Topic: Sadio Mané

[markthescouser]

"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"

I don't think there is an argument to reduce the severity because a sending off for the above is 3 weeks

I think the argument is that what you've quoted there says excessive force AND endangers an opponent. Clearly it endangered an opponent, look at Edison's face, but the question is- was it excessive force?

For me, no. The ball was there to be won and that was a reasonable action to take to try and win it. The trouble is, the injury gave the perception that the challenge was harder than it should have been.

[Barneylfc∗]

I've only heard Carragher and Kilbane say it should've been a red card. Every other pundit has said it should have been yellow. A world cup final referee has said is should have been yellow. Man City's own manager doesn't think it was a red. Most intelligent football fans think it should only be a yellow.

2 incidents exactly the same happen in the same weekend, and the punishment is different. Of course we are right to appeal. And if it isn't reduced, then it shows the FA/Premier League do not give a flying fuck about the incompetence of the officiating.

[El Lobo]

I'd be pretty annoyed if its not at least reduced by a game. Otherwise you're surely opening a can of worms that every high foot should be a straight red if an opposition player ducks into it?

[Qston]

It was a red but Mané was looking at the ball. It becomes a 50/50 when the goalie is out of his box. There was obviously no intent but I'd be absolutely astounded if they reduced it. It's the FA. I'm glad Ederson is OK but the injury hasn't helped our case.

I think we've wasted our time even appealing quite frankly. We should be able to get by without him against Burnely and the league cup where he wasn't likely to play anyway. So, really he's only missing 2 games in which he was going to play. He'll play in CL league games and come back in the league against Newcastle.

I agree. The picture doesn`t help and given the next couple of games, the fact that the FA is unlikely to reduce it then it hardly seems worth it. I get the points being made about consistency but the rules suggest it should have been a red in that he was endangering an opponent. There was no intent but that isn`t the point.

[Elzar]

Shall we sign this guy?
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/Zg0kX1gS0mo" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/Zg0kX1gS0mo</a>

[Barneylfc∗]

I agree. The picture doesn`t help and given the next couple of games, the fact that the FA is unlikely to reduce it then it hardly seems worth it. I get the points being made about consistency but the rules suggest it should have been a red in that he was endangering an opponent. There was no intent but that isn`t the point.

No they don't

[Nick110581]

Be interesting to see what happens here.

[Rob17]

I agree. The picture doesn`t help and given the next couple of games, the fact that the FA is unlikely to reduce it then it hardly seems worth it. I get the points being made about consistency but the rules suggest it should have been a red in that he was endangering an opponent. There was no intent but that isn`t the point.

At the end of the day if the rules do suggest that then they need to change as if people are getting sent off for accidental clashes where there's a chance both players could get to the ball, then it's another example of the game going to shit.

[killer-heels]

They can extend a ban based on intent cant they?

[Barneylfc∗]

1 - Endangers an opponent. No booking



2 - Endangers an opponent. Yellow card



3 - Endangers an opponent. Red card



In my view, the only difference in the 3 of them is the reaction of the opposing player. I'm not inferring that Ederson done what he done to get Mane sent off, but he certainly didn't help matters. And the dickhead referee made a judgement based on the reaction of Ederson rather than the challenge by Mane.
There is no rule or law that says a player should be sent off if he accidentally kicks someone in the face. Every single challenge in the game is 'endangering an opponent' as people keep trotting out. Are they all red card worthy? No, they are not. Mane wasn't reckless. Not out of control. Not lunging in 2 footed with studs at knee height. His eyes are on the ball the whole time. It is an honest attempt to win the ball and the action of the keeper, and reaction of a poor referee are what got him a red card.

[Gus 1855]

For me, it's a red card by the letter of the law and I don't think a red card for this sort of challenge ought to be discouraged. Same with Ritchie's at the weekend. They were both endangering the opponent and that's why it ought to be red.

The length of the ban ought to be where there is discretion. If the view was that it was careless, but an accident the ban could be lenient or non-existent, but if it were serious foul play the ban ought to be longer.

The resultant injury of lack of is irrelevant in my view. If you were chopping onions at home and knife in hand turned around and accidentally stabbed your mate to the point that they died, ought the punishment be greater than someone who intended to kill someone by stabbing them in the street, but down to blind luck only injured them?

