Richarlison thrills as 10-man Blues are denied victory by Wolves

Part of the great game of football is the controversy, the arguments after the game at home and in the pub. Now we have goal line technology, soon to be VAR, the game will become clinical, sterile and a non-contact sport.

Tackling used to be an art in itself; nowadays, because of present and recently past rules, players are frightened to make a tackle and it seems to me this is detrimental to the game. The rolling around and play acting, even by our own players, is a joke.

When I was a kid, the game seemed quite simple: offside was offside, and you were sent off if you broke someone's leg, or near enough.

Still love my footy and always will but just feel it's being hijacked a bit by the perfectionists.

Controversy aside Everton were the better team by a country mile..

I feel sorry for Jagielka but ironically this could prove to be his last game as he will struggle to get back in the side with the pending starts of the men we have just purchased.

Further irony in as much as Keane who played the best game in an Everton shirt that I have seen will also struggle to get picked now due to two mistakes being Wolves second equalizer After already playing a shit pass to Jagielka for the first equalizer!

Good times are ahead.. Richarlison is obviously talented far beyond what we expected and the rest of the team played like a unit with the exception of Morgan Schneiderlin who was again Pathetic!

I counted 18 passes to him from Gana Gueye that he immediately tipped back as he was absolutely clueless or in my opinion scared to give the ball away

I am sure Silva noticed it aswell and I am even more sure we will not see it again.

Dream debut from Richarlison, second finish was Henryesque. Let's not forget though – he's a winger and if he doesn't get 20 a season that's not a big issue. Double figures will do.

Lastly, the sending off. Didn't agree with it myself but can see how it was given in first look. Chances are, even if we have VAR, it still would have been given. And the debate would rage on, the World Cup final has proven that VAR can still get it badly wrong.

The point with ten men was decent away from home, the only slight frustration was at 1-0 to us Wolves didn't look like scoring really and even at 1-1 in the second half they didn't look like scoring so when we went 2-1 up I thought we should have just seen it out.

For me our frailties over recent years have been seeing out games which we lead in and was evident yesterday in parts.

Pickford was at fault with the first goal and he should have been reaching that Neves free kick, but we won't open up that lack of height argument again.

The second was a lack of pressing on Neves giving a quality player too much time to find a cross to which Keane does what he does best and mid-timed his jump (echoes of Southampton away last season especially) although to be fair Baines done him little favours on that Jiminez goal yesterday too.

All in all Silva should be relatively pleased considering the team will be greatly changed from next week with the new boys slotting straight in away.

Things are looking up.

This was a game in August by the way, difficult to draw conclusions about individual performances but I think Richarlison has set the bar. Finally a player to get fans on their feet on a regular basis. Theo has done in spurts, and I think Bernard will add that too.

The shape and style of play yesterday was far better than it has been for years, getting the ball forward much quicker was a breath of fresh air rather than knocking it around interminably and letting the opposition find their best defensive shape. For those (falsely) claiming that Martinez's teams were exciting going forward, I think we may well see what that really looks like this season. Fingers crossed.

Tosun and Walcott definitely need to step up now though, I thought they were both very rusty yesterday.

But it's August

We've all seen he can finish in the past. This wasn't the game for him though, playing alone against 3 centre halves.

Schneiderlin did well too. Tried to manage the game when we were down to 10 men and did it efficiently. He'll never be a fan favourite because he doesn't run around like a gobshite.

Jags can go to Sheffield Utd after all .

Sorry you are both wrong. All English Leagues closed the permanent transfer window aligned with the PL.

https://www.efl.com/news/2018/august/efl-transfer-window-all-you-need-to-know/

Loans are possible as I said in my post, as are transfers abroad, but I don't see that at all - as I also said.

Brian I wasn't being negative towards Tosun. The boy can finish. His sharpness wasn't there that's all, as is often the case particularly with forwards at the start of the season. It just highlights how good Richarlison was on the same basis.

It has been more than one season of painful watching these players start. Why, oh why?

And your point is? Can you tell me what he's meant to do once he's won the ball? Maybe come to a dead stop? Take off his boot mid challenge and wave it in the air? Take said boot off before the challenge and put on ballet shoes or slippers or foam pads? I'm really struggling to find your viewpoint. If his foot gets the man after winning the ball-tough shit unfortunately, he doesn't raise his leg, change direction, inertia is a fundamental law that neither I, you, nor Jagielka can overcome I'm afraid.

That's a pretty good Wolves team that spent a lot of money and will give a lot of teams problems, especially at Molineux.

On the red card? We'd have been screaming if it was against us and hadn't been a dismissal. Was it harsh? Sure. Was it some utterly unbelievable, unfathomable decision? No. Same for the ball being moved forwards before Neves' goal - it happens a million times a season that a player "steals" a few yards.

Both fullbacks looked good. Keane looked fitter and played better than most of last season. Holgate was excellent when he came on. Richarlison was excellent. Tosun much better in the second half versus the first, ran himself into the ground. Walcott was a little uninvolved.

A Premier League club just needs to structure the deal so that it's a loan until the January transfer window opens when the deal becomes permanent.

Simples!

The sending off baffled me though, and I certainly wouldn't have been baying for a red card, if the boot would have been on the other foot. Jagielka, has made a mistake, and being last man then he's surely entitled to go for that ball?

It's football, you can't just stand aside and let your opponent run through, especially if you are going to get there first, which is what Jagielka undoubtedly did. Anyway once the decision is made the best thing you can do is just get on with it, and Everton done this very well.

Holgate is a very good defender, especially close to his own goal, because he stands his opponent up, which slows him down, and he also keeps his eye on the ball, so he was a great positive yesterday, and it wouldn't surprise me if he keeps his place in the team.

He might even force Silva, to change his formation to accommodate him, (something which might just make us stronger with our new personnel) although that's probably a discussion for a few weeks time!

I like what I have seen so far, although I thought Wolves were poor. When the new players are beded in, it could very well be an exciting season.

