Premier League 23/24

[Horatio]

No, it's not.
You have made this point again in other cases.
You distort the essence of the violation in any foul, which lies on who initiates the contact.
Every other player on the pitch is potentially an obstacle. What you write makes 0 sense

And if there are refs that interpret it this way (which some do), new directives should be given ASAP

I thought it was penalty as well. Can you share vid once available showing otherwise?

 

[KingLeo10]

Looked at the schedule...

Crystanbul is loading lads

 

[CatalinR10]

Great draw from Chelsea against the last spot on the table which helps them advance to the 9th position.

 

[Fati_Future_BallonDor]

Looked at the schedule...

Crystanbul is loading lads

What do you mean with Crystanbul?

 

[Fati_Future_BallonDor]

Great draw from Chelsea against the last spot on the table which helps them advance to the 9th position.

typical Chelsea, they conceded 52 goals so far, absolutely crap defence

 

[Birdy]

I thought it was penalty as well. Can you share vid once available showing otherwise?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777023116742406206

Look, it's very simple, and I think you (a sane person) would get why:
The replay includes two parts: 1) AWB's action, 2) what happens after it

1) AWB's action comprises only the sliding of the leg, which takes x number of seconds.
If during that sliding from t=0 to t=x, his sliding leg touches any part of Elliot's body W/O making contact with the ball, then it's a pen

2) If, after the sliding is completed (t=x+ some milliseconds), Elliot continues his run ON any part of AWB's body, that is not an action initiated by AWB
This is exactly what happens in our case, as the vid above shows: after AWB's action ends (leg reaches its end point and lands on the ground) Elliot continues his run, and steps on the body of AWB lying on the ground

Personally I could not care less that people like Serghei don't understand the logic
but the fact that some refs these days (thankfully not all) have come to believe that 2) is something of which the onus is on the defender who completed his action, and not on the attacker who simply bumps into the defender is beyond me

They should correct it ASAP with new directives

 

[jamrock]

Another day of L's for poch and ETH.

 

[KingLeo10]

Poch is a bonafide loser

 

[Horatio]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777023116742406206

Look, it's very simple, and I think you (a sane person) would get why:
The replay includes two parts: 1) AWB's action, 2) what happens after it

1) AWB's action comprises only the sliding of the leg, which takes x number of seconds.
If during that sliding from t=0 to t=x, his sliding leg touches any part of Elliot's body W/O making contact with the ball, then it's a pen

2) If, after the sliding is completed (t=x+ some milliseconds), Elliot continues his run ON any part of AWB's body, that is not an action initiated by AWB
This is exactly what happens in our case, as the vid above shows: after AWB's action ends (leg reaches its end point and lands on the ground) Elliot continues his run, and steps on the body of AWB lying on the ground

Personally I could not care less that people like Serghei don't understand the logic
but the fact that some refs these days (thankfully not all) have come to believe that 2) is something of which the onus is on the defender who completed his action, and not on the attacker who simply bumps into the defender is beyond me

They should correct it ASAP with new directives

Damn…cant even see the contact

 

[Messi983]

Chelsea

 

[serghei]

No, it's not.
You have made this point again in other cases.
You distort the essence of the violation in any foul, which lies on who initiates the contact.
Every other player on the pitch is potentially an obstacle. What you write makes 0 sense

And if there are refs that interpret it this way (which some do), new directives should be given ASAP

I explained it before in these situations. The attacking player follows the ball, he can't change direction instantly lol as you demand. To accelerate and change direction suddenly, one of the legs has to go at least slightly in the opposite direction. That leg is sandwiched by Bisakka's tackle.

So, it's relatively simple. Don't do a sliding tackle unless you are sure you can get the ball. The attacker is not going to try and jump over your legs once you do that, even if he can do that. It was a stupid and reckless tackle by Bissaka.

Slow motion analysis at 1/20th the speed of the actual play should be banned btw. If you look at it normal speed, it's a pen. Sure, it's not the clearest one, but still more of a pen than not.

A good comment by a United fan online on this topic:

Its a clear penalty, If the ref didn't call it I would argue the VAR should be calling that a penalty still. No contact with the ball and taking Elliot's ability to play the ball away from him. He cuts left and to be able to follow the ball he needs to plant his right foot which he is prevented due to AWB sliding underneath him. We have had many bad decisions against us but this is not one of them.

Don't slide in the box unless you are sure you are getting the ball or it is a last ditch situation.

He explained very well why most of these situations are given as penalties.

 

[serghei]

2) If, after the sliding is completed (t=x+ some milliseconds), Elliot continues his run ON any part of AWB's body, that is not an action initiated by AWB
This is exactly what happens in our case, as the vid above shows: after AWB's action ends (leg reaches its end point and lands on the ground) Elliot continues his run, and steps on the body of AWB lying on the ground

This part is where you get it wrong. Let's say you are a defender, you make a tackle, don't get the ball, but initially don't get contact with the player either.

But then the attacker trips over your feet that are in his way, and your tackle impedes his ability to follow the ball. According to the rules this is also a penalty for tripping.

 

[Birdy]

This part is where you get it wrong. Let's say you are a defender, you make a tackle, don't get the ball, but initially don't get contact with the player either.

But then the attacker trips over your feet that are in his way, and your tackle impedes his ability to follow the ball. According to the rules this is also a penalty for tripping.

Show me a rule which states this last part, I bet you won't find any
It's stupid to even write it down. Every player move on the field might impede the ability of a player carrying the ball.
And if there was even 1% grain of truth in this whole faulty logic that you present, it would apply not to sliding tackles only (lol) but to every action trying to dispossess a ball carrier.
The opponents are not supposed to make way for the ball carrier

Christ, I can't believe there are football fans who are not born five years ago and think like that

 

[KingLeo10]

Here's some art for @Birdy

 

[Temptation]

Is this the worst piece of commentary ever? Stop reading them stats and focus on this brilliant dribble you mug!

Here's some art for @Birdy

This is actually funny but works for almost every manager.

Works for ETH and Xavi too for instance.