[rubber soul]

In my view, the only difference in the 3 of them is the reaction of the opposing player. I'm not inferring that Ederson done what he done to get Mane sent off, but he certainly didn't help matters. And the dickhead referee made a judgement based on the reaction of Ederson rather than the challenge by Mane.
There is no rule or law that says a player should be sent off if he accidentally kicks someone in the face. Every single challenge in the game is 'endangering an opponent' as people keep trotting out. Are they all red card worthy? No, they are not. Mane wasn't reckless. Not out of control. Not lunging in 2 footed with studs at knee height. His eyes are on the ball the whole time. It is an honest attempt to win the ball and the action of the keeper, and reaction of a poor referee are what got him a red card.

What are you inferring, what did Ederson do that didn't help matters? Whatever the rights and wrongs of the sending off suggesting Ederson's "reaction" had anything to do with it is unfair. The fact that he was hurt did influence the ref no doubt but I didn't see any reaction from Ederson apart fron lying injured on the ground.

[El Lobo]

What are you inferring, what did Ederson do that didn't help matters? Whatever the rights and wrongs of the sending off suggesting Ederson's "reaction" had anything to do with it is unfair. The fact that he was hurt did influence the ref no doubt but I didn't see any reaction from Ederson apart fron lying injured on the ground.

Rushing out in the first place because his defence had fucked up, into a 50/50, and going in with his head because he knew if he went with any other part of his body he'd be getting himself sent off. It was rash goalkeeping.

[Barneylfc∗]

What are you inferring, what did Ederson do that didn't help matters? Whatever the rights and wrongs of the sending off suggesting Ederson's "reaction" had anything to do with it is unfair. The fact that he was hurt did influence the ref no doubt but I didn't see any reaction from Ederson apart fron lying injured on the ground.

http://www.soccer-blogger.com/2017/09/09/gif-sadio-mane-sent-off-vs-city-2017-video-mane-kicks-ederson/

The 3rd and 4th replays in the first video of this link show he clearly cushions his own fall to the ground and then sprawls himself out as if he's been shot

[LallanaInPyjamas]

Rushing out in the first place because his defence had fucked up, into a 50/50, and going in with his head because he knew if he went with any other part of his body he'd be getting himself sent off. It was rash goalkeeping.

It was excellent goalkeeping.

[Fordy]

It was excellent goalkeeping.

It was excellent keeping and awareness.

If only Mignolet had rushed out like that when Gerrard slipped.

[wah00ey]

They would rightly argue that the Ritchie challenge should have been Red, intent is not mentioned in the rules, this is:

"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"

I don't think there is an argument to reduce the severity because a sending off for the above is 3 weeks

Does he use excessive force though?  Really?  It's a 50:50 ball.  He's running at pace but Ederson goes in with equal force.  What was he supposed to do, not run quite as fast as he can just in case?

I don't see any argument that he used excessive force at all.

[T.Mills]

Rushing out in the first place because his defence had fucked up, into a 50/50, and going in with his head because he knew if he went with any other part of his body he'd be getting himself sent off. It was rash goalkeeping.

Rash goalkeeping? He stopped a certain goal.

[Barneylfc∗]

It was excellent keeping and awareness.

If only Mignolet had rushed out like that when Gerrard slipped.

That's a laughable comment. Gerrard slipped near the half way line. Mignolet was in his box. Don't talk shite.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

It was excellent keeping and awareness.

If only Mignolet had rushed out like that when Gerrard slipped.

I agree with Barney that it's a poor example to use but you're half right: everyone on here is understandably pining for a goalkeeper to do for us what Ederson did for them. It can't then be labelled 'rash' or 'reckless'; it's modern sweeper-keeping and there's a huge amount of skill and bravery to it.

Watch Hugo Lloris, he's involved in a scenario like that in most matches and very rarely gets them wrong. His tackling is probably better than his shot stopping 

[Charlie Adams fried egg]

Two things that annoy me when "incidents" happen to this club, any by incident I mean high profile cases, sometimes but not always linked to refereeing, the FA, interpretation of the rules etc.

1) There is a section of our fans that always look to paint the club or the player in the worst light and almost accept the decision without any comeback or challenge. These fans often tell the rest of us that we should "move on"

2) We get a high profile ex player that takes the opposite side to the club, in this case Carragher.

And we wonder why we are so often on the wrong side of FA clampdowns.

