2019/2020 Premier League Injuries and Suspensions

Benimar

Son wins his appeal

Dr. Bre

CSF wrote: »

The red card won’t be rescinded, given they watched it on video and decided it was a red card. All they’ll be doing is watching it on video again.

It was

Benimar

Dr. Bre wrote: »

It was

Which essentially means that both Martin Atkinson and Anthony Taylor failed to implement the laws of the game correctly.

English refereeing really is a shambles.

Ace2007

Benimar wrote: »

Which essentially means that both Martin Atkinson and Anthony Taylor failed to implement the laws of the game correctly.

English refereeing really is a shambles.

Or it may mean spurs got some hot shot lawyer in the room to fight their case

I doubt it would it have been overturned, had the ref given a straight red, instead of the yellow initially.

Benimar

Ace2007 wrote: »

Or it may mean spurs got some hot shot lawyer in the room to fight their case

I doubt it would it have been overturned, had the ref given a straight red, instead of the yellow initially.

I reckon Lionel Hutz could have got that overturned tbf

SofaScore has Mount as coming off injured.

Anything to it ?

The real mccoy 91

[Deleted User] wrote: »

SofaScore has Mount as coming off injured.

Anything to it ?

https://twitter.com/ChelseaFC/status/1191845394470375424?s=19


Same ankle he injured against Valencia didn't miss any time though

Chesty08

McBain11 wrote: »

You can take a player down by slide tackling or pulling a player down using arms. It happens constantly in football matches. It is almost always intentional also, as in it's a cynical foul. Any of these instances where the fouled player is brought to ground could possibly result in an injury. The chances of it are low though and that's why refs look at such fouls and adjudge whether it's just a cynical foul (as Sons was imo) or whether the foul is reckless (Choudury as an example was imo).

If Son makes that exact tackle time and time again, there would be no injury to the opposing player. It was a freak accident. If refs are going to give red cards based on the resulting injury to the fouled player they are simply going rogue. There is absolutely nothing about such a thing in the laws of the game.

He was Red Carded for ‘endangering the safety of the player”.

1. Was there INTENT to play the ball? No
2. Was there INTENT to play the PLAYER? Yes
3. Was there retribution in his mind? Arguably Yes

Gomes has played the ball and only then does Son decide to go to ground

He was 100% endangered the safety of the player by Intentionally going to ground and kicking the player

hots

Deleted User wrote: »

SofaScore has Mount as coming off injured.

Anything to it ?

Roll of the ankle quite high up, I'd expect him to miss a game just to rest it at least.

McBain11

Chesty08 wrote: »

He was Red Carded for ‘endangering the safety of the player”.

1. Was there INTENT to play the ball? No
2. Was there INTENT to play the PLAYER? Yes
3. Was there retribution in his mind? Arguably Yes

Gomes has played the ball and only then does Son decide to go to ground

He was 100% endangered the safety of the player by Intentionally going to ground and kicking the player

This logic is absolutely bizarre. You could make an argument for almost every single foul being a red card due to endangering a players safety so. When Fernandinho got his 2nd yellow card vs Villa a couple of weeks ago for a cynical foul that left the Villa player on the floor, surely that should be a straight red by this logic?

There must be levels of force involved in adjudicating on such cynical fouls. Otherwise, all all cynical fouls where you know the player has made no attempt to play the ball, and the fouled player ends up on the floor, should they all result in red cards from now on?

The Son challenge is never a straight red card. If the FA had stood over that decision and banned Son it would have opened a huge can of worms regards to yellow/red card challenges in future. It was a woeful decision by the ref on the day to give that red card, and thankfully the FA corrected that by rescinding it.

Chesty08

McBain11 wrote: »

This logic is absolutely bizarre. You could make an argument for almost every single foul being a red card due to endangering a players safety so. When Fernandinho got his 2nd yellow card vs Villa a couple of weeks ago for a cynical foul that left the Villa player on the floor, surely that should be a straight red by this logic?

There must be levels of force involved in adjudicating on such cynical fouls. Otherwise, all all cynical fouls where you know the player has made no attempt to play the ball, and the fouled player ends up on the floor, should they all result in red cards from now on?

The Son challenge is never a straight red card. If the FA had stood over that decision and banned Son it would have opened a huge can of worms regards to yellow/red card challenges in future. It was a woeful decision by the ref on the day to give that red card, and thankfully the FA corrected that by rescinding it.

