Xhaka - Not exactly subtle, is he?

[PSRB]

:hehe:

A bit fortunate to stay on last night

[Ash]

:hehe:

A bit fortunate to stay on last night

He was. I'm still waiting for the 'Xhaka rule' that he got sent off for to be applied to another player in the PL.

[Luis Anaconda]

He was. I'm still waiting for the 'Xhaka rule' that he got sent off for to be applied to another player in the PL.

Can you think of another tackle, this season or last, that falls quite into that category though? It is very rare and even Wenger bought out the dark yellow line and didn't appeal. Don't think the rule change made much of a difference - ref could quite easily put that down as violent conduct. So probably not a good example to bring out the "Why Always Us" excuse tbf

[Luis Anaconda]

:hehe:

A bit fortunate to stay on last night


I rather love him - would much rather Elneny started on Sunday than him though :hide: (if Santi is out)

[Ash]

Can you think of another tackle, this season or last, that falls quite into that category though? It is very rare and even Wenger bought out the dark yellow line and didn't appeal. Don't think the rule change made much of a difference - ref could quite easily put that down as violent conduct. So probably not a good example to bring out the "Why Always Us" excuse tbf

The ruling/guideline/interpretation we were told about was about a challenge with no chance of getting the ball, IIRC. There have been plenty of them. Violent conduct wasn't mentioned in the context.

[Ash]

I rather love him - would much rather Elneny started on Sunday than him though :hide: (if Santi is out)

Elneny is certainly more likely to stay on the pitch in the NLD, though there is the stattoes claim that without either Santi or Granit we struggle a little bit to move the ball forward.

(EDIT - and yes I did se Mo's pass to Ozil but the analysis was based on previous games)

[Pat Vegas]

:hehe:

A bit fortunate to stay on last night

He is a beautiful man.

[Luis Anaconda]

The ruling/guideline/interpretation we were told about was about a challenge with no chance of getting the ball, IIRC. There have been plenty of them. Violent conduct wasn't mentioned in the context.

From what source though? I can't remember anything official being said about this. Talking heads in newspapers talked as they do about this a lot (plus the Ox on Sky sit on the sofa and blather) but what was the official reason given. I don't believe there was one and I don't believe there are many tackles as blatant as that in that situation to compare it to. I can't believe many people saw that and thought it was just your average trip on a man who had got away from him. Don't think it was a red but can't quite understand why it was given even without a change in the laws

[Ash]

From what source though? I can't remember anything official being said about this. Talking heads in newspapers talked as they do about this a lot (plus the Ox on Sky sit on the sofa and blather) but what was the official reason given. I don't believe there was one and I don't believe there are many tackles as blatant as that in that situation to compare it to. I can't believe many people saw that and thought it was just your average trip on a man who had got away from him. Don't think it was a red but can't quite understand why it was given even without a change in the laws

Well, no, I don't believe an official reason was given. But then the PGMO is hardly the most open and communicative of organisations, so that is no surprise, so we are left guessing, based on sofa talk and paper talk, whether there has been a rule change/clarification or not.

On the basis of what was being suggested by elements within the media there had been a change - where cynical fouls with no attempt to get the ball were now red cards. Just because there hasn't been decision involving an exact reconstruction of the Xhaka foul doesn't mean that there haven't been other cynical fouls with no attempt to get the ball.

So the lack of such other decisions strongly implies that talk of a rule change was *******s, and that Moss just saw the challenge as more dangerous than it actually was. Which could easily have been the implication of my original statement above.

[World's End Stella]

Well, no, I don't believe an official reason was given. But then the PGMO is hardly the most open and communicative of organisations, so that is no surprise, so we are left guessing, based on sofa talk and paper talk, whether there has been a rule change/clarification or not.

On the basis of what was being suggested by elements within the media there had been a change - where cynical fouls with no attempt to get the ball were now red cards. Just because there hasn't been decision involving an exact reconstruction of the Xhaka foul doesn't mean that there haven't been other cynical fouls with no attempt to get the ball.

So the lack of such other decisions strongly implies that talk of a rule change was *******s, and that Moss just saw the challenge as more dangerous than it actually was. Which could easily have been the implication of my original statement above.

Had he grabbed him by the shirt and pulled him back in that position would it have been a red? I don't think so.

