By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Admittedly I don't watch a vast amount of premier league football that doesn't involve us, but I'm still utterly bemused as to how that is deemed a red card offence and according to VAR "endangering the safety of an opposition player".
No part of Davis' boot makes contact with anything other than the back of Saka's boot. It's a bit naughty, yes, but I've seen countless comparable challenges in the 30 years I've been watching Town and I don't remember ever seeing a straight red for that kind of tackle before. If it was higher or with more force or with deliberate intent, then yes.
Not trying to change anyone's mind, just genuinely interested as to why that challenge was punished in the way it was. Doesn't make sense to me and I'm just seeing repeated references to it being far worse than the replays show it actually was.
Even Phil is at it - "high up the back of his calf" on 11:19 - Apr 21 by textbackup
Saw this one on Twitter, and it’s much worse than the one you posted.
It’s above his boot, so Achilles area, standing foot. Anyone that’s played football and has had one land there will know you are jumping up if that’s hitting you there.
Even Phil is at it - "high up the back of his calf" on 11:22 - Apr 21 by textbackup
Was it even that late?! He’s not even tackled the foot that had the ball, Saka passed with his left, and Leif stabs at the right 😂
[Post edited 21 Apr 11:23]
Not when you look at frame 4 & 5, where he's going for the foot with the ball. Not disputing it was from behind, and a poor tackle, but the moments leading up to the actual contact is not how some are making it out to be.
1
Even Phil is at it - "high up the back of his calf" on 11:34 - Apr 21 with 773 views
Even Phil is at it - "high up the back of his calf" on 11:27 - Apr 21 by textbackup
It’s above his boot. Hitting the Achilles is worse than hitting his calf.
In your opinion, based on a very poor quality image that really shows nothing conclusive.
Do you think that image even shows the right foot in a natural position? No it doesn't, which makes that still completely useless for a reasoned assessment.
1
Even Phil is at it - "high up the back of his calf" on 11:36 - Apr 21 with 759 views
Even Phil is at it - "high up the back of his calf" on 11:28 - Apr 21 by SouperJim
I think that screenshot is misleading, that's after the contact. Having watched it in motion numerous times, I stand by the statement that Leif's boot only makes contact with the back of Saka's.
We're probably splitting hairs and I don't doubt he felt the contact. But I also think Arsenal knew what they were doing to influence the officials. Saka came off because the crowd got in his head and he was fluffing relatively easy chances. He's not injured.
‘That’s after the contact’
The photo shows the contact literally still happening. Boot firmly on his ankle/achilles.
Wouldn’t have mattered either way anyway, we’d have still lost. So probably a pointless way to spend our day discussing this 😂
Even Phil is at it - "high up the back of his calf" on 11:19 - Apr 21 by textbackup
Saw this one on Twitter, and it’s much worse than the one you posted.
It’s above his boot, so Achilles area, standing foot. Anyone that’s played football and has had one land there will know you are jumping up if that’s hitting you there.
[Post edited 21 Apr 11:21]
In that picture (which is one angle, the worst still image posted so far and very low quality) the contact is on the boot. It is the heel rather than the achilles. I agree that the achilles is worse than the calf (as you put on the other thread) but I don't agree that it contacts his achilles at all. A painful one on the heel.
Even Phil is at it - "high up the back of his calf" on 11:34 - Apr 21 by SuffolkPunchFC
In your opinion, based on a very poor quality image that really shows nothing conclusive.
Do you think that image even shows the right foot in a natural position? No it doesn't, which makes that still completely useless for a reasoned assessment.
Even more telling is Davis' position in that shot. That's not the point of contact, it's clearly after and Davis is totally off balance. Whoever posted that deliberately chose that shot as it makes it look worse, presumably with the agenda of arguing it was a deserved red.
Even Phil is at it - "high up the back of his calf" on 11:31 - Apr 21 by SuffolkPunchFC
Not when you look at frame 4 & 5, where he's going for the foot with the ball. Not disputing it was from behind, and a poor tackle, but the moments leading up to the actual contact is not how some are making it out to be.
Just seen it 3/4 times on Sky, the ball isn’t even remotely close to being there to be won.
I think what Leif is trying to do it give Saka a ‘little one’ from behind to say I’m here… he’s just timed it horribly and got it wrong.
Even Phil is at it - "high up the back of his calf" on 11:38 - Apr 21 by SouperJim
Even more telling is Davis' position in that shot. That's not the point of contact, it's clearly after and Davis is totally off balance. Whoever posted that deliberately chose that shot as it makes it look worse, presumably with the agenda of arguing it was a deserved red.
