The Dawson Derby, AKA The Andy Reid Derby, AKA The Brennan Johnson Derby - AKA EVERY FUCKING PLAYER EVER- AKA Forest Away - 15/12, 8pm KO

[Fat Abbot]

Intention is irrelevant on various levels (nobody can have any idea of what happened in the player's mind at the split second that the foul occurred). It's why the "not that sort of player" argument has always been ridiculous.

Even with the "new" (+10 years) laws in place, "intention" hasn't been a factor for the past 30 years or so.

You’re talking nonsense today.

Assessing intention does not require knowledge of someone’s thoughts. As a lawyer, I would feel for my prosecutor-colleagues if that was the case. Perhaps you can figure out why.

In football, when assessing a tackle, one thing to be assessed is the tackling player’s proximity to the ball and attempt to play the ball.

You cannot assess if an attempt to play the ball was made without considering the intention behind the tackle. If no attempt was made to play the ball, you’re more likely to be sent off than if an attempt was indeed made (but failed).

(Not that I don’t agree on the red card, though. Harsh, but not wrong, especially considering the height of the foot at contact).

 

[Rocket]

Auntie/Balls etc.

Probably partly my argument no?

I admit I'm a bit pissed so might not be making my arguments 100% clearly, but they created enough with what they had to suggest that on another day the result could easily have been different I reckon. Especially if they had some quality in the last 1/3rd. And it's not as if we set out a game plan specifically to take account of Forest's strengths or weaknesses.

 

[Airfixx]

Probably partly my argument no?

I admit I'm a bit pissed so might not be making my arguments 100% clearly, but they created enough with what they had to suggest that on another day the result could easily have been different I reckon. Especially if they had some quality in the last 1/3rd. And it's not as if we set out a game plan specifically to take account of Forest's strengths or weaknesses.

 

[Confusius]

Shag the referee's missus.

Spoiler

And not call her back

That only warrants a warning!

 

[Top_Spur]

It's interesting Ange said that us missing players is building up resilience in the team and didn't really seem bothered that we're going to be depleted yet again.

Conte would have threatened to burn the stadium down by now if he had this many injuries and suspensions.

 

[White Van Jan]

Fair enough. Bissouma ain't the answer that is for sure.

He's a great player but we aren't seeing it

Time for Ange to earn his corn

 

[Legacy Lilywhite]

View: https://twitter.com/LoveTheShirt/status/1735804414064054362

 

[Rocket]

Sure it's been said several times in here but B. Davies was the real motm.

Excellent performance tonight. Barely put a foot wrong.

EXPERIENCE.

 

[Go on son]

Who ended the game with 10 men?

Look, I'm not suggesting that we didn't deserve to win. But I don't think it was a 0-2 game. And that was down to quality as far as I'm concerned.

Boly was really their only chance really

 

[Go on son]

No, but he may have easily thought that he merely mistimed the challenge, and only on re-inspection saw how bad the challenge actually was. Personally don't have a problem with it. For me it was a clear and obvious error to not red card him.

Same as jones against us. Deserved red

 

[Confusius]

Tbh they took about 5 minutes on that Elanga offside goal, embarrassingly.

4 of those minutes was for finding ways to allow it!

 

[Go on son]

You’re talking nonsense today.

Assessing intention does not require knowledge of someone’s thoughts. As a lawyer, I would feel for my prosecutor-colleagues if that was the case. Perhaps you can figure out why.

In football, when assessing a tackle, one thing to be assessed is the tackling player’s proximity to the ball and attempt to play the ball.

You cannot assess if an attempt to play the ball was made without considering the intention behind the tackle. If no attempt was made to play the ball, you’re more likely to be sent off than if an attempt was indeed made (but failed).

(Not that I don’t agree on the red card, though. Harsh, but not wrong, especially considering the height of the foot at contact).

Its not harsh though

 

[bonaspur23]

Good point:

Skipp - 32m
PEH - 72m
Emerson - 88m
Veliz - 99m

That Veliz sub might have buggered us here.

the concussion rule is only 6 or 7 days

 

[John Thomas]

Tbh they took about 5 minutes on that Elanga offside goal, embarrassingly.

Rather take 5 minutes and get it right than 1 minute and get it wrong

(It was actually barely 2 minutes, btw)

 

[Go on son]

Boly was really their only chance really

Sorry the header too but in fairness he was all over udogie

 

[Spursidol]

Rules are:

- 5 subs
- Only 3 stoppages allowed to make them + HT
- Additional subs/stoppage allowed for concussion sub.

If we've made four separate subs then one of them must have been a con.sub.



See above.

Agreed but we have time to declare that after examination its not concussion - even though we used the concussion sub. So no need to rest him due to concussion and he can play Everton

 

[Airfixx]

Agreed but we have time to declare that after examination its not concussion - even though we used the concussion sub. So no need to rest him due to concussion and he can play Everton

Yeh.... The part of this I'm not clear on is the testing and clearing process.


I also thought it was a 10 day rest period for a confirmed concussion, but others are saying 6/7 days......?

 

[Rocket]

Same as jones against us. Deserved red

Yup, meant no harm, but out of control.
Nkethiah should have gone for the Scum in similar circumstance. Although I'm not sure there wasn't malice involved there.

 

[Richard Arlison]

View: https://x.com/JayDavisx/status/1735780121619886387?s=20

 

[Fat Abbot]

Its not harsh though

Well, that’s subjective….

I’m simply saying harsh because serious foul play is a foul that “endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality “.

It wasn’t forceful nor brutal, but especially due to the height of the contact (which is a key factor in determining whether the tackle endangered the safety of the opponent), the red is correct.

But personally I would much rather see more reds for tackles from behind/the side on the anckles of the opponent (a la Kai Havertz) as those tackles are more likely to actually endanger the safety of a player than a high tackle from the front on to the shinpad.

A red to a Havertz-style tackle would make more sense in light of the overall wording of the rule re: serious foul play, but as the rule is administered, the red for Biss is a no brainer (and I think I was the first to write “that’s a red”)