As a club we need to be a bit more savvy. Just as the value of a vocal captain being in the refs ear during a game, we need the same with the FA. Just gently pointing out for example the 2 Barkley challenges on Henderson, especially when things like the Mane incident occur. It won't work immediately but over the longer term it would surely become more effective.
A little bit of loyalty from ex reds in the media would help too. Overall a bit more circling of the wagons and a bit less of the usual suspects standing outside the tent pissing in. Again a strong senior figure from within the club who can gently remind some of these fellas where their loyalties lie.

[Lycan]

It's brave goal keeping. He knows full well that if he clatters into Mane with any other part of his body or he handles the ball outside the area, he's more than likely to be sent off. So he goes in with his head knowing he's probably going to get hurt, but stops what would have been a certain goal.

[El Lobo]

It was excellent goalkeeping.

Aye, excellent but still rash. It becomes excellent due to a matter of milliseconds, a little bit earlier or later and he's sent off.

[rubber soul]

http://www.soccer-blogger.com/2017/09/09/gif-sadio-mane-sent-off-vs-city-2017-video-mane-kicks-ederson/

The 3rd and 4th replays in the first video of this link show he clearly cushions his own fall to the ground and then sprawls himself out as if he's been shot

To be fair, I think it probably did hurt a bit;
https://twitter.com/MullockSMirror/status/907272294988480512/photo/1

[Keita Success]

They would rightly argue that the Ritchie challenge should have been Red, intent is not mentioned in the rules, this is:

"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"

I don't think there is an argument to reduce the severity because a sending off for the above is 3 weeks

I talk about this is an article post that I made online.

The International Football Association Board (The IFAB) determine the laws of the game each season. It is Law 12 that often shoulders most of the scrutiny.

In reference to fouls, the Law dictates that “A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force.”

•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

For me, the punishment isn't a question of should the excessive force be sent off for a red, is it excessive force at all.

Personally, I think it's careless, but maybe a yellow. The human side of the ref has punished Mané because of the injury, not the rules.

[wah00ey]

I talk about this is an article post that I made online.
For me, the punishment isn't a question of should the excessive force be sent off for a red, is it excessive force at all.

Personally, I think it's careless, but maybe a yellow. The human side of the ref has punished Mané because of the injury, not the rules.

I don't think it was even careless - it's a 50:50 and both players would have been roundly chastised had they pulled out in any way.  Ultimately, the ball skids through a little quicker than either player expects resulting in Mane being very slightly late.  Had it held up a little, Ederson would have been late.

[classycarra]

It was excellent keeping and awareness.

If only Mignolet had rushed out like that when Gerrard slipped.

Fucking LOL! What a joke of a shout!

Also, it wasn't that excellent. For it to be excellent it would have required him not turning up to the ball late (as it's coming down from the bounce) and getting a kick in the face. And actually I think I'd add, for it to be excellent, that he'd needed to have chested it ahead of Mane getting to it, then passing it out.

But he had just successfully headed a ball before that, so felt on a roll/overly confident and preferred to duck into a header that he was second to. Not excellent, maybe good at best. Though he was right to come out, he just wasn't quick enough to.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

Fucking LOL! What a joke of a shout!

Also, it wasn't that excellent. For it to be excellent it would have required him not turning up to the ball late (as it's coming down from the bounce) and getting a kick in the face. And actually I think I'd add, for it to be excellent, that he'd needed to have chested it ahead of Mane getting to it, then passing it out.

But he had just successfully headed a ball before that, so felt on a roll/overly confident and preferred to duck into a header that he was second to. Not excellent, maybe good at best. Though he was right to come out, he just wasn't quick enough to.

He wasn't quick enough to? He won the ball.

[classycarra]

He wasn't quick enough to? He won the ball.

He got to the ball the same time as Mane toes it. Because of the angle he's kicking it (up!) the touch is hardly noticed.

I'd argue he didn't win the ball, I'd use that phrase to describe someone making a tackle/interception/whatever that results in possession of the ball.

He managed to successfully clatter into the ball at the same time as Mané. If he's there slightly quicker and chests it as Mane gets his foot up, the ball lands in front of the keeper, who gets the side of Mané's boot in his chest, while Mané is either on the deck or goalside of the keeper in no position to interrupt an easy clearance

[wah00ey]

Anyway, this is all irrelevant.  No chance the FA will reduce the ban.  None whatsoever.

[classycarra]

Anyway, this is all irrelevant.  No chance the FA will reduce the ban.  None whatsoever.

I think they have to. Otherwise they risk having to punish every overhead kick and any volley near an opposing player.