I've always rated Holgate and wouldn't be surprised if he wins out over one of the newcomers (although is heel is undoubtedly sore today), but after yesterday it's also not a forgone conclusion that Keane will lose his place either. He was generally excellent, his best game ever for us by far.

Jagielka makes an honest attempt to win the ball and does so but is probably unlucky in his timing in that it diverts the ball away before his opponent plants his foot. If they make contact with the ball simultaneously, the ball takes Jags' momentum and it's one of those stirring tackles that earns him great applause. Fine margins.

That a) the Premier League have made themselves look complete tits as they tie themselves into pretzels trying to come up with a consistent, plausible explanation for the red card, and b) Wolves scored from the free kick, just made it all the more infuriating.

EFC should try and over turn the red card if its for stopping a goal scoring opportunity. If it was for excessive force, they won't get it rescinded.

It won't be long before we see a similar incident go unpunished I do know that as do we all.

That's just a loan with option to buy, ie, it's just a loan. I addressed that already (twice). Jagielka will not be loaned out now.

And why would you do a deal so that only one club can buy in January? Nor would any club tie their hands with a mandatory purchase. When January comes you can sell to anyone, so why limit options? What you are saying makes no sense whatsoever.

Joe I was merely stating the facts of what can be done. So, bearing that in mind, your insult is unfounded and uncalled for, Sir.

The dust has settled on the first round of fixtures of the new season. I watched the Wolves vs Everton game and have just caught up on all the highlights. The following are my thoughts on the Wolves vs Everton match.

In the run-up we heard lots from Wolves fans who were rightly excited by a young attacking team and particularly Ruben Neves.

I have to say that my first real glimpse of Neves was fairly positive. All of Wolves' play flows through him, his positioning was excellent and he sprayed passes left and right, and tried neat little triangles with the forwards to try to break Everton open.

He did use a little... errr... creative licence to take the free kick 7 yards further forward than it should have been but I'm sure an Everton player has done the same in the past too. Neves reminds me of Arteta in his style of play. I'm sure he will control future games like Arteta did and will score more free kicks in the future just like the little Spaniard used to do.

The sending-off opened up the game a lot; it was fairly even until that point, I thought. Everton didn't travel well at all last season so I always thought there would be goals in this game. Richarlison was the star player on the blue side and he was excellent throughout. Sort of like a Kinnedine Kilbane but with latin technique and more goal threat, Wolves' right back could barely handle his non stop running and riding of tackles. Coleman, I thought was also his usual consistently excellent self.

Everton sat back near the end, with Wolves (by that, I mainly mean Neves) continually probing to create an opportunity. Everton defended with 10 men resolutely and created three chances on the break in the final 10 minutes that both Niasse and/or Coleman should have done better to convert. (In fact we had more shots on target with 10 men than we had in 21 of 26 of Sam Allardyce's games last season!) Thank God we have Silva!

All-in-all, it feels like two points lost rather than one won for me, but first game of the season following a terrible pre-season so I shouldn't really complain.

Wolves showed up and gave a very good account of themselves. I'm not too sure about their full-backs and both Coady and Boly seemed a bit dodgy in central defence too but they'll encounter weaker teams than 10 Evertonians in this league and will have some great wins, I'm sure.

Everton will be encouraged by a strong showing from Richarlison. Tosun was his usual self (put himself about, had at least one good chance on target), and Coleman should really be captain for being what he is, one of the best right backs in the league. Jagielka proved again he is too slow and old to play regularly at this level (I'm not discussing the red card, it's been done to death). Can't wait for Mina and Bernard to come in and give us more of an edge. Digne may have to bide his time a bit longer as Baines was solid, providing an excellent cross for the first goal.

Not a terrible first game for either club all-in-all, I suppose. Loads of promise for Everton; I can't wait to see us play again, and I never said that under big Sam! Roll on next weekend!

Under rule 12 it's a direct free kick if a challenge is made that is careless, reckless or uses excessive force. There's no defence for making contact with the ball first. This is how it used to be but no longer...and for good reason. Here is an excerpt from Rule 12:

"Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed

Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned

Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off."

It goes on to say:

"A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

"Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play."

Studs up and off your feet crashing into the guy's ankle -– there's really nothing to argue about, is there? It's a straight red. Impressed that Shearer appears to know the rules unlike most pundits who just say "for me it was never a red" without any analysis of the actual rules.

There's a reason why the Golden Vision didn't have a long playing career... these "new" rules are a good thing.

We may as well give up and watch cricket then.

Jageilka made a perfectly timed challenge, getting the ball proved that. I'll go out on limb and say that Jagielka had no intent to injure the player or any malice on his part, he was just going for the ball, fair and square. How can you justify it was excessive? He certainly isn't the type of player who'd injure anyone. It's not in him.

As for the guidelines you've posted, what a load of nonsense (not directed at you) – it's a contact sport, sorry, it used to be anyway. There may well be times that those guidelines apply to a challenge, this certainly wasn't one of them.

“Studs up and off your feet crashing into the guy's ankle – there's really nothing to argue about is there.”

I'll think you'll find most slide tackles will have some element of the studs showing, it doesn't mean everyone is out to injure someone, it's just how you tackle.

You go on about him being off his feet, well he is slide tackling, the clue is in the name, it's hard to slide if your studs are in the soil. And as for crashing into the player, this happens all over the pitch with most challenges. It's the inertia of him winning the ball that then takes him into the player's ankle; I don't believe it was intentional. It's just the way it happened and this is where referees need common sense. The fact we've had two different excuses already tells me they haven't got a clue. There's plenty to argue about.

Are we really saying that any tackle anywhere on the pitch whereby the follow through contacts the opponent is a red card? There has to be some sort of contact on a slide tackle in the majority of cases surely.

Sad day when a defender has to ask the attacker if he minds being tackled: "Excuse me, chappie, would you mind awfully if I tackled you in a non-aggressive manner?"
"Feel free, my good friend but promise not to contact me in any way or I will roll and roll all over the pitch squealing and screaming and report you to the chap in charge."
"No problems, chappie. I hear rain is forecast and I fancy going home early to take the kids to McD's in the old Bentley."
"Here we go. If it hurts let me know and I'll stop."

