Virgil van Dijk's yellow card

[Fosterbloke]

By the way, hello to -

ParisRed
Roanmore
El Aguila Calva
Peter_Griffin
thehotgates
Skrtelmania
Marineboy

Feel free to say hello!

[elrichio86]

Studs up and followed through - thats a clear yellow card in the modern game, unfortunately.


Personally, I think the rules have swung too far away from the contact-sport that football used to be a few decades ago. He might have got away with just a foul with an English ref, but there was no chance in a European game.

[Kenneth]

Agreed. Ball is there to be won and he's won it cleanly. What's he supposed to do with his momentum? Just stop dead in his tracks and unscrew his foot?

Not make that kind of tackle, because you're not allowed to. It was a dangerous tackle, as demonstrated by the type of contact he made with the striker. Whether the ball was played makes no difference to that 'fact', and that alone is enough for the booking.

[Kenneth]

Seriously don't get all of this "follow-through" stuff that's crept in. Football is supposed to be a contact sport, you're allowed to accidentally kick people on the follow-through now and again. The question is whether you were deliberately trying to get them, and/or whether you were being unduly reckless in the way that you slide in. Here it wasn't two-footed, it wasn't high, and he clearly got all of the ball. Fair tackle. Same for that ludicrous second-yellow for Vertonghen in the North-London derby.

I may be getting old but I just can't have it that if you accidentally catch the player at all in any kind of tackle it's a foul and maybe a yellow.

The potentially injury causing contact that did actually happen clearly demonstrates that the tackle fails this test. A booking any day of the week, and reds have been given for such incidents.

[Shaggy]

Not make that kind of tackle, because you're not allowed to. It was a dangerous tackle, as demonstrated by the type of contact he made with the striker. Whether the ball was played makes no difference to that 'fact', and that alone is enough for the booking.

I think all this falls under the 'excessive force' law, and I tbh don't know how that is defined. Maybe I'm just old fashioned.

[magicalbarnes]

A definate yellow in modern day European football I'm afraid.

It's one of those challenges that would have been applauded in English football 10 years ago.

Whilst on the subject, I do feel that we are a bit naive to the refereeing in our European ties. In the PSG and Napoli games there were instances when we didn't go down when we should have, missing out on dangerous free kicks and penalties. On the other hand our opponents were rolling around all over the place. I'm not advocating cheating but sometimes you have to be a little 'cuter'. Nowadays if your fouled it's almost as if you must go to ground if fouled - otherwise you don't win the penalty.

[topscorer]

Fair challenge?! How blinkered do you have to be? It was a yellow for sure!

He had his studs up and could have broke his leg. We'd be kicking off if it were against us.

Absolutely, it's hypocritical to say otherwise after what Klopp said about all the sliding tackles from Burnley.

Studs up is a foul regardless of whether you get the ball first. Could have been a red card.

[Liverpool]

good tackle imo, freeze frame a few seconds later to make it look bad

I swear the ref waved played on then changed his mind when he saw Mertens roll over a few times

[calvoboy]

The potentially injury causing contact that did actually happen clearly demonstrates that the tackle fails this test. A booking any day of the week, and reds have been given for such incidents.

I disagree. The tackle on Gomez had actual injury causing contact. There was nothing wrong with it whatsoever though. It's a contact sport, people will get hurt sometimes. Whether someone accidentally gets hurt shouldn't be a test of whether a tackle is a foul, yellow or red.

[El Diego]

i can see why people are calling it a red

[Kenneth]

I disagree. The tackle on Gomez had actual injury causing contact. There was nothing wrong with it whatsoever though. It's a contact sport, people will get hurt sometimes. Whether someone accidentally gets hurt shouldn't be a test of whether a tackle is a foul, yellow or red.

I wasn't saying that the consequence in terms of injury should determine anything, rather the contact that did occur was dangerous and had the clear potential to endanger the opponent, and the impetuous is on the tackler not to make dangerous tackles such as that. If they do then they rightly face the consequences, whether they actually cause injury or not. The random injuries that come from unforeseeable contact (eg Cisse's leg break shockers) are indeed just **** that happens and shouldn't alter how the contact is perceived or treated.

[labourRed]

In the clear light of day it's a yellow. It's a reckless challenge (the studs up make it so) and depending on how you read it, it could be a red but i don't see it that way at all.

[Venton]

Fair yellow there, red would have been a little harsh but it could easily have been given and how do the votes add up to 130%?

[Cormack74]

FB set it so you can vote for more than one option. I voted for all of them

[danperkins]

In real time, I thought it looked a good, clean tackle. On replay, VvD's studs were high and dangerous on the follow through. Yellow was the correct decision.

Last night I said momentum but foot was high and he wasn't in control. Slow motion makes it look really bad.