[wah00ey]

I think they have to. Otherwise they risk having to punish every overhead kick and any volley near an opposing player.

They cannot be seen in any way to condone any actions that could cause significant harm or injury to a player.  They will not reduce the ban.  I agree with what you're saying personally, as do most of the ex-pros that aren't trying too hard to look impartial from a Liverpool perspective, but this is the FA we're talking about and a sensible, consistent and impartial approach is not what they're about.  Preventing harm or injury to players will be their agenda today and they will not reduce the ban.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

He got to the ball the same time as Mane toes it. Because of the angle he's kicking it (up!) the touch is hardly noticed.

I'd argue he didn't win the ball, I'd use that phrase to describe someone making a tackle/interception/whatever that results in possession of the ball.

He managed to successfully clatter into the ball at the same time as Mané. If he's there slightly quicker and chests it as Mane gets his foot up, the ball lands in front of the keeper, who gets the side of Mané's boot in his chest, while Mané is either on the deck or goalside of the keeper in no position to interrupt an easy clearance

He gets to the ball at the same time as Mané toes him.

Your definition of winning the ball is pedantic. I'm pretty sure that incident will have been marked as a successful tackle for Ederson and an unsuccessful tackle and foul by Mané. Because that's exactly what it was.

There is legitimate debate to be had whether it was a red card - personally, I'm not convinced it was "excessive force", but I can see how the referee has interpreted the ruling that way - but do we really need to take the argument further by being a bit silly here? If it's Aguero on Mignolet, this debate does not exist.

[Elzar]

If it's Aguero on Mignolet, this debate does not exist.

That's because we wouldn't bother discussing something that benefited us and doesn't effect us in the next 3 games.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

That's because we wouldn't bother discussing something that benefited us and doesn't effect us in the next 3 games.

Well done on snipping a paragraph - it's three lines on a page and you're incapable of discussing the entire thing in context? - to make a clever post. I've just said in the previous sentence that there is genuine debate to be had whether it should have been a red card, and thereby as an extension whether it should be a three game ban. What isn't up for debate is that Ederson won the ball and Mané fouled him. That's simply a fact and it's petty to even argue it.

[classycarra]

He gets to the ball at the same time as Mané toes him.

I think he gets to the ball at the same time and toes the ball up, and consequently studs him (rather than toes him)

Your definition of winning the ball is pedantic. I'm pretty sure that incident will have been marked as a successful tackle for Ederson and an unsuccessful tackle and foul by Mané. Because that's exactly what it was.

I'm not meaning to be, nor am I shifting any goalposts to win an internet discussion. That's just the way I see winning the ball. When someone says winning the ball to me I picture a neat Maldini slide that somehow has him striding forward in possession of the ball a split second after tackling the player.

I don't see the keeper heading the ball up in the air (at the same time as Mane toes it) as winning it really, because the ball balloons up and, if there was no contact between Mané and the keeper, anyone could have pounced on the ball and hit it into an open net.

There is legitimate debate to be had whether it was a red card - personally, I'm not convinced it was "excessive force", but I can see how the referee has interpreted the ruling that way - but do we really need to take the argument further by being a bit silly here? If it's Aguero on Mignolet, this debate does not exist.

Speak for yourself. Agree with the first part, disagree with the second. Don't think it's silly either. Might be nitpicking, which I definitely was, but it's my view. I don't think it was excellent. Excellent goalkeeping would have meant there was no conversation going on in here right now

[Elzar]

Well done on snipping a paragraph - it's three lines on a page and you're incapable of discussing the entire thing in context? - to make a clever post. I've just said in the previous sentence that there is genuine debate to be had whether it should have been a red card, and thereby as an extension whether it should be a three game ban. What isn't up for debate is that Ederson won the ball and Mané fouled him. That's simply a fact and it's petty to even argue it.

People over analyse everything when it effects us. You can go in any thread on the LFC board and see people nitpicking at the tiniest things.

[classycarra]

People over analyse everything when it effects us. You can go in any thread on the LFC board and see people nitpicking at the tiniest things.

Especially when I'm they're avoiding work!

[Nick110581]

Anyway, this is all irrelevant.  No chance the FA will reduce the ban.  None whatsoever.

Can they increase it then as it would be deemed a frivolous appeal ?

[El Lobo]

Can they increase it then as it would be deemed a frivolous appeal ?

Nah apparently not, because we wouldn't be appealing the ban itself but rather the severity of it.