They'll ban heading soon also. It'll get to the point we're you'll have to write up a risk assessment and submit it to a Health and Safety Executive before putting in a tackle, players wearing helmets, padded kits with side impact bars and air bags in the collars.

Defending is an art form. People appreciate a good solid challenge as much as a sublime piece of skill. The idiots in charge and clueless refs are ruining the game.

"these new rules are a good thing" No Rules are good if the interpretation of them differs from Referee to Referee. I bet plenty of our players get similar tackles on them this season with no sending off. The fact that the player rolled about 10 yards didn't help.

Anyway, result of this challenge .

Only a yellow card.

I watched it again over and over pausing on point of tackle and thought it was a foul. Which with him being last man, stopped a clear chance and was a red.

After reading more comments, I wanted to check it again, and on the BT Sport mobile app. If you scroll down where it says "Latest from BT Sport", there is a 36 second video clip, with a caption "Ex-Premier League ref backs Jagielka red card".

Whilst the ref explains it, it shows you a still of the tackle and my god if anyone argues that that isn't a red card, and that those sort of tackles should be allowed, then we'll be lucky not to have at least one player every game with a serious injury. He slid in with force, his foot was off the ground upon impact, with studs fully up.

Look at that video, and honestly say, if the shoe was on the other foot, that you wouldn't be pissed off, if our player was fouled and the ref, just waived play on?!

How many times have we seen the exact same challenge made in the penalty area, only for the ref to play on? I can guarantee you will see that same challenge made next weekend in the area and nothing given.

Well then surely that must be a pen to the other team and I should be sent off as I've clearly stopped an attacker from scoring and I didn't give any thought to his well being by putting my head through the ball in an aggressive manner, but it will never happen because it's just a normal challenge. As was Jagielka's, common sense should always prevail.

That law did change. If for example, the wolves player poked the ball past Jags, and Jags deliberately tripped him, then fair enough, he would be sent off, but he made a genuine attempt to play, and indeed win the ball.

Maybe Pawson forgot about that change to the law?

The penalty was saved by the way, just to rub salt into the wounds.

So I watched the Manchester City game this afternoon and on at least two occasions a player caught the man studs up after either winning the ball or not even winning the ball and not even a foul on one occasion or a booking on the other.

So I would say, in my opinion, the ref didn't see the incident and took more notice of the player rolling around on the floor – or he is incompetent.

Atrocious decision. If I'm not explaining myself well then see Paul #39

Anyway, amazing spirit - we would have lost that last season. So at least we were able to witness that

COYB

Watching Match of the Day I counted at least two very similar tackles that weren't given as fouls. The decision was abysmal. Football hasn't banned tackling and it hasn't become a non-contact sport. Sometimes there will be forceful contact between players, only where it's reckless or negligent is it foul play. Stretching for the ball cannot be a red card.

Cech should have been red-carded for a high challenge on a Man City player after he saved the free-kick.

There were so many incidents missed yet again by all the officials in all the games I saw. It's just amazing how bad they are.

A few years ago, you may have got one maybe two angle shots of that tackle and it would not have been a foul but, with all of the close-up shots and replays, it could be a perfect tackle or ankle breaker depending how many times you want to watch it.

What I think is clear is that a typical ref these days will look at the player rolling around like he has just been shot and his decision is made in that viewpoint.

Maybe players who go down like this should be made to spend 5 minutes off the pitch in recovery. That might stop them.

On a side note. How hard is it to control a simple pass? He certainly dug a hole for himself and the team with that lack of skill.

Whether he gets the ball first before nearly breaking the poor lad's ankle is irrelevant. His foot leaves the floor and studs are fully extended, that coupled with the force of the tackle, if the attacker's foot was fully on the ground upon impact from Jagielka. We would've been seeing horrible images of a foot dangling unnaturally from his leg with bones protruding.

Did you even look at the image I quoted from BT Sport, Rob, before replying Rob?

It's not like he jumps in two footed on the player. He made a genuine attempt to win the ball, which he did. The contact on the player cannot be helped. If there was a way he could pull his foot back after winning ball, I'm sure he would have done it.

I agree, the refereeing is inconsistent (and what annoys me far more is the failure to referee all the fouls at corners, but this seems to have eventually been dealt with using VAR during the World Cup).

On the Jags incident, if the other player didn't have the ball so was also just flying in, then maybe it's not a tackle at all as opposed to a "coming together". But the rules are designed to reduce the risk of career-threatening injuries so I do think they are sensible, and bottom line is you can't have your studs imprinted on the other guy's ankle and not expect trouble because that does "endanger" the other player.

Sliding tackles are OK, but you can't make contact with the studs (which is what I meant by "studs up". Its dangerous.

If they can't agree with each other, then neither will we, so I think it's best to call it a day. We all have our own opinions on it, whether it was the right decision or not?

Can someone not hoof a ball that is three foot off the ground with all their might if an opponent chooses to put their bollocks or face in the follow-through zone a millisecond after you make contact?

There are situations where it is obvious that you will follow through onto the opponent, as in a frontal studs-up challenge, or when you will have to go through the opponent, from behind or the side when they are in possession. Those are the reckless challenges. If the contact is only incidental, then I think most people would say that it is careless which is a yellow card.

I have tried to address the studs-up issue in an earlier post. To me, it is just another part of the foot to make a tackle with unless there is a deliberate attempt to use them on the opponent's body, and not even relevant in some of the nastiest and most damaging challenges, eg, scissor tackles.

Jag's tackle was as well-timed as you at your best. We all tackled in those days, whether you were going to connect with the man after the ball was irrelevant.

Refs are cowards now, they hide behind written rules that bear no reality to the actual game itself and show no common sense or latitude. No wonder they are being marginalized and made irrelevant by VAR etc.

