[Albion] That was a red wasn’t it?

[HastingsSeagull]

It probably was a red and a shame as he'd been excellent until a few minutes before the tackle, gave ball away once and then that moment. I did think the player on the floor tried to trip him and so he was off balance when going over/around him and to the man he tackled. No excuse but genuinely don't think he meant it as a result

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

This. But that ' blinkered ' is fuelled by the nonsense that Dermot Gallagher will spout tomorrow on sky's Ref Watch tomorrow going on about the height of the point of contact.

It's a red all day long!

I don’t really understand the height of the contact. The laws don’t mention anything about this so why would a ref talk about it? The law is nothing more than a subjective decision from the ref about the use of excessive force.

“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.
• A player who uses excessive force must be sent off

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Was worried the red was going to come out in the first place.
then expected VAR to make it red.
having seen it again, still surprised he didn’t get sent off!
glad he wasn’t, though.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

I don’t really understand the height of the contact. The laws don’t mention anything about this so why would a ref talk about it? The law is nothing more than a subjective decision from the ref about the use of excessive force.

“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.
• A player who uses excessive force must be sent off

Agreed.
The Harry maguire incident was also an example of excessive force,.
That was explained away in the same vein.

Somewhere along the way, the interpretation of the law has become, was the player in danger of breaking the opponent's leg.
A potentially broken ankle or foot, seems to be a yellow

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Agreed.
The Harry maguire incident was also an example of excessive force,.
That was explained away in the same vein.

Somewhere along the way, the interpretation of the law has become, was the player in danger of breaking the opponent's leg.
A potentially broken ankle or foot, seems to be a yellow

It’s weird how these myths about laws start and get perpetuated. It’s like the old “last man” in the context of fouls and red cards. Thankfully this has now stopped after the introduction of the term DOGSO.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

It wasn't in the extended highlights? I can't seem to find it anywhere, does this mean it actually was not controversial or is the EPL trying to hide it?

It's in the Sky highlights vid on the 2:00 mark

Brighton 1-0 Nottingham Forest | Premier League highlights

FREE TO WATCH: Highlights from the Premier League clash between Brighton and Nottingham Forest.

www.skysports.com

 

[Uh_huh_him]

MotD saying that Moder's challenge was worse than McGinn's.
What the actual f***??

McGinn., deliberately kicks the opponents leg.
He took a proper full blooded swipe at Udogie.
Moder's was definitely a red, but was only interested in getting the ball.

Given the went on to makie claim that because Omobamidele "gets the ball" that Forest were "hard done by".
He followed through and smashed Fati on the ankle, it's a foul (and probably a second yellow) every day of the week.

Ridiculous statements

 

[Simster]

I don’t really understand the height of the contact. The laws don’t mention anything about this so why would a ref talk about it? The law is nothing more than a subjective decision from the ref about the use of excessive force.

“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.
• A player who uses excessive force must be sent off

Agreed. This is a red because Moder jumped into the tackle, missed, and clattered the Forest player's ankle with his studs up. Could have ended his season. Red all day long. Poor on-field refererring, even worse VAR usage.

We got lucky.

 

[Simster]

MotD saying that Moder's challenge was worse than McGinn's.
What the actual f***??

McGinn., deliberately kicks the opponents leg.
He took a proper full blooded swipe at Udogie.
Moder's was definitely a red, but was only interested in getting the ball.

Given the went on to makie claim that because Omobamidele "gets the ball" that Forest were "hard done by".
He followed through and smashed Fati on the ankle, it's a foul (and probably a second yellow) every day of the week.

Ridiculous statements

Yes the comments on the foul that led to the goal really got on my tits. Why on earth are ex-players still justifying clear fouls by "he got the ball".

But mate, you can't risk maiming player just in case you win the ball first. How long did you play this game professionally? Seriously?

 

[Auckland seagull]

Red all day long. We'd have been blazing if that tackle was by a Forest player.

 

[SteveU]

Undoubtedly a red. Can’t understand why the delay for VAR didn’t give it. Can understand the ref not giving it in the heat of the moment like the Mitoma tackle.

Got away with one there for sure.

 

[tigertim68]

Yes the comments on the foul that led to the goal really got on my tits. Why on earth are ex-players still justifying clear fouls by "he got the ball".

But mate, you can't risk maiming player just in case you win the ball first. How long did you play this game professionally? Seriously?

because for over hundred years if you got the ball first it was not a foul ,
very few players are maimed through bad tackles
most injjuries are pulled muscles, hamstrings , and are nothing to do with tackles , football is meant to be a contact sport ,
and it is you who have not played football, and do not understand the game

 

[Simster]

because for over hundred years if you got the ball first it was not a foul ,
very few players are maimed through bad tackles
most injjuries are pulled muscles, hamstrings , and are nothing to do with tackles , football is meant to be a contact sport ,
and it is you who have not played football, and do not understand the game

But I have played the game and still do.

You're obviously a bit clueless so have a read of this:

https://d2jqoimos5um40.cloudfront.net/site_0083/11fa1e.pdf

Perhaps you could research Law 12 yourself to see when it was last changed. I bet it wasn't any time in the last 20 years.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

because for over hundred years if you got the ball first it was not a foul ,
very few players are maimed through bad tackles
most injjuries are pulled muscles, hamstrings , and are nothing to do with tackles , football is meant to be a contact sport ,
and it is you who have not played football, and do not understand the game

This feels like a ChatGPT-generated post

 

[Taybha]

Another prime example of VAR and it's random incompetence, staying with the refs on field decision to give Moder the yellow is just laughable, it's not a case of was it a red by the letter of the law it's basically pot luck who's on VAR, honestly if that tackle was on one of our players I'd be off my bonce,Moder got lucky, red card on field,VAR,and throughout the known footballing universe.

 

[JBizzle]

Yes the comments on the foul that led to the goal really got on my tits. Why on earth are ex-players still justifying clear fouls by "he got the ball".

But mate, you can't risk maiming player just in case you win the ball first. How long did you play this game professionally? Seriously?

I think it's because it's still seemingly used by referees too. Just look at Doku on Mac Allister. Doku touches the ball slightly (and I mean slightly) and kicks Mac Allister in the midriff with his follow-through. A clear foul not given because "he got the ball"

That said, I agree with your wider point, just because you happen to get the ball is completely irrelevant if you snap a player in two in the follow through. The key bit is "was it reckless", not "did he get a toe on the ball"

 

[One Love]

I wonder whether he was saved by Gibbs-White trip on him just before. The ref should have blown for that then the Moder challenge doesn't happen.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

I think it's because it's still seemingly used by referees too. Just look at Doku on Mac Allister. Doku touches the ball slightly (and I mean slightly) and kicks Mac Allister in the midriff with his follow-through. A clear foul not given because "he got the ball"

That said, I agree with your wider point, just because you happen to get the ball is completely irrelevant if you snap a player in two in the follow through. The key bit is "was it reckless", not "did he get a toe on the ball"

The Doku challenge was ajudged to be " an unavoidable coming together" whatever that means.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

I wonder whether he was saved by Gibbs-White trip on him just before. The ref should have blown for that then the Moder challenge doesn't happen.

I doubt it.
This looked like one of those occasions where the ref lets VAR make a decision and VAR backs the ref.
Both sides bottling a big decision.

About time we got one.
But yeah it was the wrong decision.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

I think VAR was correct not to intervene.

The ref had a great view of it and made his decision. OK, it was probably the wrong decision, it should have been a red, but i'm glad that VAR, for once, avoided the temptation to re-ref the incident.