Liam Moore

[Click]

Just now, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

You must be watching a different video to me...he clearly has his hands on his face when Sau kicks out to defend himself from being face grabbed/potentially eye gouged 

Amor says as much himself. Neither commentators seems to be able to see why it's a red card and both agree with me that is was simply self defence to try and get out of a very dangerous situation 

I'd say both of them know more about the game than us and it's clear what they think watching the exact same video sowed down 

I don't think I am, his hand goes to Sao's face/head initially, and then it moves off and his forearm is around his face when Sao's knee start connecting with his face. It's a typcial facial that you see in lots of games in RL over the last 20 years. I didn't see any attempt to gouge eyes, or his fingers going to Sao's eyes. 

The commentators didn't even pick up on the knee in the beginning. I don't understand why you don't think self defence is a reason to get a red card. If someone starts punching you and you start punching back, you both get binned for throwing punches. 

Just because someone has played the game doesn't necessarily mean they understand the rules better than anyone else. Iain Thornley thought Pele's red card meant the game was going soft.

 

[The Blues Ox]

11 hours ago, Click said:

 

If you slow down the footage, Parcell's arm/hand wasn't near Sao's face when he decided to knee him in the face, especially the second attempted knee.

You are acting like Parcell had his fingers actively raking at his eyes when he kneed him, and he didn't. 

The slow motion video is great to watch and highlights that Parcell should have been red carded as his action, even if it's not a clear gouge, is forceful and deliberate contact with an opponents head and could be interpreted as a twisting motion which is potentially very dangerous. I would be surprised if there isn't more heard about that.

[LeeF]

11 hours ago, Click said:

I don't think I am, his hand goes to Sao's face/head initially, and then it moves off and his forearm is around his face when Sao's knee start connecting with his face. It's a typcial facial that you see in lots of games in RL over the last 20 years. I didn't see any attempt to gouge eyes, or his fingers going to Sao's eyes. 

The commentators didn't even pick up on the knee in the beginning. I don't understand why you don't think self defence is a reason to get a red card. If someone starts punching you and you start punching back, you both get binned for throwing punches. 

Just because someone has played the game doesn't necessarily mean they understand the rules better than anyone else. Iain Thornley thought Pele's red card meant the game was going soft.

 

Your first paragraph is spot on. There are no gouge indicators. The fingers are never near the eyes. The hands is not in a grabbing action. 
 

The use of knees was picked up the commentators after seeing a replay (let’s blame the MOs for not seeing it in real time ). Both instances would have been red cards for as long as I can remember. There is no justification for the use of the knees despite the weak arguments being posted by some  

Whether Parcell was a yellow or red is highly marginal/ subjective. I can understand exactly why a yellow was given the marginal nature and the “benefit of doubt” that the MOs are advised to use. The MRP and the Disciplinary may take a different view after multiple viewings without any time constraints especially under the revised interpretations. Again no issues from me.

 

 

[meast]

22 hours ago, Shaggy said:

I didn't like him calling the players "mate" as he sent them off.

Agreed, I'm not too keen on the friendliness and "mateyness" between the players and officials, but I suppose it shows there's a decent rapport between them?

[meast]

20 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I hate to labour a point DKW but I said 'detail' 

What exactly would have worked physically to stop the face grab/potential eye gouge? 

I mean we know for a fact what Sau did do immediately stopped the face grab/ eye gouge....but what else would have been effective so quickly? 

If Sau hadn't got such a quick release from his face/eye could we be talking about a serious life changing eye injury right now?

Sao couldn't have stopped what Parcell did because he wouldn't have known what Parcell was going to do, he couldn't control that.

What he could control though was his reaction to that, which was to lash out with his knees/feet into Parcell's head, regardless of whether you think he has a right to defend himself or not, he wasn't defending himself when he threw his knee out, he was retaliating. 

[The Blues Ox]

1 hour ago, meast said:

Sao couldn't have stopped what Parcell did because he wouldn't have known what Parcell was going to do, he couldn't control that.