A bit like this whole argument on this thread, certain people talking sense and looking at all aspects and evidence including listening to ex Premier League referees give their opinion. Whilst others just say what they want to, to try and prove they're right.

See you down at Arsenal.

The foul itself was high and "could, possibly,maybe" damaged the Chelsea player.

No different from Jags.

The Schindler tackle was meant and was deliberate, it certainly stopped a possible goal scoring chance as - Alonso???? was through on goal. The potential was injury.

EVERY tackle has the potential for injury.

How many times have we seen two good solid players go in for a fifty fifty. No injury. Certainly very aggressive and had one pulled out certainly would have been injured. So is that 2 reds??

They'd be padded up like Anerican footballers soon if the perfectionists who are ruining the game get their way

As I say, I've got my opinion, you've got yours, so leave it at that.

A careless challenge is a yellow, a reckless one is a red. You haven't tried to explain why this challenge is reckless rather than careless. I have. Do me the courtesy of addressing the points I have made rather than simply repeating what the rule book says as if that nullifies the role of interpretation.

I'd just like to show to pictures to jog your memory:

1st pic is of Jagielka tackle:

Link

2nd pic is of Taylor tackle:

Link

Now I know Taylor's was worse due to the fact that he is diving in with his whole body off the ground, whereas it's just the lower leg on Jagielka that is off the ground.

But can you say there is a lot of difference from the type of tackle or whereabouts of impact?

It doesn't matter whether they get the ball or not these days, it's to do with the recklessness of the player's tackle. He had no control once he went to ground.

Themz the rules, I'm afraid; whether you think it's harsh or you sense injustice is irrelevant.

You quote BT' s in-match referee as an authority to back up your point of view. I also quoted his live observations yesterday. It was along these lines:

He supported Pawson' s red card and started saying - with no images showing - that it was a high challenge with studs showing which caught the Wolves player on the shin. As he was uttering these words in live commentary, they started showing the replay which clearly contradicted the in-studio ref's observation. He continued speaking and changed his earlier comment to catching the player on the ankle.

Now that authority, with the advantage of replay technology that the infield ref didn't have, called it wrong and had to correct himself.

I also question the view of Pawson on the pitch. Again, I have already referenced this. You see in a wide shot as Keane plays a safe square ball to Jags, Pawson is a good 25-30 yards from the play, left of the centre circle. As the ball arrives to Jags, Pawson can clearly be seen looking away from the play.

Pawson goes out of shot as Jags loses control of the ball before attempting his recovery tackle. You can clearly see Gueye and a Wolves player potentially in the line of vision of the incident and the position of the referee.

In addition, you can see the linesman at the top of the screen. He does not flag. He does not stand root still in line with the foul. Rather, he starts moving towards the half way line, realigning his position to our backline. It is reasonable to conclude the linesman did not call out the foul and he, arguably, was closer to the action with a clearer view than the ref.

Given all of the above, it suggests to me there is considerable reasonable doubt on whether the ref could objectively make the call he did with the degree of certainty you and others seem to be arguing for, whatever your interpretation or understanding of the laws may be.

Refs need to be able to sort out the difference because the rulebook gives them that discretion.

“But can you say there is a lot of difference from the type of tackle or whereabouts of impact?”

Er, in a nutshell, yes. Taylor is coming in from in front/slightly to the side, whether he won the ball or not he was always going to take out Seamus. Jageilka comes in from the side, he has no clue whether he'll get the player as he could of jumped over the tackle, or stepped out the way. Jagielka's intent is the ball and only the ball, he got the player accidentally, due to momentum. Seamus never stood a chance either way, he was getting taken out, 100%. Plus Jags catches his boot/ankle area, Seamus takes it half way up his shin.

You couldn't of come up with a worse comparison.

One careless – maybe. One reckless – undeniably.

The similarity I see is two committed players in each case going for a 50-50 ball. Strangely parallel in the build-up, where both are converging in a foot-race to that moment of impact. And the outstretched straight leg with studs exposed. I think that's what people see and react to.

The details of the contact (ball, man, shin, ankle) and the sequence seem for most to become irrelevant. But Taylor's was a horror tackle precisely because it broke Seamus's leg. Could Jagielka have wrought such damage? I think not.

Jagielka's leg is low to the ground, and he catches a sideways blow to Jota's ankle. Whereas Taylor is flying in over the ball, and catching Coleman with the full force of his studs square on the middle of the shin. At least that's what everybody believes as they wouldn't show us the replays. But it became the classic definition of a horror tackle.

Although you say (of Jagielka?) "He had no control once he went to ground." I disagree. Jagielka's used a straight leg, he got to the ball first, he was in full control. But the momentum carried him through to make contact with the ankle. Since the ref was so far away, he had to be responding the theatrics of Jota, as Lyndon says.

I didn't reply to your question as I'd already answered it in post 50.

I would like to add to what you mentioned of the debate between Shearer and Wright, you're correct that Shearer said that, back when they played, it would've been a yellow.

My argument isn't based on the game of football played when both of these players were still playing 18 years ago (12 years for Shearer). When they played is irrelevant to now as the rules have changed.

Whether or not is was a yellow back then is moot. I just watched MotD again and the slow-mo just adds to the fact that it was a dangerous challenge, and that I'm surprised their player didn't incur at the very least ligament damage as you clearly see his ankle buckled from the tackle.

So much grey these days with so-called rulebooks. And I mention them lot purely as an example but Sadio Mané's 2nd goal was offside. I am flummoxed by what is offside and what is not these days and I think a lot of people are.

The free kick placement in our game had me fuming. It certainly shortened the odds for Neves scoring and making it more difficult for Pickford saving it. First game and refs causing shit already.

The game's fucked as the FA, FIFA and UEFA continue to mismanage it. I wish I didn't care so much. Seeing the diving and shithousery of so many big girl's blouses makes the blood boil.

Unlike with some challenges you see, I wasn't at all surprised that the player wasn't seriously injured. Looking at slo-mo photos is unlikely to give you much relevant information and probably no more than carefully watching the incident as long as you have experience of what you are watching. You need to have an appreciation for the elasticity, resilience of joints.

