2019/2020 Premier League Injuries and Suspensions

Scorpion Sting

Sterking one booking away from a suspension now.

PARlance

Scorpion Sting wrote: »

Sterking one booking away from a suspension now.

Skerting on thin ice!

2nd Row Donkey

PARlance wrote:

Skerting on thin ice!

I see what you did there.

Noooice.

Scorpion Sting

For those few who have Kane in their team still. May mean Son up top.

https://twitter.com/AlasdairGold/status/1190796541843378178

extra gravy

Wish I'd kept Son now.

Shedite27

extra gravy wrote: »

Wish I'd kept Son now.

Not anymore

ElTel

Dilva will likely miss Liverpool game.

https://www.caughtoffside.com/2019/11/03/injury-boost-for-liverpool-as-guardiola-confirms-key-man-city-man-will-miss-top-of-the-table-premier-league-clash-next-weekend/

scotchy

Tottenham appeal Son red card against Everton

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/11854387/tottenham-appeal-heung-min-son-red-card-against-everton

.

I didn’t buy Bernardo Silva on my recent WC due to the impending hearing/suspension for thy tweet.

Has this just gone to bed now ?

Last I remember is City asked for an extension for the hearing.

GreenandRed

I don't understand why they even have to. Never a red card, only changed from yellow to red after ref saw how badly injured Gomes was. Why can't Premier League just put their hands up and say a mistake was made?

eh i dunno

GreenandRed wrote: »

I don't understand why they even have to. Never a red card, only changed from yellow to red after ref saw how badly injured Gomes was. Why can't Premier League just put their hands up and say a mistake was made?

Definate red card when you see this pic and I also only thought it was a yellow when it happened. Son was on a revenge mission after an accidental elbow from gomes a few mins earlier

PARlance

eh i dunno wrote: »

Definate red card when you see this pic and I also only thought it was a yellow when it happened. Son was on a revenge mission after an accidental elbow from gomes a few mins earlier

That's some strange logic. A picture could make an awful lot of tackles, in one game alone, look like career ending ones depending on the angle etc.

macraignil

eh i dunno wrote: »

Definate red card when you see this pic and I also only thought it was a yellow when it happened. Son was on a revenge mission after an accidental elbow from gomes a few mins earlier

I agree the photo does make it clearer that it should have been a red card. Not really visible from the video angles what contact was made and the photo clearly shows Son taking the players ankle out from behind while they were running at full speed. I would be shocked if the appeal against the ban is accepted as the tackle has now been shown to be reckless and endangering the player safety without getting the ball.

km79

macraignil wrote: »

I agree the photo does make it clearer that it should have been a red card. Not really visible from the video angles what contact was made and the photo clearly shows Son taking the players ankle out from behind while they were running at full speed. I would be shocked if the appeal against the ban is accepted as the tackle has now been shown to be reckless and endangering the player safety without getting the ball.

Yes looking back on it now I’m not sure how he can appeal it
His head was gone
He made absolutely no attempt to play the ball
He was only interested in the man
Therefore it was reckless and it did indeed endanger his opponent

Given sons own reaction I am suprised he has appealed
Respect for him gone
If he really felt that bad then 3 games is nothing compared to Gomes

And yes it was a freak but at the end of the day he went to foul him and not play the ball

sheroman01

km79 wrote: »

Yes looking back on it now I’m not sure how he can appeal it
His head was gone
He made absolutely no attempt to play the ball
He was only interested in the man
Therefore it was reckless and it did indeed endanger his opponent

Given sons own reaction I am suprised he has appealed
Respect for him gone
If he really felt that bad then 3 games is nothing compared to Gomes

And yes it was a freak but at the end of the day he went to foul him and not play the ball

Harsh on Son. It's more than likely the club appealing it rather than Son.

Benimar

sheroman01 wrote: »

Harsh on Son. It's more than likely the club appealing it rather than Son.

FF may not be the forum for this, but the best solution would have been the PL rescinding it without need for appeal (just say Atkinson recognises he over reacted in the circumstances)

It's a reckless challenge, it's a yellow. It's not a red and Son has every right to appeal IMO. I've yet to hear any player or ex player say its a red.

macraignil

Benimar wrote: »

FF may not be the forum for this, but the best solution would have been the PL rescinding it without need for appeal (just say Atkinson recognises he over reacted in the circumstances)

It's a reckless challenge, it's a yellow. It's not a red and Son has every right to appeal IMO. I've yet to hear any player or ex player say its a red.

I can understand why there is some sympathy for Son but still think the three match ban should apply for what was a reckless challenge from behind with very little chance of getting the ball. From my understanding of the rules of the game that is normally a red card. It takes a lot of force to dislocate an ankle and the PL rescinding the on field decision when a player is hospitilised by the challenge would be a terrible message to send out about the game. It not only endangered the player who is now going to miss a lot of games but was cynical in stopping Everton attacking with the ball. I also do not understand why ex players should need to come out to back up the referees decision.

scotchy

One of the red tops this morning talking about where this leaves Son, and questioning how he will get over it. Be interesting to see if he starts in Belgrade tomorrow.

Benimar

macraignil wrote: »

I can understand why there is some sympathy for Son but still think the three match ban should apply for what was a reckless challenge from behind with very little chance of getting the ball. From my understanding of the rules of the game that is normally a red card. It takes a lot of force to dislocate an ankle and the PL rescinding the on field decision when a player is hospitilised by the challenge would be a terrible message to send out about the game. It not only endangered the player who is now going to miss a lot of games but was cynical in stopping Everton attacking with the ball. I also do not understand why ex players should need to come out to back up the referees decision.

