lewis dunk sending off

[DavidinSouthampton]

Thats not the Poyet way! Everyone must tippy-tappy, even in hotly-contested derbies.

Had he controlled it adequately with his first touch, he might have been able to do something more constructive. I can't re-watch it again at the moment.

 

[Mellotron]

I think that's what they're trying to push toward, actually. You hear all the time about how the game is being sanitized and turned into a non-contact sport.

I think they are trying to push the game toward skill and finesse and ball control and away from the old English style of "slide in, take everything, and hope you get enough of the ball", and one part of this is reducing the contact, encouraging kids to be skilful and develop that skill without fear of the less skilful kids taking them out in brutish, ahem, "traditional" challenges.

Actually, bollocks to it, GOOD. I much prefer to watch a skilful match than a blood and thunder one. Maybe that's just me.

 

[Triggaaar]

By the laws of the game it would've been, the ref probably wouldn't have given it. I wonder whether the laws of the game need updating, seems they were written back in a time where you had to tackle "like a true gentleman, in an orderly fashion."

I agree they probably need updating. You say 'like a true gentleman', but this isn't cricket, and it used to be a lot tougher than it is now. But I still disagree that it would've been a foul by the laws of the game, because a ref would have had to interpret the challenge as careless, which it wasn't. Otherwise every single tackle is a foul.

It's really not, as supported by the overwhelming number of free kicks that are given even when the ball has been won,because a player is over stretching or is angry having lost possession etc.

That's absolute rubbish. The decision generally go with whoever wins the ball, unless it's dangerous.

 

[Acker79]

I've got to agree with you on this. As a member of the centre halves union () myself, if Dunk had been a fraction earlier, and even got the slightest of touches ahead of Bolasie, no foul for me. He's gone in studs down, back leg pretty much on the ground and is ahead of the attacking player. No way is that a foul if he touches that ball ahead of Bolasie.

I've since edited my other post to include a clarification

If it had been a loose ball and it was a challenge in which he won the ball, then a free kick may not have been given (shouldn't have been, but home advantage and all that), because it would have been seen as a calm and calculated challenge in which the on-rushing player would have been accounted for.

However, in this case, the way he lost control of the ball and just lunged into the challenge would have seen it interpreted as careless at best.

 

[Bold Seagull]

By the laws of the game, it could easily have still been seen as a foul. It's the laws of the game you disagree with, not us.

Don't disagree with the laws either, if Dunk gets there first, I don't think any of the laws apply for a foul as the only thing he's attempted to do is get the ball - which he would have done. Subsequent contact with the player, as long as not endangering him is inconsequential as the original intent was to get the ball which hypothetically he would have done.

The fact he missed the ball then means he has tripped the opposing player - hence the foul, who was through on goal, hence the red card.

If anything, at that moment, had Dunk been a fraction of a second quicker and got the first touch, Bolasie missing the ball would be the one committing the foul. All as the rules state.

 

[Bold Seagull]

However, in this case, the way he lost control of the ball and just lunged into the challenge would have seen it interpreted as careless at best.

I take your point, but most tackles are lunges. As long as studs are not up, it's not 2 footed, a player is not launched airborne into it, it's not ridiculously late, then I can't see it as careless.

To be honest, anywhere else on the pitch and that tackle as it was would have likely been a straight forward foul. I doubt it would have even drawn a yellow in most circumstances (unless a ref was trying to calm a game down).

edit: and likely anywhere else on the pitch Bolasie would have continued on with the ball!

 

[Mellotron]

Don't disagree with the laws either, if Dunk gets there first, I don't think any of the laws apply for a foul as the only thing he's attempted to do is get the ball - which he would have done. Subsequent contact with the player, as long as not endangering him is inconsequential as the original intent was to get the ball which hypothetically he would have done.

The fact he missed the ball then means he has tripped the opposing player - hence the foul, who was through on goal, hence the red card.

If anything, at that moment, had Dunk been a fraction of a second quicker and got the first touch, Bolasie missing the ball would be the one committing the foul. All as the rules state.

Kompany "got there first" against Nani and was still sent off, if you recall.

The fact he missed the ball wasn't the reason he tripped the player, he could've easily taken the ball AND tripped the player, which by the laws of the game would still be a foul.

 

[Triggaaar]

It's really not, as supported by the overwhelming number of free kicks that are given even when the ball has been won

Here are the details from the extended highlights on player:
2.45 Bridcutt is tripped from behind - ref points to the ball, no free-kick.
11.25 Barnes takes a player out, but gets the ball and a throw in is given
15.52 Bolasie takes out Bruno, but wins the ball, no free-kick
16.53 hammond trips Zaha, ref points to ball

In the highlights, there is not one single free-kick given where a player has won the ball. So while it doesn't say about the ball in the book, that is how the game is refereed.

I also see from the highlights that the first goal was from a corner that should have been a goal kick, and the first penalty is an outrageous dive (becomes really apparent from the overhead shot).

 

[Bold Seagull]

Kompany "got there first" against Nani and was still sent off, if you recall.

The fact he missed the ball wasn't the reason he tripped the player, he could've easily taken the ball AND tripped the player, which by the laws of the game would still be a foul.

You're comparing the tackle below with Dunks? Totally different, which I think the pictures tell you. I think you're seeing something careless in what Dunk did which is simply not there. It was a trip pure and simple, just a fraction of a second late. I'll standby my opinion that anywhere else on the pitch it would not have even drawn a card. But it is a game of opinions, so I do respect where you are coming from.