It was a Town fan that posted it originally.
Dress it up however you want, it’s a red card. I’d assume it was reviewed on VAR too
Even Phil is at it - "high up the back of his calf" on 11:43 - Apr 21 by Nthsuffolkblue
I agree. I think everyone expected a yellow from that too. When the ref produced the red card the reaction was surprise.
One thing is sure "high up the back of the calf" is a massive exageration.
In real time it looked like a clumsy foul, once you saw the replay it was a clear red. I dunno why people are arguing the toss on that. With VAR you’re never getting away with that.
Even Phil is at it - "high up the back of his calf" on 11:34 - Apr 21 by SuffolkPunchFC
In your opinion, based on a very poor quality image that really shows nothing conclusive.
Do you think that image even shows the right foot in a natural position? No it doesn't, which makes that still completely useless for a reasoned assessment.
It's taken from this - ridiculous, rubbish commentary, but gives clear visuals (0.11-32) -
Even Phil is at it - "high up the back of his calf" on 11:43 - Apr 21 by Nthsuffolkblue
I agree. I think everyone expected a yellow from that too. When the ref produced the red card the reaction was surprise.
One thing is sure "high up the back of the calf" is a massive exageration.
Yeah it’s not high up.
When I played it was deemed embarrassing to dive (especially at CB) so would never do so. One time I got a striker hit my achilles like LD did to saka, and my natural reaction was to jump up as thought my heel was about to snap.
People saying sakas first reaction was over playing it, simply haven’t had that tackle happen to them. (Rolling around after might be uncalled for)
Even Phil is at it - "high up the back of his calf" on 11:36 - Apr 21 by textbackup
‘That’s after the contact’
The photo shows the contact literally still happening. Boot firmly on his ankle/achilles.
Wouldn’t have mattered either way anyway, we’d have still lost. So probably a pointless way to spend our day discussing this 😂
No it doesn't. Again, that's after the contact. Look at Davis. Look at his body position, he's off balance and falling. Compare it to the shot I posted of the moment of contact.
It's a 2d shot which makes it hard to judge depth etc. It's misleading. The two players aren't touching in that image, Davis is behind him. It was posted by someone arguing that it was a deserved red and they chose that image as it appears to support their argument and makes the challenge look worse than it was.
Even Phil is at it - "high up the back of his calf" on 11:51 - Apr 21 by textbackup
In 2025, in the PL, with VAR, it’s a red card. What’s so difficult to grasp?
Have you read what I've written? Re-read my OP. At no point have I attempted to debate whether it was a deserved red.
If you were arguing with someone as to whether it should be red or yellow, a misleading still like that after the contact, which makes it look like the challenge is worse than it actually was, would support your argument.
He caught him on the heel on the back of his boot. What's so difficult to grasp?
Even Phil is at it - "high up the back of his calf" on 10:02 - Apr 21 by TheBoyBlue
I do see what you mean and I have to admit to that being my view of it, but even McKenna said it was a red.
but the context of that is under the way the Prem should be reffed by the rules, yes its a red.
thats just the modern game. but its more complicated than that, because the Prem isnt reffed like that all the time, I guarantee you could go rewatch every single game in the Prem from this season and therell be maybe another dozen or so similar tackles, some will get red, some will get yellow and some wont even get noticed, even by VAR.
and thats the annoyance. and why it doesnt feel like a red card to alot of us, because alot of the time it isnt, even if the rules say it should be.
in theory the ref is allowed to use their own judgement, shocking I know, to decide whether it was dangerous or fits in the way theyve been managing the game and warranted a red card.
but how many times did Hurst get fouled by their defenders ? they were all over him pulling his shirt,grappling him, preventing him jumping for the ball, they didnt even get booked or a talking to, yet the rules say that should be a yellow card
"A yellow card can be shown for impeding an attacker if the player obstructs, blocks, slows down, or forces a change of direction of the opponent without the ball being in playing distance. This includes actions like pulling a shirt or tackling an opponent in a way that prevents them from reaching the ball. "
Arteta should have been booked by the rules for persistently being outside of his technical area, and he wasnt just a yard out, sometimes he was halfway along the touchline, or even standing on the pitch, and he was doing it repeatedly, 4th official didnt even speak to him about it.
the ref should have booked someone on their side for having their little mini team meeting post goal celebrations and delaying the restart after a goal, its time wasting.
the rules also say you can be booked for not being ready for a substitution, time wasting effectively again, as we had kicked off under the refs direction and then he decided we should stop, wasted 30 secs deciding they actually werent ready and we carried on.
if we are going to go by the rulebook, then why are the rules only applied to Ipswich, not the other teams ? and the ref yesterday is one of the more card happy refs, he should have had no issue handing out the yellows Ive highlighted.
but he didnt, so why was that ?
