Post match interviews v City (updated with full post match)

[Devils_Advocate]

Haha - are you for real ?
Is that an actual serious definition you have just come up with ?

Nope ive given the actual definition but I was trying to convey that in the context of a physical contact sport like football ending up with a few stitches doesnt amount to serious foul play.

Now what do you consider serious foul player. A clash of heads resulting in stitches or a wild out of control lunge that snaps someones leg

[KRBFC]

I don't believe Dyche has said we'd have won if it hadn't have been for the 'decisions'.

I think he was indicating how the big clubs tend to get these said decisions to go in their favour.

Still, never mind, your hero Pep won another game, so you'll be a happy chappy tonight!

It's constantly boring to listen to him harp on about the referees after every game, he needs to take responsibility when we're crap and not shift the blame onto the referee. Classless really

[Spiral]

Sane's tackle from behind on Lowton was at least as horrible as the Kompany tackle on Lennon. Worse, in fact, to me. Kompany was clumsy, perhaps overly aggressive, bordering on dangerous, but-at a stretch-honest; he looked to be completely focused on the ball. Sane was cynical in that challenge on Lowton. The way Lowton fell over Sane's tacking leg due to the scissoring motion, those are potential leg-snappers.

[TVC15]

Firstly to say endangering means “really endangering” is just meaningless.
To then come up with examples like breaking an opponents leg also does not make any sense because many of the leg breaks I have seen are innocuous challenges.

Of course you can also pick up stitches from an innocuous challenge.

A high challenge with force and your studs showing is not innocuous though - and just because it led to stitches rather than snapping someone’s knee or breaking their leg is purely down to luck. The challenge can lead to anyone of these - the punishment is not dished out on how bad the injury is. If it was you would be dishing out a red card for an innocuous accidental challenge just because it broke a players leg.

Giving examples of the consequences of a challenge to try and define whether it is an “endangering an opponent” type challenge is not how it works

[Spiral]

It's constantly boring to listen to him harp on about the referees after every game, he needs to take responsibility when we're crap and not shift the blame onto the referee. Classless really

The very first question Dyche was asked in the presser was about the two potential game-changing incidents. Is he really going to turn around and say "sorry, mate, I'd rather not answer your question about the poor refereeing performance, let's talk about my shyte football players who can't compete with Man City"?

[Devils_Advocate]

Firstly to say endangering means “really endangering” is just meaningless.
To then come up with examples like breaking an opponents leg also does not make any sense because many of the leg breaks I have seen are innocuous challenges.

Of course you can also pick up stitches from an innocuous challenge.

A high challenge with force and your studs showing is not innocuous though - and just because it led to stitches rather than snapping someone’s knee or breaking their leg is purely down to luck. The challenge can lead to anyone of these - the punishment is not dished out on how bad the injury is. If it was you would be dishing out a red card for an innocuous accidental challenge just because it broke a players leg.

Giving examples of the consequences of a challenge to try and define whether it is an “endangering an opponent” type challenge is not how it works

I agree with a lot of this and it was the other poster you dont care about who used the example of the consequence defining the decision. I was just trying to counter and maybe badly

Looking at your post I think our disagreement boils down to the bit ive highlighted as I dont regard the challenge as having excessive force (excessive force is what the laws of the game define as serious foul play) whereas you do. I will reserve final judgement till ive seen it as thats the bit im willing to admit I was wrong on and im staying open minded.

The point I was trying to make about endangering a player is that its not just the player might get hurt because then what would you class as reckless if everything came under serious.

Anyhow i'll watch MOTD give my opinion and then drop the matter as I dont think I can really add anymore to my position and having several posters all replying to me means ive spent way to much time on here than I should have and people must be fed up with it all

[Vegas Claret]

given the differing views on here it's fairly reasonable to suggest that it wasn't a stone wall red as some are suggesting

[Devils_Advocate]

Kompany red card decision

Did he endanger the safety (not just risk an injury) of an opposition - No
Did he use excessive force or lunge with excessive force (not just lunge as this is reckless if its not excessive) - No
Did he use use brutality - No

Was he reckless going in with a high boot - Yes - therefore a Yellow card

It was reckless but now way did he use excessive force or endanger Lennons safety. Right decision for me and there's nothing more for me to add.

Disagree with me all you like its all about opinions but im done on this one

[TVC15]

Shearer was never shy of a hard tackle - his view definite red.

How you can say he did not endanger the safety or he did not use excessive force after you have seen that is ridiculous.

But essentially your mind was already made up wasn’t it ?

I cannot get my head round how much more force you think there needs to be to constitute a red. Does he need to swing his leg harder ? Should he be running faster into the challenge ?

