Man City away post match sulk

[ntto]

genuine question

a lot of the discussion has been around the severity of the injury and the potential consequence of mane having his foot raised high for justifying the red card. Carragher has gone on about its a deffo red because of the impact and where he was hit etc

about 5 minutes before the sending off Mane was through and fernandinho brought him down on the edge of the box (for which he was booked). When Mane went down and the whistle for the free kick went - fractionally after that Otamendi slid in and rattled into Mane with the full force of BOTH his feet with studs up into Mane's chest who had been felled by Ferandinhos challenge. I remember thinking at the time that had to be at LEAST a yellow but there was no action and there's been no chat about it either.

based on all the evidence presented for Mane's red card the same rules have to apply to Otamendi?

If some smart person had access to the footage you'd see it plain as day

[Alex]

Did Mane need Oxygen after that?

Its situational I guess. Some will be during the run of play, some will be like this Mane thing where it was with the run of play, but it was blatently obvious that he kicked him in the head (Intentional or not)

I also think head injuries are treated as rightly more severely than anything else.

[gratziani]

Guess we all just want the game to be fair , and if it is a red card so be it , but the rule has to apply to everybody else and the 2 people since who got away with it.

[The_weatherman]

Nah no ****in way will we get reduced ban. The FA will probably add another game on for asking the question. Otherwise it opens up an appeal on the length of every straight red. So although the fact that there was zero intent should mean a one game ban would be more appropriate, their kangaroo court won't be able to see that or use common sense

Feeling a bit better now, couldn't even think about the game for a few days But I don't think it's frivoulus, I mean Richie got a yellow for a similar offence and Rio posted a picture of himself doing the same where he didn't even get cautioned. Why should Mane get a 3 match ban? Still if he does we should cope, it will need Coutinho and Salah on the game though.

[Kenneth]

genuine question

a lot of the discussion has been around the severity of the injury and the potential consequence of mane having his foot raised high for justifying the red card. Carragher has gone on about its a deffo red because of the impact and where he was hit etc

about 5 minutes before the sending off Mane was through and fernandinho brought him down on the edge of the box (for which he was booked). When Mane went down and the whistle for the free kick went - fractionally after that Otamendi slid in and rattled into Mane with the full force of BOTH his feet with studs up into Mane's chest who had been felled by Ferandinhos challenge. I remember thinking at the time that had to be at LEAST a yellow but there was no action and there's been no chat about it either.

based on all the evidence presented for Mane's red card the same rules have to apply to Otamendi?

If some smart person had access to the footage you'd see it plain as day

The lack of clarity comes from the fact that 'endangering an opponent' is a vague concept. Pretty much any sliding tackle could injure the recipient, we've seen legs broken from pretty innocuous challenges, and two players jumping to head the ball are both endangering the other based on the number of head clashes that it causes. So we end up with a a consequentialist definition, it's generally only endangerment if someone actually is caught badly by a challenge or does get hurt. There are some exceptions for two footed lunges, but the decisions for those are very inconsistent.

But to judge severity of a foul you have to look at how predictable or likely it was that a player could/would get hurt and how severely, ie how dangerous it was. From Mane's perspective, trying to play the ball 20 yards from goal without knowing a reckless goalkeeper is storming out and stooping to head the ball, his perception of the risk is that it is low, his decision to act as he did is perfectly rational and within acceptable bounds. But, the reckless keeper was there and the actual risk was greater than Mane's perception of the risk. Mane's crime was not knowing there the keeper was. I think challenging a three match ban on that basis is reasonable enough.

It would be the same for a player trying to play a high ball and someone appearing from behind him, trying to head it and getting whacked. And coming back to the 50/50 headers, we never see reds for them, even if someone receives a head injury but on paper we should see then frequently, but it was a 'genuine attempt to win the ball', 'eyes on the ball', 'just one of those things' etc etc, which apparently don't matter but clearly do.

Basically, the endangerment rule is too ill-defined a rule to lead to consistent decisions in these situations and simply boils down to 'oo, that was a bad'un' which makes it highly subjective for referees.

[ntto]

The lack of clarity comes from the fact that 'endangering an opponent' is a vague concept. Pretty much any sliding tackle could injure the recipient, we've seen legs broken from pretty innocuous challenges, and two players jumping to head the ball are both endangering the other based on the number of head clashes that it causes. So we end up with a a consequentialist definition, it's generally only endangerment if someone actually is caught badly by a challenge or does get hurt. There are some exceptions for two footed lunges, but the decisions for those are very inconsistent.

But to judge severity of a foul you have to look at how predictable or likely it was that a player could/would get hurt and how severely, ie how dangerous it was. From Mane's perspective, trying to play the ball 20 yards from goal without knowing a reckless goalkeeper is storming out and stooping to head the ball, his perception of the risk is that it is low, his decision to act as he did is perfectly rational and within acceptable bounds. But, the reckless keeper was there and the actual risk was greater than Mane's perception of the risk. Mane's crime was not knowing there the keeper was. I think challenging a three match ban on that basis is reasonable enough.

It would be the same for a player trying to play a high ball and someone appearing from behind him, trying to head it and getting whacked. And coming back to the 50/50 headers, we never see reds for them, even if someone receives a head injury but on paper we should see then frequently, but it was a 'genuine attempt to win the ball', 'eyes on the ball', 'just one of those things' etc etc, which apparently don't matter but clearly do.

Basically, the endangerment rule is too ill-defined a rule to lead to consistent decisions in these situations and simply boils down to 'oo, that was a bad'un' which makes it highly subjective for referees.

surely there's the view of likelihood of endangerment as well. Two players going for a high ball (irrespective of what they are leading with) is less likely to lead to a severe injury than Otamendi sliding into Manes chest two footed with studs showing as he's lying stationary on the ground?

[Kenneth]

I did say that.

Endangerment is generally overlooked unless there actually is an injury. (and otamendi didn't mean it ) Got to provide encouragement for players to roll around and cry.

[Buzzo]

What if you kicked the ball in an opponents face whilst he was lying on the ground knocking his teeth out and rendering him unconscious?

Red card?

[Kenneth]

I would think so.

[Havors]

Nah no ****in way will we get reduced ban. The FA will probably add another game on for asking the question. Otherwise it opens up an appeal on the length of every straight red. So although the fact that there was zero intent should mean a one game ban would be more appropriate, their kangaroo court won't be able to see that or use common sense

Well they need consistency... every high foot now needs to be a red card. Or they take it for what it is, an accident and should really of only been a yellow. They cant have rules and guidelines and then just randomly **** them off when they feel like.

[Buzzo]

I would think so.

I went too extreme didn't I.

[Roboklopp]

I went too extreme didn't I.

More than words can express.

[maxwellbaxter]

What if he had gone with his head...missed the ball...accidentally headbutted causing a large gash?

I remember a brilliant bit of skill from Gerrard on Fellani along those lines.

[BillobShaisley]

Well they need consistency... every high foot now needs to be a red card. Or they take it for what it is, an accident and should really of only been a yellow. They cant have rules and guidelines and then just randomly **** them off when they feel like.

Every high foot that is both a foul and dangerous (i.e. has the risk of injuring an opponent). Not just having a high foot or even fouling with a high foot.

[Kenneth]

What if he had gone with his head...missed the ball...accidentally headbutted causing a large gash?

I remember a brilliant bit of skill from Gerrard on Fellani along those lines.

Clashes of heads are never red cards, not that I can recall anyway. Makes no sense at all.