[Albion] Pedro's "challenge" on Walton

[Uh_huh_him]

Difficult to argue that Pedro was challenging for a ball that was on the ground by jumping in the air.

At best he was anticipating where the ball may go after Walton cleared it, in which case he must have recognised that Walton was getting to the ball first.

IMO red.

The reason he jumped was because he thought Walton was going to boot it.
Quite a common reaction to quite a common outcome from that situation.

Instead Walton was very calm and played a decent pass,.
But it was all a split second thing.

My reading of the situation was that Pedro sprinted into the challenge, realises he isn't going to make it and starts to make evasive action to what he expects to happen.

If it was a deliberate act, he would have done more damage by not jumping and running straight through him.

 

[Braggfan]

And more importantly, physical contact is a specific and frequent part of the game.
Hitting an opponent's head with your shoulder in Rugby, will be due to ill-discipline, deliberate action or poor technique.

The number of collisions in Rugby are massively higher than in football.
Which is why there are specific laws dealing with the manner in which those contacts can be made.

The frequency doesn't matter. Saying collisions are more greuent in rugby and therefore they have rules to address that, sort of implies that one off head injuries in football are OK.

Rugby doesnt have those rules because collisions are more frequent, they have them because those tackles/collisions are dangerous.

Also concussions are more frequent in Rugby, yet football adopted concussion rules aswell because its dangerous. So are those rules not needed in football?

 

[Triggaaar]

One other thing on this: given how long Pedro can stay down from the lightest of challenges, it was amazing how quickly he got up from this!

Whose side are you on?

 

[drew]

At the end of the day, the ref gave a yellow. Did we get away with it? Probably yes, but then we've had many go against us, eg Fabinho on Ferguson and Palhinha on
Gross.

 

[Berty23]

The incident that saw Delap booked was arguably worse. At least Walton could see him coming and brace for impact, plus of course the ball was in the same postcode. Delap dropped a shoulder and slammed into Veltman’s back when he was not looking when the ball was over by the touchline. An impact like that when not prepared could easily give some whiplash.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

The frequency doesn't matter. Saying collisions are more greuent in rugby and therefore they have rules to address that, sort of implies that one off head injuries in football are OK.

Rugby doesnt have those rules because collisions are more frequent, they have them because those tackles/collisions are dangerous.

Also concussions are more frequent in Rugby, yet football adopted concussion rules aswell because its dangerous. So are those rules not needed in football?

It doesn't imply that at all.

The reason rugby has those rules, is because for the sport to be competitive, physical collisions are essential.
Scrums, Mauls, tackles, Line outs all rely on opponents hitting each other with their bodies.

Therefore the laws on what is and isn't permissable are far more extensive in Rugby.

Just because a type of deliberate contact is a red card in Rugby, it doesn't follow that an accidental collision in Football should also be a red,.

 

[timbha]

At the end of the day, the ref gave a yellow. Did we get away with it? Probably yes, but then we've had many go against us, eg Fabinho on Ferguson and Palhinha on
Gross.

And Stephens at Middlesbrough

 

[mikeyjh]

Why do people keep using Rugby as a comparison? The risk of serious injury in Rugby is far higher, hence the much stricter rules regarding contact.

I think the rugby comparison started with a reference to the process a rugby referee would go through when assessing something like that. In football it appears that the referee just looks at an incident like that and makes a gut feel decision rather than folling a set of guidelines. Either way, I've no idea how they came to the conclusion that it wasn't a red card! I could see the argument for the yellow that Pedro got in December - It's a really odd gesture to make but it's plausible, last nights? Nah, not even close.

 

[METALMICKY]

Pedro was lucky to not get sent off !!!I said at the time that could be red. 20% of brighton fans think red.
If it had been their forward on our keeper reckon 95% of us would have said red.

Exactly! The blue and white tinted specs kick in

 

[mikeyjh]

Difficult to argue that Pedro was challenging for a ball that was on the ground by jumping in the air.

At best he was anticipating where the ball may go after Walton cleared it, in which case he must have recognised that Walton was getting to the ball first.

IMO red.

I would add that it's also difficult to argue that it might help him slow down!

 

[keaton]

The frequency doesn't matter. Saying collisions are more greuent in rugby and therefore they have rules to address that, sort of implies that one off head injuries in football are OK.

Rugby doesnt have those rules because collisions are more frequent, they have them because those tackles/collisions are dangerous.

Also concussions are more frequent in Rugby, yet football adopted concussion rules aswell because its dangerous. So are those rules not needed in football?

Head on head is a red in rugby..should Arsenal have had a player sent off last week?

 

[Braggfan]

It doesn't imply that at all.