What you are saying makes zero sense.

And having seen Sane’s kick out now that is also a red.

[Spiral]

I know Lennon is a midget, like, but an above-the-knee challenge leading with the heel, it's as blatant as they come.

[KRBFC]

The very first question Dyche was asked in the presser was about the two potential game-changing incidents. Is he really going to turn around and say "sorry, mate, I'd rather not answer your question about the poor refereeing performance, let's talk about my shyte football players who can't compete with Man City"?

Act in a dignified manner, a bit of class not like a sore loser who spat his dummy out. Please don't pretend it's the first time he's done it, it's following every game we don't win the referee is the reason why.

[fidelcastro]

Act in a dignified manner, a bit of class not like a sore loser who spat his dummy out. Please don't pretend it's the first time he's done it, it's following every game we don't win the referee is the reason why.

Off the top of my head, we lost at Fulham and Wolves, where I don't recall him blaming the officials.

There will be many others, as teams like us DO tend to lose games at this level, but EVERY game you said

I reckon you've just made that up.

[ElectroClaret]

Act in a dignified manner, a bit of class not like a sore loser who spat his dummy out. Please don't pretend it's the first time he's done it, it's following every game we don't win the referee is the reason why.

The ref wasn't the reason we lost today. (Superior opposition was the reason).

However, SD had legitimate, genuine grievances over the officiating. If you can't see that, you're even more stupid than you keep demonstrating.

[JohnDearyMe]

Act in a dignified manner, a bit of class not like a sore loser who spat his dummy out. Please don't pretend it's the first time he's done it, it's following every game we don't win the referee is the reason why.

That's a bit rich coming from someone who is so constantly petulant and who clearly is very irked by Dyche's success at the club.

[Spiral]

Act in a dignified manner, a bit of class not like a sore loser who spat his dummy out. Please don't pretend it's the first time he's done it, it's following every game we don't win the referee is the reason why.

I'll be the first to admit Dyche can act like a bit of a bull$hit artist from time to time, but you're dead wrong on this one.

"So Sean, about the Kompany tackle, do you..."

"Actually, let me stop you right there, rather than talk about the clear and obvious ineptitude of the officials, let me ignore your question and take five minutes to throw my players under the bus explaining how they failed land a blow away from home against the richest club on the face of the Earth".

Honestly, mate, I know you want Dyche to come out and essentially grovel to you but for everyone else in the real world, if a Burnley manager came out and said what you truly want to hear, plenty of folk would be tempted to turn up at Gawthorpe on Monday to fill him in.

You need to get your head out your arse, stop reading masturbatory football blogs fawning over la philosophie, and acquaint yourself with reality.

I apologise for being blunt. I'm concerned that such idiocy becomes commonplace and the reactionary (drunk chav) element of our fanbase end up hounding out the best manager we'll ever have in pursuit of 'the perfect goal'. Gary Neville and his arrows and circles seem to have turned an ungodly amount of people into insufferable football w.ankers.

[levraiclaret]

Act in a dignified manner, a bit of class not like a sore loser who spat his dummy out. Please don't pretend it's the first time he's done it, it's following every game we don't win the referee is the reason why.

Classic "do as I say not as I do"

[Rumbletonk]

It's constantly boring to listen to him harp on about the referees after every game, he needs to take responsibility when we're crap and not shift the blame onto the referee. Classless really

Any manager in the World would question those decisions today. Ironic you talking about classless. I think we've been dreadful this season and painful to watch at times. Dyche will sort it out or he won't. Either way, try to handle it without being a spoilt little wet wipe

[TVC15]

Not sure why we all carry on engaging with this idiot.
How often does he say something and then disappear when asked to substantiate it ? He just moves on to ruin another thread with what are essentially lies not opinions.
Not only has he come up with this rubbish about SD he has also said 3 or 4 players did not try yesterday and then refuses to even name which players they were.

Must be very weird living in his head

[MACCA]

Got to say it was a decent interview, and Mr Dyche got his point across.

I have to state I did think it was a 5-0 game, but for Aguero having and off day, he could have had 4 on his own first half, he miss ed 3 sitters . I'd have expected all of our forward a to have scored at least 2 of the 3 chances, they were all very close to the goal.

[claretspice]

Kompany red card decision

Did he endanger the safety (not just risk an injury) of an opposition - No
Did he use excessive force or lunge with excessive force (not just lunge as this is reckless if its not excessive) - No
Did he use use brutality - No

Was he reckless going in with a high boot - Yes - therefore a Yellow card

It was reckless but now way did he use excessive force or endanger Lennons safety. Right decision for me and there's nothing more for me to add.

