Paolo Guerrero is mad

rwo power wrote:

aford92 wrote:8 games!? Lol. The keeper wasn't even hurt that much, just a few stud marks. I'm not saying it's not a red but an 8 game ban is ridiculous. The game is going soft.

In Germany it is currently considered to give a straight red for intentional elbow checks to the head/face, too, as there were a lot of very bad face injuries (broken jaws and other facial bones) recently. As the game gets faster, it is imo important to punish those that are only out to injure other players, and Guerrero never went for the ball, only for the player.

I'm not trying to defend the player, clearly a red card. I just think that 3 games is enough, IMO the only time extra games should be added are if the tackle caused serious injury, which clearly this one didn't.

As an example, when Eduardo got his leg broken in a tackle by Martin Taylor, Taylor was banned for 3 games only. Now you cannot tell me that Guerrero's tackle was worthy of almost 3x the punishment that Taylor's was.

DeviAngel wrote:

aford92 wrote:8 games!? Lol. The keeper wasn't even hurt that much, just a few stud marks. I'm not saying it's not a red but an 8 game ban is ridiculous. The game is going soft.

What if he was? There was an intention he wanted to hit him and he's done that.

Then 8 games would've been justified. If he wanted to seriously hurt the keeper he could've done alot worse than what he did. Clearly his intent wasn't to play the ball but IMO it wasn't to seriously hurt the keeper.

In Guerrero's case he was a repeat offender. He threw a bottle of water at a fan in anger 2 or so years ago and he got a 5 match ban then. Obviously, Guerrero didn't learn that a player should control his aggression at that time, so the 8 match ban was only logical.

rwo power wrote:In Guerrero's case he was a repeat offender. He threw a bottle of water at a fan in anger 2 or so years ago and he got a 5 match ban then. Obviously, Guerrero didn't learn that a player should control his aggression at that time, so the 8 match ban was only logical.

I didn't know that. I though the 8 game ban was for the tackle only.

aford92 wrote:

DeviAngel wrote:

aford92 wrote:8 games!? Lol. The keeper wasn't even hurt that much, just a few stud marks. I'm not saying it's not a red but an 8 game ban is ridiculous. The game is going soft.

What if he was? There was an intention he wanted to hit him and he's done that.

Then 8 games would've been justified. If he wanted to seriously hurt the keeper he could've done alot worse than what he did. Clearly his intent wasn't to play the ball but IMO it wasn't to seriously hurt the keeper.

The thing is that if that happened it could have ended that GK's career and we don't want to take it so far do we? That is the rule

Well, when Jermaine Jones deliberately stomped on Marco Reus' foot (when Reus already had a broken toe and that was known by everybody) he was even banned for full 8 weeks (that is for both BL and DFB-Pokal), so it is a comparable punishment to that.

BTW, I just read that the HSV won't appeal for a lesser punishment:
http://www.transfermarkt.de/de/hsv-legt-keinen-einspruch-gegen-sperre-fuer-guerrero-ein-/news/anzeigen_85054.html

Guerrero is banned for 7 weeks, but 8 matches, so he got a lesser punishment than Jones in the end.

DeviAngel wrote:

aford92 wrote:

DeviAngel wrote:

aford92 wrote:8 games!? Lol. The keeper wasn't even hurt that much, just a few stud marks. I'm not saying it's not a red but an 8 game ban is ridiculous. The game is going soft.

What if he was? There was an intention he wanted to hit him and he's done that.

Then 8 games would've been justified. If he wanted to seriously hurt the keeper he could've done alot worse than what he did. Clearly his intent wasn't to play the ball but IMO it wasn't to seriously hurt the keeper.

The thing is that if that happened it could have ended that GK's career and we don't want to take it so far do we? That is the rule

The thing is I keep hearing the word IF. If this happened, if that happened. Yes IF he had badly injured the GK, IF he had ended his career then yes ban him for as long as possible, but he didn't. It was a silly tackle and a definate red card, I just think that an 8 game ban when the GK wasn't hurt is very harsh.

This reminds me of the Flamini tackle on Corluka a few years ago. Almost everybody was screaming for a red card but I thought it was a great tackle. Yes he went in two footed but he got nothing but the ball. Corluka got injured because he kicked the ball as Flamini got to it so the ball didn't move when Corluka kicked it, it was like he kicked a kerb. But people were saying "If he had gone over the ball, he could've broken his leg." Yes, IF he had gone over the ball it might have done, but he didn't. I just don't see how you can punish people for things that could've happened but didn't.

rwo power wrote:Well, when Jermaine Jones deliberately stomped on Marco Reus' foot (when Reus already had a broken toe and that was known by everybody) he was even banned for full 8 weeks (that is for both BL and DFB-Pokal), so it is a comparable punishment to that.

BTW, I just read that the HSV won't appeal for a lesser punishment:
http://www.transfermarkt.de/de/hsv-legt-keinen-einspruch-gegen-sperre-fuer-guerrero-ein-/news/anzeigen_85054.html

Guerrero is banned for 7 weeks, but 8 matches, so he got a lesser punishment than Jones in the end.