What he could control though was his reaction to that, which was to lash out with his knees/feet into Parcell's head, regardless of whether you think he has a right to defend himself or not, he wasn't defending himself when he threw his knee out, he was retaliating. 

I can see both sides of the argument for if Sao should have been red carded by the letter of the law but I just asked myself can we say for certain that he could control his reaction? I mean lets change the body part and say somebody is grabbing your nuts, I can't say I know a single person who could control his reaction to that situation. I think the retaliator been punished is a very outdated rule.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

2 hours ago, meast said:

Sao couldn't have stopped what Parcell did because he wouldn't have known what Parcell was going to do, he couldn't control that.

What he could control though was his reaction to that, which was to lash out with his knees/feet into Parcell's head, regardless of whether you think he has a right to defend himself or not, he wasn't defending himself when he threw his knee out, he was retaliating. 

But he did control what Parcell did next because Parcell let go of his face as soon as Sau lifts his leg up to get thim off

Maybe Parcell would have let go of his face/eyes anyway.....but MAYBE not

I for one would not risk my eye sight for a maybe based on a player who already has hold of me 

Parcell CHOSE to grab Sau's face and potentially eye gouge.....Sau did not CHOOSE the extremely dangerous position he was in 

Again.....not sure how much people are taking the seriousness of eye grabbing/ injuries....loss off sight is right up with head knocks and spine injuries.....players who do not CHOOSE to be put at risk of blindness have a duty of care to themselves and any risk the assaulter has is of their own making 

I'll put it a different way .....

Parcell face grabbed/potentially eye gouged ......he got a binning and Sau got a red

What is to stop the another grub in round 2 doing it next week ...potentially making an opposition player think he is going to be blinded and so provoking the player to lash out with a fist or whatever  to stop it???

And before anyone says it....there are PLENTY of grubs in SL who would 

 

Edited February 17 by Bedfordshire Bronco

[meast]

On 17/02/2024 at 12:53, The Blues Ox said:

I can see both sides of the argument for if Sao should have been red carded by the letter of the law but I just asked myself can we say for certain that he could control his reaction? I mean lets change the body part and say somebody is grabbing your nuts, I can't say I know a single person who could control his reaction to that situation. I think the retaliator been punished is a very outdated rule.

That's fine, it's human nature but don't expect that player NOT to be punished for reacting in such a way.

Being fouled yourself doesn't excuse foul play.

[meast]

23 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

But he did control what Parcell did next because Parcell let go of his face as soon as Sau lifts his leg up to get thim off

Maybe Parcell would have let go of his face/eyes anyway.....but MAYBE not

I for one would not risk my eye sight for a maybe based on a player who already has hold of me 

Parcell CHOSE to grab Sau's face and potentially eye gouge.....Sau did not CHOOSE the extremely dangerous position he was in 

Again.....not sure how much people are taking the seriousness of eye grabbing/ injuries....loss off sight is right up with head knocks and spine injuries.....players who do not CHOOSE to be put at risk of blindness have a duty of care to themselves and any risk the assaulter has is of their own making 

I'll put it a different way .....

Parcell face grabbed/potentially eye gouged ......he got a binning and Sau got a red

What is to stop the another grub in round 2 doing it next week ...potentially making an opposition player think he is going to be blinded and so provoking the player to lash out with a fist or whatever  to stop it???

And before anyone says it....there are PLENTY of grubs in SL who would 

 

Again, being fouled doesn't allow foul play.

Of course Sao has a right to defend himself, retaliate,  be angry and frustrated, but it DOESN'T mean that the player should have a free reign to dish out whatever retribution he wants without being punished, which is what you're saying effectively.

[The Blues Ox]

4 minutes ago, meast said:

That's fine, it's human nature but don't expect that player NOT to be punished for reacting in such a way.

Being fouled yourself doesn't excuse foul play.

Yet self defense is a very valid excuse in a court of law. Personally if an illegal action is designed to create a response then in my view it is stupid to punish the person who produced the response that was expected.