Was the kick itself sufficiently violent to merit a red card? I don't think so.

Hence my confusion.

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

From what source though? I can't remember anything official being said about this. Talking heads in newspapers talked as they do about this a lot (plus the Ox on Sky sit on the sofa and blather) but what was the official reason given. I don't believe there was one and I don't believe there are many tackles as blatant as that in that situation to compare it to. I can't believe many people saw that and thought it was just your average trip on a man who had got away from him. Don't think it was a red but can't quite understand why it was given even without a change in the laws


Didn't the Ox get interviewed and confirmed that they were all told of this before the season started?

[PSRB]

Can you think of another tackle, this season or last, that falls quite into that category though? It is very rare and even Wenger bought out the dark yellow line and didn't appeal. Don't think the rule change made much of a difference - ref could quite easily put that down as violent conduct. So probably not a good example to bring out the "Why Always Us" excuse tbf

No but I can remember both Henry and Vieira frequently getting blatant clips like that and thinking the perpetrator deserved more than a yellow. If they ever bring in a sin bin then that's the tackle to suffer it

[Mo Britain less Europe]

I would suggest that it might be foolhardy to start Xhaka ahead of Elneny (if one of them is to start) on Sunday. But there are thirty-five million reasons why I am unlikely to be heeded.

[Luis Anaconda]

Well, no, I don't believe an official reason was given. But then the PGMO is hardly the most open and communicative of organisations, so that is no surprise, so we are left guessing, based on sofa talk and paper talk, whether there has been a rule change/clarification or not.

On the basis of what was being suggested by elements within the media there had been a change - where cynical fouls with no attempt to get the ball were now red cards. Just because there hasn't been decision involving an exact reconstruction of the Xhaka foul doesn't mean that there haven't been other cynical fouls with no attempt to get the ball.

So the lack of such other decisions strongly implies that talk of a rule change was *******s, and that Moss just saw the challenge as more dangerous than it actually was. Which could easily have been the implication of my original statement above.

I am genuinely confused as to what your original point was then as you seemed to have your long Dr Who scarf and tinfoil hat on in calling it the Xhaka rule. There are plenty of cynical fouls that only get yellow, as there are fouls which we may see as violent - I don't believe that what Xhaka did is particularly common, hence why I asked for similar examples - the lad was so far clear of him and moving at some pace that it was more than a little of clip of the heels to bring him down. Mine - and most people's I have spoken to - initial reaction was that it was it was a bit naughty but would get away with a yellow, but a red wasn't that unfair. That Ox and other commentators have clouded the issue with a reference to a new refereeing edict (there is absolutely no change to the laws of the game that refer to this btw) is irrelevant imo and Arsene's opinion

[Luis Anaconda]

No but I can remember both Henry and Vieira frequently getting blatant clips like that and thinking the perpetrator deserved more than a yellow. If they ever bring in a sin bin then that's the tackle to suffer it

They did indeed - can't call Xhaka's a clip though - I was worried he'd injure himself stretching that far

[Ash]

I am genuinely confused as to what your original point was then as you seemed to have your long Dr Who scarf and tinfoil hat on in calling it the Xhaka rule. There are plenty of cynical fouls that only get yellow, as there are fouls which we may see as violent - I don't believe that what Xhaka did is particularly common, hence why I asked for similar examples - the lad was so far clear of him and moving at some pace that it was more than a little of clip of the heels to bring him down. Mine - and most people's I have spoken to - initial reaction was that it was it was a bit naughty but would get away with a yellow, but a red wasn't that unfair. That Ox and other commentators have clouded the issue with a reference to a new refereeing edict (there is absolutely no change to the laws of the game that refer to this btw) is irrelevant imo and Arsene's opinion

My original point is that it is unclear whether there has been a new ruling or not. I said nothing about conspiracies or anti-Arsenal agendas but as usual some people find it necessary to try and belittle and humilate people. :-(

[Luis Anaconda]

My original point is that it is unclear whether there has been a new ruling or not. I said nothing about conspiracies or anti-Arsenal agendas but as usual some people find it necessary to try and belittle and humilate people. :-(

:( I wish not to humiliate or belittle, merely josh about your liking for a website with that strange man on. There was a very good thread on here yesterday about refereeing and the almost need for controversy/inconsistency in football