By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
FK Rangers and red card Pudil for the head-butt on Rangel.
Give a penalty for that then every attacking player is going to stick his head down when a defender tries to clearto get a penalty. Pudil ran into Rangels foot as he cleared it. To go for a ball at that height is sheer stupidity and is likely to end with ahead injury. I said at the time that it wasn’t a pen given the height of the ball. Whilst on the subject of the ref I thought generally he was excellent last night in letting the game flow and also allowing some tackles that many other refs would have blown for. An example being the one that led to the third goal.
I think Rangel had every right to go for that ball with his foot. It was Pudil who stooped low to header it, that's the risk you take. Same with Hemed when scoring, could have got a boot in the face and that's the risk he took.
Dean Richard's blood capsule in the kit man's magic sponge? He stooped to head the ball - Rangel cleared the ball at waist height - referee was spot on - the only complaint isthat it was ahead injury so he should have stopped play. The biggest joke was that Weds carried on in possession and our players were screaming at Bannon to kick it out!
Give a penalty for that then every attacking player is going to stick his head down when a defender tries to clearto get a penalty. Pudil ran into Rangels foot as he cleared it. To go for a ball at that height is sheer stupidity and is likely to end with ahead injury. I said at the time that it wasn’t a pen given the height of the ball. Whilst on the subject of the ref I thought generally he was excellent last night in letting the game flow and also allowing some tackles that many other refs would have blown for. An example being the one that led to the third goal.
Rangels boot is above his hip, he's raised his leg as much (if not more) than Pudil lowered his head. That's why I would say it's a penalty and red card. It's debateable and obviously the claret everywhere always makes it seem worse, but I still think we got away with one there.
Their manager is spot on though, we would have beaten them anyway.
My instant reaction was Penalty but looking at that he was stooping to head the ball.
Game is now played by tarts, reffed by tarts and watched by well................
I'm surprised Rangel wasn't sent off!
Doesn't deflect away from a good solid win mind!
This......is exactly how I feel Kingsbury..
In today's game, that should have been a penalty - Angel could have been sent off. In a way, I'm so glad I no longer play. In my day, I would have just got up and walked away. The amount of times I heard last night and in general, "clever play by the centre forward" he bought the foul/penalty.. NO...he fell over ..he ran into the players foot and fell over..he is a tart. However , great play by Eze, the way he.....oh yeah..both teams ...
Funny thing is...outside the penalty area, and you cannot touch a player. Inside...it's like WWF
Rangels boot is above his hip, he's raised his leg as much (if not more) than Pudil lowered his head. That's why I would say it's a penalty and red card. It's debateable and obviously the claret everywhere always makes it seem worse, but I still think we got away with one there.
Their manager is spot on though, we would have beaten them anyway.
Yes good point, leading up to the third goal I thought one of ours got fouled, was starting to moan but then Bidwell won it back with an excellent strong tackle, two seconds later Wells smacks it in the net!
Agreed also I liked the way the ref let the game flow, might have been the occasional niggle that other refs would have whistled for, but both sets of players were happy to get on with it.
But for me, the rule is wrong. If the ball is anything remotely resembling head height, you should be able to kick the ball. If you get the ball first and then accidentally kick somebody, no foul, just like an accidental clash of heads. To give a penalty for playing and kicking the ball, just because somebody leans their head in, is crazy to me. After all, an accidental kick in the head in football would be unlikely to do much more than superficial damage in comparison with the serious potential for injury in a clash of heads. If a high-ball is unkickable, it should also be a foul to head the ball in a dangerous situation. By forcing people to head the ball instead, not only is there no logic to it, it's actually more dangerous.
It's Illogical and poorly thought out.
Also, most players worth their salt wouldn't be at all bothered by a little claret. Just a chance to show you're hard as nails in front of the ladies. I'm sure Terry Butcher loved that match.
Besides, it was a clear dive, never even touched him ahem.
But for me, the rule is wrong. If the ball is anything remotely resembling head height, you should be able to kick the ball. If you get the ball first and then accidentally kick somebody, no foul, just like an accidental clash of heads. To give a penalty for playing and kicking the ball, just because somebody leans their head in, is crazy to me. After all, an accidental kick in the head in football would be unlikely to do much more than superficial damage in comparison with the serious potential for injury in a clash of heads. If a high-ball is unkickable, it should also be a foul to head the ball in a dangerous situation. By forcing people to head the ball instead, not only is there no logic to it, it's actually more dangerous.
It's Illogical and poorly thought out.
Also, most players worth their salt wouldn't be at all bothered by a little claret. Just a chance to show you're hard as nails in front of the ladies. I'm sure Terry Butcher loved that match.
Besides, it was a clear dive, never even touched him ahem.