The reason rugby has those rules, is because for the sport to be competitive, physical collisions are essential.
Scrums, Mauls, tackles, Line outs all rely on opponents hitting each other with their bodies.

Therefore the laws on what is and isn't permissable are far more extensive in Rugby.

Just because a type of deliberate contact is a red card in Rugby, it doesn't follow that an accidental collision in Football should also be a red,.

Im not trying to be argumentative, i think you're slightly misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that type of deliberate contact in Rugby that warrants a red, means it follows an accidental collision in football is a red.

In Rugby, head to shoulder contact is a red even if its accidental. They give no room for interpretation because they consider the blow to the head that serious. And yes you're probably right, the frequency that it happens in Rugby has almost certainly forced them to bring it in sooner.

I'm saying it's bizarre that a tougher rougher sport, would deem Pedros collision a red card, regardless of intent, yet in football its left to interpretation. I think we could infer from that the football hasn't caught up with Rugby about the seriousness of blows to the head.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Im not trying to be argumentative, i think you're slightly misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that type of deliberate contact in Rugby that warrants a red, means it follows an accidental collision in football is a red.

In Rugby, head to shoulder contact is a red even if its accidental. They give no room for interpretation because they consider the blow to the head that serious. And yes you're probably right, the frequency that it happens in Rugby has almost certainly forced them to bring it in sooner.

I'm saying it's bizarre that a tougher rougher sport, would deem Pedros collision a red card, regardless of intent, yet in football its left to interpretation. I think we could infer from that the football hasn't caught up with Rugby about the seriousness of blows to the head.

I understand what your saying.

Frequency and risk are absolutely the most important factor.

I suspect there are no thoughts about bringing in rules to outlaw heading the ball in Rugby.
But that's being seriously debated in Football.

The damage inflicted within the rules of Rugby, are already having a significant impact on the players.
WHich is why there needs to be specific limitations in that sport.

 

[Easy 10]

Sorry, but thats reckless. A red all day long, and twice on a Sunday.

If Delap had wiped out Verbruggen like that, then I would be going APESHIT.

 

[Guinness Boy]

"If only football was refereed more like rugby".

Also

If only tennis was umpired more like badminton.

I mean, they're similar.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Sorry, but thats reckless. A red all day long, and twice on a Sunday.

If Delap had wiped out Verbruggen like that, then I would be going APESHIT.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I don’t really get what people want Pedro to do here- freeze in mid air? Contort his body and somehow dive sideways while on flight? He went for the ball, didn’t get there and then turned his body to avoid injury. If he’d have led with his arm then it would be a clear red card, but he didn’t.

The reason why Walton got to play the ball first was that Pedro slowed himself down, however he wasn't able to stop before the inevitable collision between them which is why some on here seemingly deem Pedro to have been late with this challenge and therefore why they deem it a red card offense.

Clearly then to avoid his 'crime' of being 'late' and being worthy of a red card he should either have carried on at full speed into a potentially nasty collision that could have badly injured someone or both of them, but which seemingly would have made it ok then (as he wouldn't have been 'late')

Alternatively, he shouldn't have even bothered with any attempt to chase after that poor backpass (which may have yielded a goal scoring opportunity) and if he didn't bother, then there's little doubt that those criticising him for this collision would have been criticising him for not trying to get on the end of that poor backpass and letting a potential opportunity go to waste, likely describing him as lazy / going through the motions, etc.....

 

[Easy 10]

View attachment 195275

OK, not just reckless but also dangerous. He was always second favourite to get to that ball, but made no attempt to check his run, instead just launching himself full-pelt at Walton.

Very, very lucky to get away with just a yellow for that. My heart was in my mouth, I was convinced he was going, and would have had absolutely no complaint if he had.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

What is Pedro supposed to do, when going for the ball at full speed.

Usually when chasing down an under hit back pass, the keeper goes to ground to get the ball, and the forward jumps over the keeper on the ground. But in this instance Walton decides to kick the ball rather than going to ground to gather the ball, so Pedro can do very little to avoid the contact.

Not a red card for me.

Very good and valid point

 

[PascalGroß Tips]

OK, not just reckless but also dangerous. He was always second favourite to get to that ball, but made no attempt to check his run, instead just launching himself full-pelt at Walton.

Very, very lucky to get away with just a yellow for that. My heart was in my mouth, I was convinced he was going, and would have had absolutely no complaint if he had.

It's funny because I didn't see it as a red when it happened ... and neither did the ref or VAR. Pedro had eyes on the ball as he ran towards it. I don't think we'd be having the same debate if it was two outfield players going for a ball and colliding.