You still haven't (refuse to?) addressed the difference between ‘careless' and ‘reckless' which your whole argument hinges on.

Where does he say in the 36 second clip that he caught him on the shin and then changed it to ankle?!

Here is what he pretty much said word for word:

"Well Jagielka has overun the ball, and he's stretched to retain that ball, but unfortunately in stretching, his leg's straight, he uses force against his opponent, and as you can see here, he catches his opponents ankle there and it's serious foul play. It endangers the safety of his opponent as we can clearly see and Craig Pawson who as we can clearly see here has an unobstructed view of the incident, was spot on with his decision."

You mentioned the linesman moving towards the halfway line, just watched it again, he's actually right in line as the tackle goes in and then takes a couple of side steps towards the corner flag. The referee, although on edge of shot, has his body facing upfield, but his head is turned clearly facing the action, and clearly the whistle goes straight away and is quickly racing towards incident.

I think Jagielka is basically stopped at the point the picture is taken. Seamus's leg is already clearly broken which means the moment of maximum impact has passed.

Jota would be extremely unfortunate to get seriously injured by Jagielka's challenge, Seamus would have been equally as extremely lucky to walk away from Taylor's. One is careless, the other reckless. The rules you quote say you have to distinguish between the two.

Methinks FIFA took that kind of inconsistency into account when selecting referees for the World Cup...

I tore my ankle ligaments when I was 19 playing footy in the Navy by someone coming in hard from the side as I was put through in on goal.

I had a meniscus tear playing footy back in 2010 playing 5-a-side, also in the Navy, needed two operations to repair my knee and was on crutches for almost a year.

You also mentioned that it's not actually clear that he connected with his ankle in post 66. Did you click on the first link on post 64 by myself. It doesn't get any clearer.

You kept asking me from your post 63 about debating the difference between recklessness and carelessness, even though since I first posted my opinion on the tackle I never once mentioned that my opinion was based on an either or.

I will answer you though for answer's sake. People including yourself keep mentioning that he didn't mean it so it was more careless than reckless in showing intent to purposely hurt.

My example to relate to your question is say a person runs up and jumps to head a ball away from goal or at goal. To help with height and power, you move your arms, so as an opponent from a blinkered view to yourself comes in to either defend or attack the same ball, you accidentally knock him out with an elbow.

My point being, it doesn't matter if it was an accident and you didn't see him coming from out of view or whether you intentionally elbowed him. The outcome is the same, it's still a red card even if you got to the ball slightly ahead.

Exactly the same with the tackle, whether it be an accident, intentional, careless or reckless. Whether he got the ball first or not, the outcome will always be the same due to the rules that he flew in with studs showing, the force that he slid in, and that part of his foot was off the ground.

People also mentioned that his foot wasn't that far off the ground and that he was still in full control. If that's the case, we wouldn't be debating this now as he wouldn't've connected with the players trailing leg, and wouldn't've been sent off.

You also mentioned that Jagielka had stopped by the timing of the picture. Watch Match of the Day from about 24 min and 55 seconds and watch it for about 35 to 40 seconds. It shows several angles and at the point of tackle, even zooms in to show his ankle buckling from the tackle, his foot is bent by about a 70-degree angle from his leg.

The guy's lucky he didn't get seriously injured, and to fans mentioning about the rolls and exaggeration of his pain, also look at that and tell me you wouldn't be writhing around in pain similar to his reaction.

They're on your feet, they'll show as soon as you do anything but stand still.

Yes, studs can hurt but the point of a red for showing studs isn't to stop people getting scrapes and cuts. It's to stop the cowardly leg breaker challenges.

We know what those look like don't we? Head on (or close), off the ground, straight leg (or legs). Basically the coward's way of going into a challenge that you otherwise can't win without fear of hurting yourself. That same challenge breaks legs if you're wearing trainers – it's not just about the studs.

I probably haven't explained it well, because it's not something that can be defined 100% in words... which is where the referees are going wrong. They're looking for a textbook to referee from to promote consistency – when what they need is common sense and to have played the game.

If someone jumped in at me in the way I've described, I'd be livid. If someone did to me what Jags did, I'd walk it off.

Football is a contact game and any tackle can injure. Contact and/or injury isn't reason enough to send someone off.

I don't see how I've shot myself in foot at all!

Both pictures show tackles where one player has gone to ground sliding in with studs showing and foot off the floor going into a player running at the ball, in both incidents both sets of players are entitled to battle for the ball as it's up for grabs, is it not?

You also mentioned that both impacts are not close as I mentioned, but rather far apart, when in fact if you look at the pictures closely, it's the difference of about an inch. Jagielka' s top part of the tackle hits the opponents top of ankle, close to bottom of the tibia (shin) and Taylor's is about a further inch up his tibia and fibia.

What I think the bigger issue here is that the actual free kick was taken 5 yards forward which makes it a lot harder for Pickford to save. Less time to see and react. I think that is what Pawsons mistake was and even worse for the Wolves player for cheating. I think more people should making a bigger deal over that than the red card.
We got done over in the first game of the season. Ridiculous

I don't know about others, but I wouldn't. I would probably accept that happily, but deep inside I would think that we have robbed them.

Incidentally I never saw what Gallagher thought of the Jags incident. Did anybody see what Gallagher said?

Dont give me the "swings and roundabouts" argument because the usual top 6 sides get away with murder and are given at least 10 points start every season. How many times do their players get straight reds?

I hate to see footballers sent off, even when the ref has no option, but that was most definitely not the case on Saturday night.

A ref with No real concept, was my own opinion, and decisions like this only confirm it in my own head.

It's obviously right for some and wrong for others, but two wrongs will never make something right in my own book, so no I wouldn't have been screaming for a red card, even against the team from over the park.

I can never understand how if a player is through on goal, and gets brought down an inch outside the area, that his team don't get a penalty, yet United can receive one as stupid as they did the other night?