Problem with that logic is that it is impossible/difficult to judge 'intent' - hence why it is not in the laws (Handball excepted)
Haven’t seen the incident but if Rangel is already playing ball and oppo sees that and decides to put his head in then oppo must accept consequences. It’s a clear head injury, ref stops play.
The ref was probably the last person on the pitch to notice what happened. All our players – including Rangel – were yelling at him to stop play. The assistants presumably saw nothing, and there's no VAR. He'd have been seriously working on supposition if he'd called a penalty (or anything else.)
Head wounds, even minor ones, bleed a lot but stop quickly too. It likely looked a lot worse than it probably was. My wife fell while folding laundry a couple of months back. She hit her head on the way down, there was claret all over the place. But it had stopped in about ten minutes.
Out of interest how low would Prudil have had to stoop for you not to think it a penalty
Don't think I would use that as a criteria, its all about timing as someone said below.
For me its near enough to a simultaneous coming together.
He's kicked him in the head and endangered his safety.
The injury and intent is irrelevant - pen and red card - if it was one of ours with his face rearranged, I'm guessing there would be 1 or 2 more in favour of that decision!
Haven’t seen the incident but if Rangel is already playing ball and oppo sees that and decides to put his head in then oppo must accept consequences. It’s a clear head injury, ref stops play.
'Head Injury' not specifically mentioned in LOTG.
I like to debunk these football myths every few days!
I think Rangel had every right to go for that ball with his foot. It was Pudil who stooped low to header it, that's the risk you take. Same with Hemed when scoring, could have got a boot in the face and that's the risk he took.
Look at the picture. Rangels foot is not in a normal position unless he's a soldier marching in the North Korean military parade. His boot is some 5 foot off the ground.
Now imagine the scenario. It was the other way around. EVERYONE would be saying we should have got a penalty and a red card for Wednesdays player.
Look at the picture. Rangels foot is not in a normal position unless he's a soldier marching in the North Korean military parade. His boot is some 5 foot off the ground.
Now imagine the scenario. It was the other way around. EVERYONE would be saying we should have got a penalty and a red card for Wednesdays player.
I did look at the picture. His left leg is also bent making him slightly lower.
If it was the other way around would I say it should be a penalty? Honestly, probably not. I really think players have the right to go for the ball. Rangel's a defender and will always be more thorough in trying to clear the ball, that's his job.
It's such a fine line though which is why there's different schools of thought.
Extended hi-lights from a Wednesday perspective. Seemed to think the Wednesday player put his head in a bit low rather than Rangel's boot too high.
11.20 in...
Looking at it from a sightly different perspective. If the cross comes in and Rangel clears at the hight that he does clear it, with no challenge from an opposition player. Is Rangels action dangerous play? No. So when an opposition player ducks into the clearance, coming from behind Rangel, is Rangels play dangerous now? Still no. The only player acting in a dangerous way is the Wednesday player. Albeit, only dangerous to himself. If just playing the ball with your foot at above, around waist height is dangerous play, then every overhead kick goal should be dissalowed.
Looking at it from a sightly different perspective. If the cross comes in and Rangel clears at the hight that he does clear it, with no challenge from an opposition player. Is Rangels action dangerous play? No. So when an opposition player ducks into the clearance, coming from behind Rangel, is Rangels play dangerous now? Still no. The only player acting in a dangerous way is the Wednesday player. Albeit, only dangerous to himself. If just playing the ball with your foot at above, around waist height is dangerous play, then every overhead kick goal should be dissalowed.
[Post edited 25 Oct 2018 14:20]
Can't follow that logic.
If a player launches himself two footed at a bouncing ball and no opponent nearby then obviously no one cares.
Oppo nearby, no contact its playing in a dangerous manner - IDFK - If contact its endangering safety of opponent - fk/pen & red card
As I've said before , intent and whose fault it is, is irrelevant as far as LOTG is concerned.
I've given the pen, I'm not entering any further discussion on the matter!
Don't think I would use that as a criteria, its all about timing as someone said below.
For me its near enough to a simultaneous coming together.
He's kicked him in the head and endangered his safety.
The injury and intent is irrelevant - pen and red card - if it was one of ours with his face rearranged, I'm guessing there would be 1 or 2 more in favour of that decision!
I'm happy to be proved wrong but the picture seems to show that the SW player was behind and Rangel may not have seen him when going for the ball. If Rangels actions are dangerous then they are regardless whether any player was near him or not. Surely it was only dangerous because the SW player tried to play the ball. Are we getting to the point that raising a foot in isolation will be penalised
Edit just read your reply above. I've never seen an overhead kick when no opposition player was close so every overhead kick should be penalised
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
