If Gomes tries to sue Son...

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

If Gomes tries to sue Son...

Previous Topic | Next Topic

ex hibitionist Hastings 03 Nov 19 11.08pm
… he won't have a leg to stand on. I immediately apologise for my appalling taste and wish a speedy recovery to the poor bloke, but gallows humour does need to continue imho.
Alert a moderator to this post

ex hibitionist

Hastings 03 Nov 19 11.08pm

Send a Private Message to ex hibitionist

… he won't have a leg to stand on. I immediately apologise for my appalling taste and wish a speedy recovery to the poor bloke, but gallows humour does need to continue imho.

Alert a moderator to this post

sickboy Deal or Croydon 04 Nov 19 6.15am
It sounded like everton were singing "dirty korean b******" .
Alert a moderator to this post

sickboy

Deal or Croydon 04 Nov 19 6.15am

It sounded like everton were singing "dirty korean b******" .

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyboy1978 04 Nov 19 8.56am
Originally posted by sickboy It sounded like everton were singing "dirty korean b******" . The first two words are literally correct though
Alert a moderator to this post

dannyboy1978

04 Nov 19 8.56am

Originally posted by sickboy

It sounded like everton were singing "dirty korean b******" .

The first two words are literally correct though

Alert a moderator to this post

stuckinbristol In the woodwork. 04 Nov 19 9.40am
Why is it that Son was initially booked, but when the ref saw the extent of the injury he changed it to a red? Obviously Son didn't mean to injure him, so if the ref thought it was just a booking does it matter that he was badly injured? What if the lad had landed on his head and died, would Son have been to blame? *By the way, I have every sympathy for Gomes, as I would for anyone injured in this way, and wish him a full and speedy recovery.
Alert a moderator to this post

stuckinbristol

In the woodwork. 04 Nov 19 9.40am

Send a Private Message to stuckinbristol

Why is it that Son was initially booked, but when the ref saw the extent of the injury he changed it to a red?
Obviously Son didn't mean to injure him, so if the ref thought it was just a booking does it matter that he was badly injured?
What if the lad had landed on his head and died, would Son have been to blame?

*By the way, I have every sympathy for Gomes, as I would for anyone injured in this way, and wish him a full and speedy recovery.

Alert a moderator to this post

topcat Holmesdale / Surbiton 04 Nov 19 12.24pm
Originally posted by stuckinbristol Why is it that Son was initially booked, but when the ref saw the extent of the injury he changed it to a red? Obviously Son didn't mean to injure him, so if the ref thought it was just a booking does it matter that he was badly injured? What if the lad had landed on his head and died, would Son have been to blame? By the way, I have every sympathy for Gomes, as I would for anyone injured in this way, and wish him a full and speedy recovery. I assume that it was VAR. Gave a yellow then was told that it could be a red. Personally I thought a yellow was correct. It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.*
Alert a moderator to this post

topcat

Holmesdale / Surbiton 04 Nov 19 12.24pm

Originally posted by stuckinbristol

*By the way, I have every sympathy for Gomes, as I would for anyone injured in this way, and wish him a full and speedy recovery.

I assume that it was VAR. Gave a yellow then was told that it could be a red. Personally I thought a yellow was correct.

It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.

Alert a moderator to this post

becky over the moon 04 Nov 19 3.02pm
Apparently this is the decision as verified by the PL: After the game, the Premier League released a statement explaining why the colour of the card had been upgraded. It read: "The red card for Son was for endangering the safety of a player which happened as a consequence of his initial challenge." All of the 'experts', from MOTD to ex Referees, all seem to agree that Son should not be penalised for consequences that occurred after the challenge, but only for the challenge itself - a yellow, and that anything else is a whole new interpretation of the Laws. Tottenham are going to appeal according to the newpapers. A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

becky

over the moon 04 Nov 19 3.02pm

Apparently this is the decision as verified by the PL:

After the game, the Premier League released a statement explaining why the colour of the card had been upgraded.

It read: "The red card for Son was for endangering the safety of a player which happened as a consequence of his initial challenge."

All of the 'experts', from MOTD to ex Referees, all seem to agree that Son should not be penalised for consequences that occurred after the challenge, but only for the challenge itself - a yellow, and that anything else is a whole new interpretation of the Laws.

Tottenham are going to appeal according to the newpapers.

A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

Frickin Saweet South Cronx 04 Nov 19 3.44pm
I came on to post this very same thought about the red. It certainly looks like it was upgraded because of the severity of the injury, not the tackle. Also, and call me old fashioned, I really felt like the player reactions were over-dramatic. It's like you can't just think 'cor that was horrific' and walk off, you have to perform your feeling by putting your hands on your head, look to the 'Gods', drop to your knees. It all looked very unnatural, almost like it was done to convince people of what they were thinking, rather than just thinking it.
Alert a moderator to this post

Frickin Saweet

South Cronx 04 Nov 19 3.44pm

Send a Private Message to Frickin Saweet

I came on to post this very same thought about the red. It certainly looks like it was upgraded because of the severity of the injury, not the tackle.

Also, and call me old fashioned, I really felt like the player reactions were over-dramatic. It's like you can't just think 'cor that was horrific' and walk off, you have to perform your feeling by putting your hands on your head, look to the 'Gods', drop to your knees. It all looked very unnatural, almost like it was done to convince people of what they were thinking, rather than just thinking it.

Alert a moderator to this post

stuckinbristol In the woodwork. 04 Nov 19 4.04pm
As a side note, someone should take Richalison (?) aside and tell him that is a proper reason to go down and stay there, not a little nudge to the side of your face.
Alert a moderator to this post

stuckinbristol

In the woodwork. 04 Nov 19 4.04pm

As a side note, someone should take Richalison (?) aside and tell him that is a proper reason to go down and stay there, not a little nudge to the side of your face.

Alert a moderator to this post

YT Oxford 04 Nov 19 4.27pm
Originally posted by stuckinbristol Why is it that Son was initially booked, but when the ref saw the extent of the injury he changed it to a red? Obviously Son didn't mean to injure him, so if the ref thought it was just a booking does it matter that he was badly injured? What if the lad had landed on his head and died, would Son have been to blame? *By the way, I have every sympathy for Gomes, as I would for anyone injured in this way, and wish him a full and speedy recovery. I think it's yet another example of "make the rules up as you go along". A separate point, but "in my day" the tackle may not even have got a booking. Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)
Alert a moderator to this post

Oxford 04 Nov 19 4.27pm