Some laws need changing to me, and the biggest one I'd love to see change, would be that a player can only be offside, if he receives the ball in an offside position, and not if he's got himself back onside.

Maybe this is too technical? But it wouldn't half make football more exciting, but maybe the game is already too contentious, for such a major change?

Just like Jags' tackle.

And yes, Rooney is doing well in America.

Link

You need to re-read the rule book you quoted. It really does matter whether the challenge was reckless or merely careless, it is a red for one and a yellow for the other. Ignoring totting up sanctions for a second, a foul is committed and there are three possible sanctions; free-kick only, free-kick plus yellow card, and free-kick plus red card. How do you think refs decide what warrants a yellow, red or neither?

I am asking you to put yourself through the same thought process that the referees are supposed to apply. Lack of intent is indeed a mitigating factor no matter what you say.

Instead, you try to lump all similar looking challenges together and say they deserve the same sanction. They don't because the rule book you quoted says they don't!

The point about the pictures is that they can't tell the whole story. The Jagielka picture doesn't show the point that he made contact with the ball nor how much distance he travels in the entirety of the tackle. Without an indication of momentum, you just can't really assess whether a challenge strays from the careless to the reckless.

I've dislocated my ankle playing rugby from a blow mid-way up my outer shin. The ankle doesn't roll as much that way. Complete fluke as the legs of someone tackling someone else flew around as I pushed off sideways on that foot following the ball. Fibula snapped like the twig it is but tibia just got pushed out sideways. Thing is, the surgeon who reset it said he would have expected the bone to break before the ligaments gave way.

My ankles have survived plenty of blood-and-guts challenges playing footy but I've had a variety of knee ligament injuries. I'd rather take the short sharp shock of the studs of a player at full stretch on my ankle than anything from mid shin to knee, studs or not.

Father Ted's lesson to Douglas about ‘small' and ‘far away' springs to mind. There has got to be at least 4 or 5 inches difference at least.

Just right before your message I wrote that I would not be calling for red card. There you go. And for that matter, I wouldn't even say a thing if no foul given.

Correction: okay I would probably not keep quiet if no foul given. But would just use the F-word on the referee and then let it past.

Despite Rooney's brilliance, the thing that stood out most was the atmosphere, and it looks like “soccer” is there to stay, in the good old USA?

I think we need to clarify what video evidence each one is referring to.

You reference a 37-second clip from BT's sports app (but with no link) which I can't access. You do not make clear if this was the live in-game comments the studio ex-ref made, or something put together post-production after the final whistle. Because each 'view' and comments will differ considerably.

I clearly reference the live in-game comments the (presumably) same studio referee made immediately following on from the decision. I did not fabricate, I did not invent, I did not imagine.

Live, in-game, before Jags left the field, before the Siggy-Holgate switch was made, before the free kick was taken, the studio ref made the comments he did as I reported @ 65.

Mine is not a verbatim report because I don't have the advantage of watching and hearing the replay of his words. It was fixed in my memory because whilst he and he alone was speaking, he changed from describing it as a high tackle catching the player's shin to simply catching the player's ankle.

As I described, as he uttered his first claim in live commentary, they started showing the replay which clearly contradicted his original observation. He continued speaking and changed his earlier comment to catching the player on the ankle.

As I also said, that 'authority' you quote, with the advantage of replay technology that the infield ref didn't have, called it wrong and had to correct himself.

There are many sources which offer a video view of the incident. I am basing mine, post-match, on the Everton TV footage on the official club site, which in all likelihood is borrowed from the BT coverage, just with Everton TV commentary. You can view it from around 6:20 mins on this link:

Link

In that footage, as I mentioned, the last shot you see of Pawson before the foul is him left of the centre circle, side on to the incident, looking away from the ball. He does not come into view again until after blowing the whistle (you do not see that, in the footage I reference) then running towards the location of the foul, during which time you see both Jags and Gueye hounding another Wolves player trying to get the 'second ball'. Jags stops, puts his hands on his head in incredulity (it appears to me) that a free kick is given against him.

Jags is literally struck dumb when Pawson brandishes the red card.

I was mistaken in saying the linesman moved towards the halfway line. He does, as you say, take a couple of side steps towards the corner flag. He CLEARLY does not flag, or hold his position in line with where the foul occurred as he would certainly have done so if he believed it was a foul. So the free kick and red card call was made exclusively and only by Pawson.

My opinion of the sequence and circumstances of the incident in all this, given twice, thrice, or possibly more times, is the following:

There is considerable reasonable doubt on whether the ref could objectively make the call he did with the degree of certainty you and others seem to be arguing for, whatever your interpretation or understanding of the laws may be.

In your own first post in this thread @ 37 Michael, you wrote: 'Whilst watching the match as it happened, I thought good recovery tackle. Then it showed slow mo's and different angles and on some angles it looked like he got the ball and on some it didn't. I watched it again over and over pausing on point of tackle and thought it was a foul. Which with him being last man, stopped a clear chance and was a red.'

By your own admission, from real-time to repeated and even the pausing of slow-mo replays you eventually reached the conclusion it was a red card.

Such analysis by you begs the question, IMO, of what I am countering with: given Pawson's distance from the incident, given the brevity and speed of the incident, etc, etc, could he truly make the match-changing call he did with any degree of certainty, or was it just punting on a hunch?

Because I firmly believe there was no malice or ill-intent on Jags' part, nor do I believe it necessarily denied a goal scoring opportunity, which seem to be the two justifications being used for our skipper's dismissal.

Jay

In my opinion the ref's decision was made even before the tackle. Jags first touch was shite, which led to a loose ball and the rest is history. The ref saw Jags fuck up and probably guessed what was coming.

As for the sending off, under the current rules (see comment 27), it was a red, no question. What you have to ask yourself is, if it had been one of their defenders on Richarlison, we would all be screaming for the red card!

There was clearly no intent to touch the player and if he had put his foot down anywhere else – while running – Jags would have missed him completely (and the ball would have continued going towards the Wolves goal).