Disagree with me all you like its all about opinions but im done on this one

Clearly where we disagree here is the idea that endangering a player's safety requires "more than injury"

[claretspice]

Kompany red card decision

Did he endanger the safety (not just risk an injury) of an opposition - No
Did he use excessive force or lunge with excessive force (not just lunge as this is reckless if its not excessive) - No
Did he use use brutality - No

Was he reckless going in with a high boot - Yes - therefore a Yellow card

It was reckless but now way did he use excessive force or endanger Lennons safety. Right decision for me and there's nothing more for me to add.

Disagree with me all you like its all about opinions but im done on this one

Clearly where we disagree here is the idea that endangering a player's safety requires risking "more than injury". Seems to me to bend common logic, but there we go. I'd have said if you actually make contact with studs up on someone with sufficient force to give them a 2 inch gash in their thigh, then its pretty obvious that had it been an inch lower and so the knee rather than the fleshier thigh, you're almost by definition tacking in a way that endangers their safety. I'm struggling to imagine what higher threshold you could apply for "endangering safety", short of putting them in mortal danger.

[Stayingup]

Yawn Dyche, never his fault or the players, always the referee's fault when we don't win, booooooooooooring.

You certainly are.

[dsr]

Kompany red card decision

Did he endanger the safety (not just risk an injury) of an opposition - No
Did he use excessive force or lunge with excessive force (not just lunge as this is reckless if its not excessive) - No
Did he use use brutality - No

Was he reckless going in with a high boot - Yes - therefore a Yellow card

It was reckless but now way did he use excessive force or endanger Lennons safety. Right decision for me and there's nothing more for me to add.

Disagree with me all you like its all about opinions but im done on this one

At risk of flogging a dead horse, you are seriously saying that kicking studs-first into the leg very close to the genitals in a way that causes a cut requiring two stitches, is not endangering the safety of a player?

And how many stitches would it take for the force to be regarded as excessive?

[Devils_Advocate]

At risk of flogging a dead horse, you are seriously saying that kicking studs-first into the leg very close to the genitals in a way that causes a cut requiring two stitches, is not endangering the safety of a player?

And how many stitches would it take for the force to be regarded as excessive?

Look I dont want to get bogged down in this cos every answer I provide someone else chirps up but one question to counter this then in what scenario could a player be seen as being reckless by going in with a high boot without it being classed as endangering the safety of a player cos under your interpretation a reckless tackle would be a red under serious foul play when the rules distinguish?

It would be a red for me in Kompany had jumped into the tackle feet of the ground out of control, If he would have stamped his foot towards the ball with excessive force or if he charged into the challenge at pace again with excessive force. For me the force he put in was just typical of pretty much all challenges but by having his foot raised he was reckless and therefore it is a cautionable offence

I cant explain this any differently and if you disagree you disagree but this is my opinion and im not gonna go on and on about it

[dsr]

Look I dont want to get bogged down in this cos every answer I provide someone else chirps up but one question to counter this then in what scenario could a player be seen as being reckless by going in with a high boot without it being classed as endangering the safety of a player cos under your interpretation a reckless tackle would be a red under serious foul play when the rules distinguish?

It would be a red for me in Kompany had jumped into the tackle feet of the ground out of control, If he would have stamped his foot towards the ball with excessive force or if he charged into the challenge at pace again with excessive force. For me the force he put in was just typical of pretty much all challenges but by having his foot raised he was reckless and therefore it is a cautionable offence

I cant explain this any differently and if you disagree you disagree but this is my opinion and im not gonna go on and on about it

I can't agree that Kompany did not endanger the safety of a player. How could Kompany give Lennon two stitches without endangering him?

The point of the new rule is that if you go in hard and high, or hard and late, and you pile into the player in a manner which is likely to cause injury, then you get sent off. You might not like the rule, but that is the rule.

[Devils_Advocate]

I can't agree that Kompany did not endanger the safety of a player. How could Kompany give Lennon two stitches without endangering him?

The point of the new rule is that if you go in hard and high, or hard and late, and you pile into the player in a manner which is likely to cause injury, then you get sent off. You might not like the rule, but that is the rule.

I dont think he went in hard or piled in which is where clearly disagree. You also avoided my question but thats fine if you dont want to answer it

[dsr]

I dont think he went in hard or piled in which is where clearly disagree. You also avoided my question but thats fine if you dont want to answer it

I didn't avoid the question, just missed it in the long punctuation-free paragraph.

To answer, I don't see any way that a player can make a studs-first tackle into the groin area of an upright player, causing a cut needing stitches, without it being a red card offence.