 

[Yoda]

No he didn't. "He got the ball" doesn't stop it being a red card. Read the rules.

I have, and unless Bolasie can run quicker than Usan Bolt, he was not going to have a goal scoring opportunity and therefore it was not a red card.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I have, and unless Bolasie can run quicker than Usan Bolt, he was not going to have a goal scoring opportunity and therefore it was not a red card.

I think how far he kicks it in front of him is a relevant as the force of that kick has been determined by the foul.

 

[Aquilaugh]

The club should appeal the sending off.The ref made a mistake and in hindsight the card decision should be reversed.

your manager agrees it was a red card, Dunk knew he was going off, many of your fans agree it was a correct decision

if he hadn't made the tackle Bolasie would have probably missed

if your club appeal, the ban will be extended to 4 games

deal with it.

 

[Hillian1]

I have, and unless Bolasie can run quicker than Usan Bolt, he was not going to have a goal scoring opportunity and therefore it was not a red card.

Then that makes Dunks challenge even more f***ing stupid than I already thought it was.

 

[Triggaaar]

I think how far he kicks it in front of him is a relevant as the force of that kick has been determined by the foul.

It hasn't, because he kicked the ball before the foul was committed (otherwise Dunk would have got the ball).

 

[Triggaaar]

your manager agrees it was a red card, Dunk knew he was going off, many of your fans agree it was a correct decision

Our manager hasn't looked at it as much times as we have. This is football talk, it's not his job to go over it. It was a silly challenge and no surprise he was sent off, that's the main thing Dunk needs to learn, not the fact that actually, Bolasie wouldn't have got to the ball before Kuszczak.

 

[Triggaaar]

Then that makes Dunks challenge even more f***ing stupid than I already thought it was.

Not really, because he was committed to the challenge before Bolasie got the ball.

 

[Bold Seagull]

It hasn't, because he kicked the ball before the foul was committed (otherwise Dunk would have got the ball).

He touched the ball a fraction of a second before the foul, hence most referee's will see the foul as an infringement on both the players movement and his ability to make a controlled touch i.e. his follow through etc are impeded. Had Dunk been a bit later, than I agree, how far the ball has gone could be a consideration for the red card. As it was, I think most would accept Bolasie didn't have the chance to control his touch forward given Dunk was fouling him practically the instant it left his foot.

 

[Aquilaugh]

Fact is if things had been the other way around you would have all made a case for the red card and the Murray penalty. The first goal came about from a corner which should not have been given, totally agree that the ref got it wrong and as you all know this happens in most games, but to analyse each passage of play leading to that decision is ridiculous, what about things that should or shouldn't have been given by the ref 2 or 3 minutes before ? you can go on for ages.

Dunk messed up, the ref had no second thoughts and if you look at Dunk's body language and facial expressions it is quite clear he knew, so those that are blaming Bolasie and or the ref really need to get a grip.
The first Murray penalty might not have been given by some refs, but again if that had been CMS what would you all be saying ?
The second one, well please don't tell me that anyone has questioned that. Perhaps it's difficult for some fans but, Dunk was at fault, Barnes should have got his head on the cross before half time, and CMS should have scored early on in the second half, at 1-1 I think you may well have held on, some of you need to look at things a bit closer to home than pointing fingers at refs and opposition players, you have had and will continue to get your share of decisions going your way, just like any other team

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

Okay, I know this is a chat site and everyone is encouraged to offer their views and opinions, but I am just begining to grow weary of the various reasons for the outcome [Dunk sent off] - so here's the chain of events, which I hope are undeniable.

1/ Dunk selected to play as El Abd unfit
2/ Bruno gives Dunk a firm pass
3/ Dunk first touch poor
4/ Dunk attempts to toe-poke his 2nd touch to avert Bolasei possible shot on goal

He was sent off for step 4/ but if any of the preceding 3 steps had been different, step 4/ may never have occurred.
So lay the blame where ever you like.

Step 4/ has also drawn lots of debate on here, I played years of park football and am long since retired but I can still recall those really difficult games where someone I had to mark was just that bit quicker on their feet which meant that even though I was match fit, my opponent was always going to be a couple of milli-seconds quicker than me. The outcome was late / mistimed tackles - I always though I was going to get the ball cleanly [I'm sure Dunk did too] but with a player who just happens to have that milli-second faster reaction / pace, a trip often resulted. Dunk is only a couple of games into 1st team football so I put 4/ down to a misjudgment - I don't believe there was time to consider pulling out of the tackle and apart form maybe Zaha, any of the other Palarse players would probably have been 2nd to the ball.

So, all the talk about just getting to the ball first / was it really a goal scoring opportunity / the club should seek to have the card overturned - forget it. It happened, none of us liked it, but there is no injustice to be righted. Pick any of steps 1 to 4 above if you want to lay blame, but can we let it be now?

Please can we accept and move on.

 

[Bold Seagull]

So, all the talk about just getting to the ball first / was it really a goal scoring opportunity / the club should seek to have the card overturned - forget it. It happened, none of us liked it, but there is no injustice to be righted. Pick any of steps 1 to 4 above if you want to lay blame, but can we let it be now?

Please can we accept and move on.

Actually, much of the debate today at least is whether it would still be classed as a foul even if Dunk had got the ball. It's been interesting to hear how other people saw the incident to be honest. It's been like a chat in the pub which is what the forum should be all about, and as yet, no one has insulted anyone else.....yet.