The Jones punishment is fine, because he deliberately tried to seriously injure someone. Guerrero didn't try to seriously injure the GK or he would've gone flying in, full force, with both feet in the GK's standing leg. Not with 1 leg, with little force, into the GK's free leg and behind the knee.

As I said, clear red card, but a 3 game ban would suffice.

Hm. I think jumping into someone from behind without any chance to get the ball shows quite some intent. And what intent other than injuring the player was there then? It wasn't a friendly "Hello!" for sure! IMO that punishment gives a signal to other players that stuff like this just shouldn't be done.

rwo power wrote:Hm. I think jumping into someone from behind without any chance to get the ball shows quite some intent. And what intent other than injuring the player was there then? It wasn't a friendly "Hello!" for sure! IMO that punishment gives a signal to other players that stuff like this just shouldn't be done.

If he intended to hurt him he could and would have done much worse than he did.

aford92 wrote:

DeviAngel wrote:

aford92 wrote:

DeviAngel wrote:

aford92 wrote:8 games!? Lol. The keeper wasn't even hurt that much, just a few stud marks. I'm not saying it's not a red but an 8 game ban is ridiculous. The game is going soft.

What if he was? There was an intention he wanted to hit him and he's done that.

Then 8 games would've been justified. If he wanted to seriously hurt the keeper he could've done alot worse than what he did. Clearly his intent wasn't to play the ball but IMO it wasn't to seriously hurt the keeper.

The thing is that if that happened it could have ended that GK's career and we don't want to take it so far do we? That is the rule

The thing is I keep hearing the word IF. If this happened, if that happened. Yes IF he had badly injured the GK, IF he had ended his career then yes ban him for as long as possible, but he didn't. It was a silly tackle and a definate red card, I just think that an 8 game ban when the GK wasn't hurt is very harsh.

This reminds me of the Flamini tackle on Corluka a few years ago. Almost everybody was screaming for a red card but I thought it was a great tackle. Yes he went in two footed but he got nothing but the ball. Corluka got injured because he kicked the ball as Flamini got to it so the ball didn't move when Corluka kicked it, it was like he kicked a kerb. But people were saying "If he had gone over the ball, he could've broken his leg." Yes, IF he had gone over the ball it might have done, but he didn't. I just don't see how you can punish people for things that could've happened but didn't.

almost all rules in ref's book are based on IF. when I was taking the exam half of the questions were with IF.

examp : IF a wind blows the ball back into the Gk's own net what is it ?

IF a player insults ref.

The thing is that IF keeps the players safe and here there was clear intention to injure the GK and not thinking about the ball

DeviAngel wrote:

aford92 wrote:

DeviAngel wrote:

aford92 wrote:

DeviAngel wrote:

aford92 wrote:8 games!? Lol. The keeper wasn't even hurt that much, just a few stud marks. I'm not saying it's not a red but an 8 game ban is ridiculous. The game is going soft.

What if he was? There was an intention he wanted to hit him and he's done that.

Then 8 games would've been justified. If he wanted to seriously hurt the keeper he could've done alot worse than what he did. Clearly his intent wasn't to play the ball but IMO it wasn't to seriously hurt the keeper.

The thing is that if that happened it could have ended that GK's career and we don't want to take it so far do we? That is the rule

The thing is I keep hearing the word IF. If this happened, if that happened. Yes IF he had badly injured the GK, IF he had ended his career then yes ban him for as long as possible, but he didn't. It was a silly tackle and a definate red card, I just think that an 8 game ban when the GK wasn't hurt is very harsh.

This reminds me of the Flamini tackle on Corluka a few years ago. Almost everybody was screaming for a red card but I thought it was a great tackle. Yes he went in two footed but he got nothing but the ball. Corluka got injured because he kicked the ball as Flamini got to it so the ball didn't move when Corluka kicked it, it was like he kicked a kerb. But people were saying "If he had gone over the ball, he could've broken his leg." Yes, IF he had gone over the ball it might have done, but he didn't. I just don't see how you can punish people for things that could've happened but didn't.

almost all rules in ref's book are based on IF. when I was taking the exam half of the questions were with IF.

examp : IF a wind blows the ball back into the Gk's own net what is it ?

IF a player insults ref.

The thing is that IF keeps the players safe and here there was clear intention to injure the GK and not thinking about the ball

I'm talking about IF in regards to the outcome of the tackle. If the tackle happens one way you cannot punish the player like it happened a different way just because it might of done. It's the same thing with 2 footed tackles, people are sent off for going in with two feet off the ground even if they do not make contact. If they make contact it could very well injure the player but it didn't so I don't see how you can punish somebody for something that didn't happen.

aford92 wrote:

DeviAngel wrote:

aford92 wrote:

DeviAngel wrote:

aford92 wrote:

DeviAngel wrote:

aford92 wrote:8 games!? Lol. The keeper wasn't even hurt that much, just a few stud marks. I'm not saying it's not a red but an 8 game ban is ridiculous. The game is going soft.