Look at Match of the Day, 25 minutes and 20 seconds. There is a paused, zoomed in clip of Jagielka's tackle, look at that and honestly come back and tell me there's a 4-5 inch difference between both tackles?!

I'm kinda expecting to you to say that Coleman's tackle was above his knee next lol.

Reference your post @88,

Where in all of my posts during this debate have a quoted a rule from the rulebook?

I've shown quotes from a referee on BT Sport, I've shown a link to a picture of the tackle, and I've also shown what I think is a similar tackle based on impact zones. I've also mentioned their was a debate on MOTD where Shearer quoted the rules to Wright.

I've read people's opinions on here and entered with my own and tried to show evidence to back my opinion up.

Your opinion seems based on the fact that Jagielka's tackle was unintentional and careless and not reckless and intentional, your not the only that has that view, and that their is a difference then to punishment.

My opinion is that I don't think it matters either or, my opinion is to do with the fact that he went to ground with force, leg locked straight, lower leg off the ground and with studs showing. Whether he meant to cause harm or not, I believe you that he's not the type of player that does things like that.

My opinion is that I don't think the colour of card is differentiated to whether he meant it or not, just like I'm sure and hopeful Taylor didn't mean to cause intentional damage to Coleman. I'm saying it's more to do with the danger and severity of the tackle.

Another quote from a former referee, this time from Sky Sports App:

Dermot Gallagher

"I thought it was a red card. This is what you teach young referees, that he has overrun the ball, he wants to get it back quickly and he's not nasty, I don't think he meant to hurt the player but because he lunges to get the ball back, he's caught him right across the far ankle with his studs and I think Craig (Pawson) is quite right to send him off for serious foul play".

Again my opinion (and thats all it is) is based on looking at video footage, pictures, and people of refereeing knowledge. If you disagree instead of just giving your opinion, back it up with evidence or official rules for me to change my mind.

Focus less on the tackle and more on Pawson. He is a significant distance away from the incident with two players partially obscuring his view. You might even argue he is not focussed on Jags because he has wrongly expected him to control the ball. 'You referee for the worst case scenario not what you expect to happen'.

Therefore there is no way he can see clearly the incident, he is poorly positioned and at best he has put the pieces together retrospectively, albeit in split second. Even if you believe it was a red card based on the TV angles, thats not angle Pawson saw, he has at best guessed, so he should not issue the red card.

If you miss something, even as important as that, never guess, players accept it much more quickly when you 'fess up and explain that rather than try to defend your position.

When you guess players lose trust and question things more. Just a poor poor effort i'm afraid. Look on the brighter side Pawson will know that the incident was handled poorly and whatever the match day fans think officials work so, so hard to get to that level. He will be looking at his position and how he handled something similar in the future.

It might not garner much sympathy on here though!

However, passing it down the line when you have quick players can be effective as it keeps the opposing defence back-pedalling and they can be caught off guard. Alas the game has changed in that respect to the boring scenario of too much passing in one's own half.

One only has to look at Man City yesterday who high pressed an Arsenal back line not allowing them to play the ball out the way they wanted to, which gave the Arsenal fans fits and starts all game.

After what happened to Everton yesterday (last season Everton were very poor at passing the ball around in their own half), I would hope they will use the pass down the line more often and quicker.

Why the delay???

It was 3 possible refereeing errors that could have been reviewed. The foul (was it), the red card (was it deserved) and the cheating by Neves allowed by weak refereeing.

It never fails that Everton are always victims of things like this. Remember the Ernie Hunt ''donkey kick'' goal (later deemed to be illegal).

What could have been a dream start to the season was ruined by controversy.

Because of the Neves cheating that was missed, I would hope this referee is relegated to the second tier for a few weeks at least.

We are clearly not going to have any chance of persuading each other if you truly believe Jagielka's challenge carries anything approaching the same risk as Taylor's, so I will leave it there.

What do you mean: ‘What do you mean?'?

Because I firmly believe there was no malice or ill-intent on Jags' part, nor do I believe it necessarily denied a goal scoring opportunity, which seem to be the two justifications being used for our skipper's dismissal.

Intent does not count, it either happened or did not. The DOGSO as the refs call it is Denying an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity. The key here for me is Obvious. The standard is applied but to a high level, higher than me on a Sunday. Obvious means, really, the guy would score.

So, in the case of Jags it does not apply. But the feet off ground and being not in control, which is what both feet off ground is seen as, is a different matter, he has no defence. Love Jags, but time is catching up with him, just like on a Sunday it is with me.

For completeness, the area includes the line and so a foul on the line is a foul in the area.

I have reffed games when the offender appeals "Wait a minute, ref, I did the foul on the line!" Sad but true...

That's how the rule was interpreted when first enacted. FIFA has narrowed the scope over the years – it now has to be a deliberate foul committed with no legitimate play on the ball, if the defender is clearly beaten. Obviously that was not the case with Jagielka's foul, because he got the ball solidly and, under the current guidelines, that was a completely incorrect call.

I assumed from the quick red that he'd been sent off for a reckless tackle endangering another player – arguable, but a legitimate interpretation even if there is "no malice or ill-intent".

I just happen to keep close track of this stuff because I've been a ref for 40 years, up to the college and minor-league pro level. I still do adult league and high school games today.

I wonder why no-one likes referees...?

A guide for referee's entitled "A Guide to Misconduct Report Writing" includes the codes that the referee would have included in his game report. Pertinent to this discussion are the codes / instructions for Serious Foul Play (Law 12, S1) and for "Denying an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity" – the "last man" rule (Law 12, S5).

Though there seems to be some confusion on the site and the various shows discussing the validity of the red card, it seems clear that from the FA's perspective, Jags was sent off for Serious Foul Play, not Denying an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity due to the code referenced on their website. While I disagree with the Serious Foul Play decision, it seems that this is what the sending-off was for.

Mike A., I don't think there was either pettiness or facetiousness involved. We refs can be a bit pedantic is all. But as to no one liking us, I can report that I am deeply loved, yea revered, by every player and coach in my games. Although some of them do manage to hide it well.