That sort of challenge happens in at least one game each weekend and it’s always a yellow. Choudury on Salah probably the most recent example.

The ‘penalty’ is based on the foul (yellow card), not on the outcome. To base it on outcome opens a can of worms.

gimli2112

scotchy wrote: »

One of the red tops this morning talking about where this leaves Son, and questioning how he will get over it. Be interesting to see if he starts in Belgrade tomorrow.

Dermot Gallagher was on SSN the other day suggesting it was important Atkinson gets all the necessary support after witnessing what happened. I guffawed but in fairness Gallagher was the ref at OT when Bust had his injury and hearing him talking about it was rough, it took him years to come to terms with it.

km79

scotchy wrote: »

One of the red tops this morning talking about where this leaves Son, and questioning how he will get over it. Be interesting to see if he starts in Belgrade tomorrow.

This is what is annoying me about it all tbh
Lots of articles about Poor Son this and Poor son that
I had a certain amount of sympathy for him until they appealed
And there is no way it was appealed without his permission

Anyway this all prob way off topic
I don’t think it will be rescinded

scotchy

Not sure it is off topic, Son is huge in FF, if I had him in my team Id be wondering if he's going to come back from this mentally. How will he handle the next tackle he has to make. Spurs were already on a downward spiral. There is a possibility of them not having Kane or Son available against Lundstram.

Sorry for being so crass after what happened to Gomes, FF has turned me into this.:mad:

CSF

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.

Scorpion Sting

km79 wrote: »

This is what is annoying me about it all tbh
Lots of articles about Poor Son this and Poor son that
I had a certain amount of sympathy for him until they appealed
And there is no way it was appealed without his permission

Anyway this all prob way off topic
I don’t think it will be rescinded

It's not off topic. People are discussing a player who is facing suspension in an injuries and suspensions thread.

Shedite27

Almost all red cards are appealed these days it seems, looks like it's the standard practice. Is there any cost to doing so? Or extra-penalty if it's upheld?

Benimar

Shedite27 wrote: »

Almost all red cards are appealed these days it seems, looks like it's the standard practice. Is there any cost to doing so? Or extra-penalty if it's upheld?

One extra game for a frivolous appeal. Given that most people who watched the whole incident back seem to think a yellow was the correct call, I certainly don’t think they have grounds to increase it anyway.

macraignil

Benimar wrote: »

One extra game for a frivolous appeal. Given that most people who watched the whole incident back seem to think a yellow was the correct call, I certainly don’t think they have grounds to increase it anyway.

I agree you could view the incident as a yellow card when seen from a distance. The replays shown on BBC Match of the Day made me agree with the pundits on the show commenting that they felt it should have been yellow. If they only saw the replays that were broadcast then I can see where they are coming from. The still photo of Son hitting the ankle of Gomes from behind posted earlier in the thread makes the red card much easier to understand and after seeing the photo and the replays I think it is a deserved red.



It happened so fast I can see the reason for some confusion and I see no problem with an appeal because of the disagreement raised. With all the evidence I have seen taken together I can't see the three match ban been reduced. Just my opinion anyway.

McBain11

Benimar wrote: »

That sort of challenge happens in at least one game each weekend and it’s always a yellow. Choudury on Salah probably the most recent example.

The ‘penalty’ is based on the foul (yellow card), not on the outcome. To base it on outcome opens a can of worms.

Exactly this. In terms of fantasy football, if that is adjudged to be a red card and ban after the appeal, we should all get used to a lot more minus scores for players in the fantasy.

Even the Choudury challenge mentioned was a far worse challenge, more force and a bit higher on the leg iirc. The amount of times a player will do exactly what Son did and injure the opponent badly is 1 in 10k or something ridiculous! The outcome of the challenge can't and should not have been used as a deciding factor in the red card. If Gomes had got up and taken the free kick himself a minute later, does anyone think that it would ever be more than a yellow card challenge?

Ace2007

McBain11 wrote: »

Even the Choudury challenge mentioned was a far worse challenge, more force and a bit higher on the leg iirc. The amount of times a player will do exactly what Son did and injure the opponent badly is 1 in 10k or something ridiculous! The outcome of the challenge can't and should not have been used as a deciding factor in the red card. If Gomes had got up and taken the free kick himself a minute later, does anyone think that it would ever be more than a yellow card challenge?

Ignore the rules for a second, Son made no attempt to get the ball - his sole aim was to take down Gomez - no one can argue with that. Even if it's 1 in 1m chance of a freak injury - why should any player have the right take a player down and make no attempt to play the ball without facing a possible red card?

Now you say the tackle is only a yellow - the outcome can't and should not be considered is your argument yet if a player is running through on goal with only keeper to beat and is taken down by a "yellow card" tackle - the potential outcome is considered. It could be a goal, therefore it's a red card.

Finally if it's clearly not a red card - VAR could have just overruled the ref, which we have seen numerous times over the weekend.

McBain11

Ace2007 wrote: »

Ignore the rules for a second, Son made no attempt to get the ball - his sole aim was to take down Gomez - no one can argue with that. Even if it's 1 in 1m chance of a freak injury - why should any player have the right take a player down and make no attempt to play the ball without facing a possible red card?

Now you say the tackle is only a yellow - the outcome can't and should not be considered is your argument yet if a player is running through on goal with only keeper to beat and is taken down by a "yellow card" tackle - the potential outcome is considered. It could be a goal, therefore it's a red card.

Finally if it's clearly not a red card - VAR could have just overruled the ref, which we have seen numerous times over the weekend.

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.

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?