The way I see it, Is that Son has no right to make that tackle. He can see the covering player and therefore should not be INTENTIONALLY looking to foul/kick the player when there is another player coming in to make the tackle. Retribution is also in Son’s mind. So while there isn’t just a single factor like force to consider, he has definitely endangered the player by fouling him which ultimately leads to the injury as there is another player coming in to tackle him who causes the injury because of Sons retribution & intention tackle

km79

Chesty08 wrote: »

The way I see it, Is that Son has no right to make that tackle. He can see the covering player and therefore should not be INTENTIONALLY looking to foul/kick the player when there is another player coming in to make the tackle. Retribution is also in Son’s mind. So while there isn’t just a single factor like force to consider, he has definitely endangered the player by fouling him which ultimately leads to the injury as there is another player coming in to tackle him who causes the injury because of Sons retribution & intention tackle

My opinion too
And I’ve a feeling we will see a rule change to make this more enforceable
Or just see refs go for a red more often
Like they did with tackles from behind when players were even making an attempt for the ball unlike Son

I hate all the “he isn’t that type of player “ rubbish too
He clearly is now
He took a knock from Gomes which he didn’t like . His head went and first chance him he got he deliberately played the man not the ball

He is now somehow the victim in many people’s eyes despite not even getting a ban and obviously his ankle is also fine

Shanotheslayer

Benimar wrote: »

I reckon Lionel Hutz could have got that overturned tbf

Someone call Harvey Spectre

McBain11

km79 wrote: »

My opinion too
And I’ve a feeling we will see a rule change to make this more enforceable
Or just see refs go for a red more often
Like they did with tackles from behind when players were even making an attempt for the ball unlike Son

I hate all the “he isn’t that type of player “ rubbish too
He clearly is now
He took a knock from Gomes which he didn’t like . His head went and first chance him he got he deliberately played the man not the ball

He is now somehow the victim in many people’s eyes despite not even getting a ban and obviously his ankle is also fine

Just on the Son stuff. The 'he isn't that type of player' or the fawning over how upset he was after Gomes injury, none of the really interests me tbh. The fact is that the laws of the game need to be followed, and imo the referee did not follow them giving that red card.

I'd agree with a lot of what Chesty and KM are saying, but for such fouls to become red cards, there must be a change in the law. It would cut out a huge amount of cynical fouls then also which drive me insane.

On the Son incident though, the ref can't decide on the sanction based on whether Gomes gets back up or not. It's a bad injury and nobody ever wants to see that, but it can't be the deciding factor in a refs mind. It's not in the laws or directives like some in some rugby situations. He got it wrong, and that is backed up by the FA rescinding the red card. In saying that, I wouldn't have much problem if they did tweak the rule and sliding attempts like Sons that aren't a genuine challenge for the ball are reds in future. Outside of safety it would kill off a huge amount of cynical tactical fouls also.

GreenandRed

Son assists Lo Celso's opener tonight. Hopefully he can get on a PL goal trail soon as there are a few tasty mids in the 5.8 to 8m ish range to free up funds elsewhere.

km79

http://twitter.com/DiscoMirror/status/1192184623524175874

Cartman78

Ederson out according to Pep

Pighead

What's the latest on Mount? Is he still a doubt?

loadwire

Pighead wrote: »

What's the latest on Mount? Is he still a doubt?

https://twitter.com/BenDinnery/status/1192800893135130625

Benzino

Is David Silva out do we know?

mcgooch

Benzino wrote: »

Is David Silva out do we know?

Pep said nothing in his press conference today about David Silva, but he mentioned before the mid-week CL fixture he expected him to be out for 10-12 days which means he's very likely to miss out. It's Pep though, so who knows?

extra gravy

Cartman78 wrote: »

Ederson out according to Pep

Mane captain is very tempting now.

extra gravy

Dunk will be suspended for the Leicester game. Vardy (c) locked in.

extra gravy

Roy Hodgson on Joel Ward: "He's injured his groin. He felt a pain in his groin so it's obviously some sort of strain in the groin."

Sounds like it might be his groin...

CSF

extra gravy wrote: »

Dunk will be suspended for the Leicester game. Vardy (c) locked in.

Duffy is a pretty solid replacement though right?

extra gravy

CSF wrote: »

Duffy is a pretty solid replacement though right?

He's not as good as Dunk though imo plus Webster is injured. So that's the first choice cb pairing possibly out.

munster87

extra gravy wrote: »

Roy Hodgson on Joel Ward: "He's injured his groin. He felt a pain in his groin so it's obviously some sort of strain in the groin."

Sounds like it might be his groin...

I believe Roy actually said it was his gwoin

CSF

extra gravy wrote: »

He's not as good as Dunk though imo plus Webster is injured. So that's the first choice cb pairing possibly out.

True on the Webster part, and while Burn is naturally a CB, even if they move him there, then they’ve to replace him and the whole thing is less fluent.

Has me thinking indeed. Between this and Southampton’s vulnerability to wide players it’s becoming a 2 horse race for me.

Iused2likebusts

Saw a photo of salah in a protective boot over in Egypt.

The Megaphone

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

Saw a photo of salah in a protective boot over in Egypt.

Doesn’t sound like a great holiday - should have gone to see the pyramids, way better than a photo of Salah!