[unapologetic pedant]

On 16/02/2024 at 12:42, Shaggy said:

I didn't like him calling the players "mate" as he sent them off.

#Maaaaaaaaaate!

[dkw]

12 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Yet self defense is a very valid excuse in a court of law. Personally if an illegal action is designed to create a response then in my view it is stupid to punish the person who produced the response that was expected.

Punching someone on a street will get you locked up...

You can't equate what happens on a pitch with common laws.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

1 hour ago, dkw said:

Punching someone on a street will get you locked up...

You can't equate what happens on a pitch with common laws.

On the street punching someone if someone punches you is allowed 

In fact if you are feeling likely to be attacked then punching someone preemptively is allowed 

Though I agree the pitch and street are different 

Grabbing someone's eyes is as serious an assault as it gets....losing sight is life destroying .....stopping it is key  

 

[arcticchris]

Overall Moore had a good game. Personally I thought the worst offence was committed by Parcell rather than Sao and that 2 yellow cards would have been the fairest outcome with red for Parcell if 1 sent off. 
 

It is possible that the rules and guidance simply don’t allow that so it is a rules issue rather than a referee decision issue.

 

It would not surprise me at all to see Parcell get the longer ban when it is all dealt with but the match review panel.

[dkw]

11 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

On the street punching someone if someone punches you is allowed 

In fact if you are feeling likely to be attacked then punching someone preemptively is allowed 

 

Absolute nonsense. 

[LeeF]

40 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

On the street punching someone if someone punches you is allowed 

In fact if you are feeling likely to be attacked then punching someone preemptively is allowed 

Though I agree the pitch and street are different 

Grabbing someone's eyes is as serious an assault as it gets....losing sight is life destroying .....stopping it is key  

 

The eyes were never grabbed. There was zero grabbing action. It was the forearm rubbing the face. 

[The Blues Ox]

1 hour ago, dkw said:

Absolute nonsense. 

Which part?

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

In fact if you are feeling likely to be attacked then punching someone preemptively is allowed 

That's actually not remotely true.

[dkw]

1 minute ago, The Blues Ox said:

Which part?

All of it, you cant just punch someone and claim it was because you thought they were going to hit you. 

[The Blues Ox]

1 minute ago, dkw said:

All of it, you cant just punch someone and claim it was because you thought they were going to hit you. 

You might want to check that.

[dkw]

Just now, The Blues Ox said:

You might want to check that.

OK, you go find me the law that shows you can.

[The Blues Ox]

2 minutes ago, dkw said:

OK, you go find me the law that shows you can.

A simple google search will help you. 

[dkw]

1 minute ago, The Blues Ox said:

A simple google search will help you. 

You want me to Google something I dint believe exists?

You think there's a law that says you can just smack someone without punishment, prove it.

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

You might want to check that.

I have. It would fail the basics of what is reasonable. You can't just 'feel' that someone is about to attack you, you have to be absolutely certain to the extent that anyone else would also believe it. And, even then, you can only react with a proportionate and reasonable response based on what you know. You can't punch someone to the ground when a push away would be reasonable.

And you can't make up any eye gouging to justify a double knee to the head.

[The Blues Ox]

8 minutes ago, dkw said:

You want me to Google something I dint believe exists?

You think there's a law that says you can just smack someone without punishment, prove it.

Ive attached a photo for you but if you feel like having a read on the Crown Prosecution website it goes in to it in more depth on there. In certain circumstances you are well within your rights to punch someone before they attack you.

8 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I have. It would fail the basics of what is reasonable. You can't just 'feel' that someone is about to attack you, you have to be absolutely certain to the extent that anyone else would also believe it. And, even then, you can only react with a proportionate and reasonable response based on what you know. You can't punch someone to the ground when a push away would be reasonable.

The discussion is only if you can punch someone in the street before they attack you. The answer is that under certain circumstances you can.

Edited February 18 by The Blues Ox
Spelling