have been a red card. The fact he did not check where the goalie is, is immaterial. Unless he is under some kind of illusion that he is the only person on the pitch he must understand that there was a chance someone was going to be challenging for the ball, his ignorance of where the goalie was does not matter. I don't think there is any chance he had not checked at some point to see whether the GK was coming out for it.
- Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
- Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
The mitigating circumstances in this case could see a reduced suspension however there is absolutely no way that he should have stayed on the pitch.
Who suggested it was a red card just for a high boot with nobody around him? So you agree it may have been a booking even if he won the ball? Not sure I understand what point you are trying to make.
There does not need to be malicious intent to be an offence:
I certainly am not suggesting he should have been sent off because of the resulting injury, he was correctly sent off for gambling with the safety of another player. If his foot was lower and caught him on the knee it would have been a red card. The fact he did not check where the goalie is, is immaterial. Unless he is under some kind of illusion that he is the only person on the pitch he must understand that there was a chance someone was going to be challenging for the ball, his ignorance of where the goalie was does not matter. I don't think there is any chance he had not checked at some point to see whether the GK was coming out for it.
- Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
- Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
The mitigating circumstances in this case could see a reduced suspension however there is absolutely no way that he should have stayed on the pitch.
You are mixing argument and points all swirled inside flawed logic. Just because a player has a right to challenge for a ball does not entitle him to maim another player. It also doesn't protect them from any punishments resulting from the challenge.
Mane's part in the challenge was reckless and endangered another player's safety. What is it about placing your foot 6 feet (yes, 6 feet as he jumped up) in the air going 20mph while approaching another player does not seem reckless? You don't think it was a red? Fine, perhaps you don't understand actions and consequences. Perhaps you reading comprehension is poor and you don't understand the difference between "must" (according to the rule copied here) and other words that would allow some leeway for the referee. Perhaps you are the type of person that thinks football should be played that way because that is the way it used to be. Perhaps you are in possession of all these things (or none). But know you are wrong and this is not a gray area.
Regardless of what prominent person (those with conflicted interests paid to keep the 'debate' going) spouts shit in its defense you are still wrong. You are wronger than wrong. You are also come down on the same side of the argument as Robbie Savage and Alan Shearer. How long before Stan Collymore writes an article also saying it wasn't a red? Were I to find myself on the same side of a contentious situation with that trifecta of stupidity I would take a second to reassess my position. Perhaps you should take a moment to reassess yours.
Mane coulda, woulda, shoulda won that challenge but didn't. So it was red and it is not 'the game'. It is what cowardly cretins do and the hooligan hordes want to see. It happens in no other league but the PL and that is because baying crowds want to see it. What does that say about them (and you if you think it is only a booking). If a player did that to me on the field I would consider it 'aggravated assault' and would not worry about what the courts would do as I would adjudicate that particular situation immediately.
Edit: Attempted to edit as @riggi suggested but it's fine.
If that was the case Mane would have had no reason to lift his foot so high, he simply would have anticipated where the ball was going to bounce and taken a touch or header much lower. Also, it wasn't that far out, it was just on the edge. If you're not expecting a GK to come for that then you've never been in that one on one position before - which I'd be very surprised if Mane hadn't.I am probably in the minority here but I don't think it was a Red Card. Your last comment sums this up imo. If he had won the ball it "may" have been a booking. He had every right to go for that ball, he was not looking at the keeper and should not have 100% expected him to be there that far outside the box. If Ederson had stayed on his line and Sane had raised his foot to bring the ball under control in acres of space should that be a booking.
If Ederson had got straight up again there woukd not be as much controversy surrounding it. Unfortunately he did have to go off the pitch but that isn't the reason to automatically declare it a red card.
Yes there are rules that are there to protect players, but they do include malicious and intent. Yes his boot was high but there is no direct rule against that. There was no intent and I would say it was an innocent attempt to get the ball. Hence should have been a yellow and not red.
It is similar to why we have murder and manslaughter charges in the UK. They both cover the same crime but mitigating circumstances reflect different (and normally appropriate) punishments.
If the tackle had been lower, and Ederson had run into Mane as he was trying to control the ball which is what happened it woukd not have been a red card either.
If mane had gone in aggressively, leading with his foot then yes that would be a red card. No matter where on the body it was.
Some things in football, is sport, in life generally are completely fair yet unfortunate. Thi
.