Zokora red card appeal?

[Beni]

So in your eyes, Santa Cruz should be sent off then last night.

Scored his 1st goal, studs showing - naughty naughty.

 

[chrissivad]

But that isn't in the rules. That is just another made up media term like the daylight part of the offside rule.

depends on what they class as violent conduct:shrug:

 

[Flatters]

So in your eyes, Santa Cruz should be sent off then last night.

Scored his 1st goal, studs showing - naughty naughty.

It's not all just set in stone. There is a big grey area, and common sense plays the most part. I can see why a lot of you aren't happy that Zokora was sent off, but you should be able to understand why he was.

 

[nidge]

Violent conduct.

Do you think Zokora intended to do any harm to Elano last night?

 

[Flatters]

depends on what they class as serious foul play :shrug:

That's just it. They're just the guidelines. There will be many things classed as serious foul play and violent conduct, but also just what the referee considers to be that on the night.

 

[Flatters]

Do you think Zokora intended to do any harm to Elano last night?

I think it was a dangerous foul and would consider it to be serious foul play.

 

[nidge]

I think it was a dangerous foul and would consider it to be serious foul play.

But was it? If he had made any contact then yes it would have been serious foul play but, he made no contact with the player and there was no intent in the challenge so that in my book rules out serious foul play and violent conduct.

 

[Beni]

Sorry, but I can't agree with you Flatters mate.
If your gonna start sending players off for tackles like Zokoras last night with no contact made, your gonna open up a can of worms, and have players sent off week in week out.

 

[chrissivad]

Do you think Zokora intended to do any harm to Elano last night?

unless you can read minds, noone will know if he inteded to hurt him as well or not

 

[chrissivad]

Sorry, but I can't agree with you Flatters mate.
If your gonna start sending players off for tackles like Zokoras last night with no contact made, your gonna open up a can of worms, and have players sent off week in week out.

If you have takles like that that are fine unless you dont touch a player we will see more injurys, most likley broken legs if someone does misstime it and take them out.

 

[nidge]

unless you can read minds, noone will know if he inteded to hurt him as well or not

Exactly so you can't send him off for violent conduct because for it to be violent conduct you need to be sure of intent to do harm the opponent, without being 100% sure the ref can't send him of for that.

 

[Flatters]

But was it? If he had made any contact then yes it would have been serious foul play but, he made no contact with the player and there was no intent in the challenge so that in my book rules out serious foul play and violent conduct.

I don't think it matters that there was no contact, because there was a large possibility of there being contact.

Sorry, but I can't agree with you Flatters mate.
If your gonna start sending players off for tackles like Zokoras last night with no contact made, your gonna open up a can of worms, and have players sent off week in week out.

Well that's just it. I think they should all be sent off.

 

[nidge]

If you have takles like that that are fine unless you dont touch a player we will see more injurys, most likley broken legs if someone does misstime it and take them out.

But, a badly timed challenge with one foot can just as easily brake a bone as a badly timed two footed challenge so where do you draw the line.

 

[Bonjour]

It looked more clumsy than anything. No real intent.

If you want intent, look at Denilson's challenge on Dunn. Teeth clenched and snarling like he really wanted to hurt the guy.

 

[nidge]

I don't think it matters that there was no contact, because there was a large possibility of there being contact.

But then you are working on ifs, buts and maybe's and that is something a ref should be making decisions on as they always have to be 100% certain before taking any action.

 

[chrissivad]

Exactly so you can't send him off for violent conduct because for it to be violent conduct you need to be sure of intent to do harm the opponent, without being 100% sure the ref can't send him of for that.

but then after a foul all you need to say is i didn't intend it and the ref cant book you?

 

[nidge]

but then after a foul all you need to say is i didn't intend it and the ref cant book you?

Ah but, these rules apply to a sending off only and not a booking.

 

[Beni]

If you have takles like that that are fine unless you dont touch a player we will see more injurys, most likley broken legs if someone does misstime it and take them out.

I agree, but common sense should come into play on certain situations.
Zokora didn't go hell for leather at Elano at pace, he went in sliding on his bum at no speed at all.

 

[Flatters]

But, a badly timed challenge with one foot can just as easily brake a bone as a badly timed two footed challenge so where do you draw the line.

A two-footed tackle with studs showing is so much more likely to cause serious injuries than a one-footed tackle without studs showing.

But then you are working on ifs, buts and maybe's and that is something a ref should be making decisions on as they always have to be 100% certain before taking any action.

If you make a foul that could, yes could, be seriously dangerous then you should be sent off.

 

[chrissivad]

But, a badly timed challenge with one foot can just as easily brake a bone as a badly timed two footed challenge so where do you draw the line.

at two feet for all.

You never need to go in with two feet anyway so thats an easy line to set.

you ill get more force by jumping in with 2 feet than just one