What if he was? There was an intention he wanted to hit him and he's done that.

Then 8 games would've been justified. If he wanted to seriously hurt the keeper he could've done alot worse than what he did. Clearly his intent wasn't to play the ball but IMO it wasn't to seriously hurt the keeper.

The thing is that if that happened it could have ended that GK's career and we don't want to take it so far do we? That is the rule

The thing is I keep hearing the word IF. If this happened, if that happened. Yes IF he had badly injured the GK, IF he had ended his career then yes ban him for as long as possible, but he didn't. It was a silly tackle and a definate red card, I just think that an 8 game ban when the GK wasn't hurt is very harsh.

This reminds me of the Flamini tackle on Corluka a few years ago. Almost everybody was screaming for a red card but I thought it was a great tackle. Yes he went in two footed but he got nothing but the ball. Corluka got injured because he kicked the ball as Flamini got to it so the ball didn't move when Corluka kicked it, it was like he kicked a kerb. But people were saying "If he had gone over the ball, he could've broken his leg." Yes, IF he had gone over the ball it might have done, but he didn't. I just don't see how you can punish people for things that could've happened but didn't.

almost all rules in ref's book are based on IF. when I was taking the exam half of the questions were with IF.

examp : IF a wind blows the ball back into the Gk's own net what is it ?

IF a player insults ref.

The thing is that IF keeps the players safe and here there was clear intention to injure the GK and not thinking about the ball

I'm talking about IF in regards to the outcome of the tackle. If the tackle happens one way you cannot punish the player like it happened a different way just because it might of done. It's the same thing with 2 footed tackles, people are sent off for going in with two feet off the ground even if they do not make contact. If they make contact it could very well injure the player but it didn't so I don't see how you can punish somebody for something that didn't happen.

I agree about that but here there was clear intention from him for that to happen so it's same like it did. I am maybe harsh but I am that kind of ref ) hate that kind of tackles

So you mean if someone is driving drunk over the motorway with 200km/h, s/he shouldn't be punished, just because no accident happened? That is IMO a somewhat risky stance.

DeviAngel wrote:
I agree about that but here there was clear intention from him for that to happen so it's same like it did. I am maybe harsh but I am that kind of ref ) hate that kind of tackles

Maybe that's the problem, I'm a defender and I would hate to get sent off for a two footed challenge that didn't make contact or because a referee thought I intended to hurt someone. I instinctively defend players in situations like this whereas you instinctively punish them as a referee. I understand that the rules I like they are, I just wish they weren't.

rwo power wrote:So you mean if someone is driving drunk over the motorway with 200km/h, s/he shouldn't be punished, just because no accident happened? That is IMO a somewhat risky stance.

That's completely different lol. Drink driving risks peoples lives. Also the driver cannot control who is on the road or control the car if he is drunk. The player can control where he goes and if he hurts the player.

aford92 wrote:Maybe that's the problem, I'm a defender and I would hate to get sent off for a two footed challenge that didn't make contact or because a referee thought I intended to hurt someone. I instinctively defend players in situations like this whereas you instinctively punish them as a referee. I understand that the rules I like they are, I just wish they weren't.

And that's why nowadays defenders needs to come up with different methods but tackling the opponent. Interestingly, many people still seem to consider defenders that manage to intercept passes by clever positioning or running into the empty spaces to force an attacker out wide "too passive", even though this is more and more a necessity due to the harder rules on tackling.

As for the drunk driver example - well, if a defender misjudges a tackle only a tiny bit, he can injure a player so badly that he can't play anymore. In that case there might not be a death, but that injured player's life is ruined nonetheless.

rwo power wrote:

aford92 wrote:Maybe that's the problem, I'm a defender and I would hate to get sent off for a two footed challenge that didn't make contact or because a referee thought I intended to hurt someone. I instinctively defend players in situations like this whereas you instinctively punish them as a referee. I understand that the rules I like they are, I just wish they weren't.

And that's why nowadays defenders needs to come up with different methods but tackling the opponent. Interestingly, many people still seem to consider defenders that manage to intercept passes by clever positioning or running into the empty spaces to force an attacker out wide "too passive", even though this is more and more a necessity due to the harder rules on tackling.

As for the drunk driver example - well, if a defender misjudges a tackle only a tiny bit, he can injure a player so badly that he can't play anymore. In that case there might not be a death, but that injured player's life is ruined nonetheless.

The line between clean tackle and career ending tackle is not that fine, you have to mistime a challenge pretty badly to end someone's career. You can jockey and force players wide all you like but eventually you have to make a challenge. And if you know that you can be sent off even if you don't touch the player it's very hard to do. Especially now that fouls are given when a player goes down when they feel the slightest bit of contact.

Again, the tackle in the OP was terrible and a definite red but you see other tackles where the players isn't touched or is just tapped slightly that result in the same outcome. I would like to know what incident made the rules change because it wasn't always like this and I fear if we carry on this way football may essentially become a non-contact sport.