1
Even Phil is at it - "high up the back of his calf" on 12:13 - Apr 21 with 645 views
Even Phil is at it - "high up the back of his calf" on 12:04 - Apr 21 by stonojnr
but the context of that is under the way the Prem should be reffed by the rules, yes its a red.
thats just the modern game. but its more complicated than that, because the Prem isnt reffed like that all the time, I guarantee you could go rewatch every single game in the Prem from this season and therell be maybe another dozen or so similar tackles, some will get red, some will get yellow and some wont even get noticed, even by VAR.
and thats the annoyance. and why it doesnt feel like a red card to alot of us, because alot of the time it isnt, even if the rules say it should be.
in theory the ref is allowed to use their own judgement, shocking I know, to decide whether it was dangerous or fits in the way theyve been managing the game and warranted a red card.
but how many times did Hurst get fouled by their defenders ? they were all over him pulling his shirt,grappling him, preventing him jumping for the ball, they didnt even get booked or a talking to, yet the rules say that should be a yellow card
"A yellow card can be shown for impeding an attacker if the player obstructs, blocks, slows down, or forces a change of direction of the opponent without the ball being in playing distance. This includes actions like pulling a shirt or tackling an opponent in a way that prevents them from reaching the ball. "
Arteta should have been booked by the rules for persistently being outside of his technical area, and he wasnt just a yard out, sometimes he was halfway along the touchline, or even standing on the pitch, and he was doing it repeatedly, 4th official didnt even speak to him about it.
the ref should have booked someone on their side for having their little mini team meeting post goal celebrations and delaying the restart after a goal, its time wasting.
the rules also say you can be booked for not being ready for a substitution, time wasting effectively again, as we had kicked off under the refs direction and then he decided we should stop, wasted 30 secs deciding they actually werent ready and we carried on.
if we are going to go by the rulebook, then why are the rules only applied to Ipswich, not the other teams ? and the ref yesterday is one of the more card happy refs, he should have had no issue handing out the yellows Ive highlighted.
but he didnt, so why was that ?
There was a moment second half where an arsenal player had a fistful of the back of Hirst's shirt in the box, to the point of it being stretched out a good 4 or 5 inches, clear as day. We got nowt for it.
Of course that won't be mentioned on MOTD, endlessly debated on twitter etc.
Even Phil is at it - "high up the back of his calf" on 12:13 - Apr 21 by SouperJim
There was a moment second half where an arsenal player had a fistful of the back of Hirst's shirt in the box, to the point of it being stretched out a good 4 or 5 inches, clear as day. We got nowt for it.
Of course that won't be mentioned on MOTD, endlessly debated on twitter etc.
To be fair, it was discussed live and they questioned it before noticing that Hirst also had a handful of the Arsenal players shirt.
A better whataboutery is the ‘cynical’ challenge that was made as we broke away, about 15-20 mins into the game and went unpunished. There’s still massive inconsistency despite all the ‘tech’ that they use now.
Even Phil is at it - "high up the back of his calf" on 10:53 - Apr 21 by textbackup
For me it’s nasty, unnecessary, pointless. It’s a stamp/drag down on Sakas standing leg, when winning the ball is nowhere near achievable. It’s one of those tackles that is just plain stupid and naive (especially with VAR in the game now)
If that’s against us, and the player isn’t sent off there would be tears on here about the PL being corrupt.
Hate to agree but I agree and people saying there was no intent are being generous too, I think he closes his eyes when he goes in too. Red card all day long and rightly so.
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
Even Phil is at it - "high up the back of his calf" on 11:19 - Apr 21 by textbackup
Saw this one on Twitter, and it’s much worse than the one you posted.
It’s above his boot, so Achilles area, standing foot. Anyone that’s played football and has had one land there will know you are jumping up if that’s hitting you there.
[Post edited 21 Apr 11:21]
In real time and sat behind you could see Saka's ankle buckle as contact was made as per this picture...it's dangerous and a red!
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
