[Albion] Illia Zabarny's red card

[Bodian]

It's a bit UNLUCKY because he's rolled over the top of the ball and it's turned into a worse contact, but in turn that is because he didn't win much of the ball in the first place which his doing.

I'd be staggered if that's overturned. Touching the ball first is not enough.

That's it in a nutshell. He didn't 'win the ball' - he 'touched the ball'. If he had gone in studs up, but foot down near the ground and therefore put his studs cleanly on the centre of the ball, it would have been an excellent tackle. By misjudging where the ball was going to be, all he's doing is endangering the other player.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I don't think safety was endangered

Planting your foot, studs up, half way up someone else’s lower leg at 90 degrees is safe? How do you come to this conclusion? You’ll have to explain this one.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Christ. Not you as well.

With all the shite going on in the world right now, I can find only low comedy in an opponent-ban ongoing-situation.

Call me morbid, call me pale...
And if you have five seconds to spare
Then I'll tell you the story of my life....

<sigh>

 

[UnhingedSeagull94]

Bournemouth have appealed against the red card Illia Zabarny's received at the weekend.

If the appeal is successful, he can play against us tomorrow night.

No way that gets overturned

 

[alanfp]

Planting your foot, studs up, half way up someone else’s lower leg at 90 degrees is safe? How do you come to this conclusion? You’ll have to explain this one.

I think the question is whether he 'planted his foot' or moved his foot in a smooth motion parallel to the ground in a move that we would all use to make a tackle and it was diverted by contact with the ball. Yes, I know that doesn't in itself excuse subsequent contact. A close call, yes.
Will it get overturned? I doubt it.

 

[Motogull]

With all the shite going on in the world right now, I can find only low comedy in an opponent-ban ongoing-situation.

Call me morbid, call me pale...
And if you have five seconds to spare
Then I'll tell you the story of my life....

<sigh>

That's shame. Even your below average posts are a joy to read. You morbid pale fukka.

 

[Randy McNob]

Not a red here, not a DOGSO there. Do you have a thing about sending offs?

What would actually be a red in your book.

Or are you just whooshing us all along......

if it's so obvious why would they appeal?

Maybe i'm old fashioned or the rules of the game seem to get stretched and morphed into other intepretations. It used to be the rule that if you won the ball first, the old saying playing the ball not the man applied. So these days what we're saying is you have to ignore the fact the player made contact with the ball first and just cherry pick part of the challenge and focus on that, which is pretty much what VAR does.

So it's robust tackling that we're outlawing now? what's next? The games gone.....

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I think the question is whether he 'planted his foot' or moved his foot in a smooth motion parallel to the ground in a move that we would all use to make a tackle and it was diverted by contact with the ball. Yes, I know that doesn't in itself excuse subsequent contact. A close call, yes.
Will it get overturned? I doubt it.

He planted his foot studs up on the opponent’s leg, this is absolutely clear from the video. Whether this was intentional, or diverted from contact with the ball, is irrelevant.

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

When is the decision? Surely should be known by now?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

if it's so obvious why would they appeal?

Maybe i'm old fashioned or the rules of the game seem to get stretched and morphed into other intepretations. It used to be the rule that if you won the ball first, the old saying playing the ball not the man applied. So these days what we're saying is you have to ignore the fact the player made contact with the ball first and just cherry pick part of the challenge and focus on that, which is pretty much what VAR does.

So it's robust tackling that we're outlawing now? what's next? The games gone.....

Here you go, the laws are explained here.

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct

IFAB Laws of the Game

www.thefa.com

 

[Dirty Dave]

When is the decision? Surely should be known by now?

Perhaps at 21.30 tomorrow.

In all seriousness, I believe red was correct and was a correct VAR intervention.
If that was an Albion player, I wouldn't have any complaints about it being red.

The fact it was upgraded to a red after VAR got involved, if that now gets overturned, it would completely undermine VAR.

 

[Bodian]

if it's so obvious why would they appeal?

Maybe i'm old fashioned or the rules of the game seem to get stretched and morphed into other intepretations. It used to be the rule that if you won the ball first, the old saying playing the ball not the man applied. So these days what we're saying is you have to ignore the fact the player made contact with the ball first and just cherry pick part of the challenge and focus on that, which is pretty much what VAR does.

So it's robust tackling that we're outlawing now? what's next? The games gone.....

He didn't 'win the ball' though did he. He touched the ball on his way over the top of it.

 

[Jim in the West]

VAR said the tackle was "high and dangerous". The matchday ref reviewed it on screen and decided it was a red. It would be completely farcical if it was now over-turned.

 

[Hotchilidog]

The tackle was high, it’s why he hit the top of the ball. Not a malicious challenge but reckless and dangerous, red all day long.

 

[SeagullinExile]

Rubbish (and I'm not suggesting that you are agreeing with their interpretation - you don't really state either way), that's a red all day. It's not the impact of the leg with the ball, it's the impact of the bottom of his foot with the leg.

Plus both feet are off the ground.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

If the decision isn't made by Tuesday (tomorrow) pre 18:30 hrs, does that mean he's available for selection?

If so, that's a clear and obvious disadvantage to us ....

 

[Justice]

Who cares we could only put one past Palace’s 10th choice goalkeeper.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

He didn't 'win the ball' though did he. He touched the ball on his way over the top of it.

In the video posted in the OP he clearly wins the ball in its entirety.

 

[Shuggie]

In the video posted in the OP he clearly wins the ball in its entirety.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

View attachment 197279

You need to roll through a few more frames. It ends with him having the ball and the Wolves player not