I agree that we won't change each other's opinion, just like I know that all my posts on this matter won't change opinions of other fans who agree with you on this thread. But it is a debate at that, and we wouldn't have debates at all if we all agreed on every subject on here.

That's what I like about ToffeeWeb, for me it's a great pastime between matches, and a great way to read other fans opinions on all matters relating to our great club. Sometimes debates get heated, but I just see that as passion about something you love.

I'd also like to point out that I also never said that Jagielka's tackle was the same as Taylor's on Coleman. I know it was much worse due to the force at which they came together and that Taylor's was more of a lunge off the ground as a sliding lunge like Jagielka's. It's hard to find an exact carbon copy to compare, I did say similar due to the impact zone of the leg as it's mere inches between the 2. Also that they were both one-footed challenges, and both had studs showing. One was a challenge from the side and one was from the front at a slight angle.

I've just been watching the Taylor challenge again on YouTube, and afterwards there was another video which was an interview of Coleman after his first game back. Just makes me so proud of our fans, and I loved Coleman's acknowledgement of that. I'd love for him to be given the captain's armband this year. Below is that interview:

The room got a bit Smokey watching it lol.

One last thing Si,

You mentioned the rulebook, again which I've never quoted, I mentioned Shearer quoted the rulebook when debating it with Ian Wright.

But again for piece of mind, I've just been looking at rule 12, which I've seen posted on this thread and I found this:

IFAB laws of the game 2018-19

"SENDING-OFF OFFENCES

A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:

- denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)

- denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)

- serious foul play

- biting or spitting at someone

- violent conduct

- using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures

- receiving a second caution in the same match

- entering the video operation room (VOR)

A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off must leave the vicinity of the field of play and the technical area.

DENYING A GOAL OR AN OBVIOUS GOAL-SCORING OPPORTUNITY

Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a deliberate handball offence the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs.

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.

A player, sent off player, substitute or substituted player who enters the field of play without the required referee's permission and interferes with play or an opponent and denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is guilty of a sending-off offence

The following must be considered:

- distance between the offence and the goal

- general direction of the play

- likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball

- location and number of defenders

SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play."

I've highlighted in bold some of the topics from this thread, not just what we where talking about Si, but what others have mentioned.

My point was that sliding in forcefully with studs showing and parts of foot off the ground, whether intentional or accidental was a red card offence.

If you look at the part mentioning serious foul play, it doesn't mention anything about a lesser punishment if it's accidental. That's what my whole point has been about, basically a bad tackle is a bad tackle and that it's not just a caution for a careless tackle and a red card for a reckless tackle.

I also think if it's classed as serious foul play (so a foul with a free kick awarded). You could then look at did the foul deny a goal scoring opportunity.

I personally think they both go arm in arm then, as it's serious foul play and has denied a goal scoring opportunity.

On a final point, I see we are not appealing, so all what the manager and player came out with after the incident, were fans have then made an opinion backing them is surely moot. As our club even thinks we haven't got a leg to stand on.

‘Lunges at an opponent' – Jagielka didn't lunge at where the player was, he went for where the ball was and incidentally caught Jota because he went for the ball as well.

The contact was not inevitable because of anything Jagielka did, which is what defines reckless for me. Sure, the impact was meaty (though not as bad as some are claiming) but it may never had happened if the ball had jammed between their feet.

‘With excessive force' is a debatable point as well. Jagielka went just as fast as he needed to to get to the ball ahead of Jota and it wasn't two-footed. It was sprawling rather than airborne. (Incidentally, I'd say Taylor's was two-footed. Just because only one impacted doesn't change that.)

As far as denying a clear goal scoring opportunity, my understanding is that making a genuine attempt to win the ball does moderate it to a caution (yellow) in exactly the same way as your example says it does for those in the penalty area. It wouldn't make sense for that to apply in only one set of circumstances.

The rule of serious foul play doesn't say that it has to be a straight lunge for the player, it says:

"any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball"

So it then doesn't matter if it's a deliberate attempt to win the ball or not. As after he misplaced the pass, he turns and runs at full pace and goes to ground lunging one foot (I'd give you a slide if his studs remained down) with studs fully stretched out and his lower leg slightly off the floor.

As soon as Jagielka went to ground and slid in, it became inevitable as once your sliding you can't just stop in an instant, so he made that choice. You can't blame his opponent for being tackled as the ball was loose and up for grabs. That's like saying it's the victim's fault for being murdered as he moved towards the killer.

The excessive force that you mentioned, watch Match of the Day on BBC iPlayer, and forward it to what I mentioned yesterday, I think it's about 25 minutes and 20 seconds in, and it shows some great angles and zoomed in pics of the tackle. They are the clearest pictures I've seen to make my mind up on the tackle.

As I also quoted in the rules above, it didn't have to be a 2 footed challenge to be a red. I agree about Taylor, even though only one foot went in on the tackle, his other foot was not tucked away as in a one-footed tackle, but more in a scissor motion. I agree that that was probably to do with him still coming down in to the lunge and not already on the floor.

Reference your opinion on the part about the goalscoring opportunity and only being a caution due to making a genuine attempt. I really don't know, as it was a pretty long rule, I just glanced through it and seen the sending off part and then copied and pasted it to the forum and then highlighted the parts that people had mentioned in this thread in bold.

Before looking for the rule, I was trying to find out if the general public had access to end-of-match referee reports to clarify what he was actually sent off for as to try and at least settle some of the debate.

My final question is If the ref had only decided to caution him due to a genuine attempt, could it then be 2 yellows equalling a straight red? So a yellow for the tackle and a yellow for the goal scoring opportunity.

Evertonian Meets Richarlison After Goal Celebration Injury

Now Everton invite him to Finch Farm.

And another blue tried to hurdle (I think) a wall at the pub the blues were at – not much of an athlete... blood all over his face! Got the biggest cheer of the afternoon after being bandaged by Mr Plod.