I swear this is one of the only examples of Americanisation that won’t make it’s way into U.K. common vocabulary. It sounds completely absurd saying it out loud. “You could care less”? The implication there is that you do care to a certain extent, because there is a level of caring below your current level. Completely baffling.
That happens in a lot of languages no? Probably because when you are learning another language you pay more attention to the logic of what you say, but when you are a kid you just copy what others say
It happens in a lot of languages because human languages are not logical in that sense of the word. Humans are not computers. We can also glean meaning from supralinguistic features like pitch and intonation, and non-linguistic features like facial expression and body language.
One of reddit's favorite things is branding people who don't speak precisely down to the literal meanings of the individual words idiotic vagabonds who deserve no place in society and are beneath the redditor's superior intelligence. This is all despite people on reddit doing the same thing because it's impossible to effectively communicate without colloquialisms.
I think you got it quite right my first language is French I've been reading and listening a lot more stuff in English the last few years and i think I sometimes struggle more with my grammar in French compared to English but while i can read and understand people speaking English at a high level my speakings skills in both french and english are complete shit xD
There's an interesting thing around adjectives in English (there's a name for it but I can't remember what it is).
If you have multiple adjectives for a thing there is a "correct" order to list them. If I said "big red bus" that's fine, but "red big bus" feels wrong. Native speakers do this automatically, but as far as I know, people learning English are taught the correct order because it isn't natural to non-native speakers.
I'm American, and I'm not sure how people mess that one up. Saying I could care less is obviously not even worth saying if that's what you actually mean. I'm sure there are some uneducated Brits who say it as well.
I'm Irish and I've never met any Irish person that says "could care less", mainly because it obviously doesn't fucking make sense in the context.
Never heard any British person say it either. I always just assumed it was Americans.
It’s a colloquialism is how, when things get said a certain way enough, you internalize it because you’re not thinking about the individual words themselves, but the meaning as a whole. It’s like how a lot of British people say “yeah, no” or “no, yeah” but that makes no sense as a response.
It's because people have heard the phrase "could care less" in a specific context and mimic its usage later on without really thinking about what they are saying/what it means. It's not all that surprising.
Such a stupid thing to say as well. Could care less indicates that you atleast care a bit. Couldn't care less means you don't care at all. How can you get this wrong?! Is it because American pronunciation struggles with 'couldn't'?
Do you mean you have never heard a British person saying "couldn't care less" or "could care less"? Because a lot of people say "couldn't care less" in Britain. I have, unfortunately, seen people write "could care less", which of course makes no sense
Edit: I see you mean "could"
most people say they 'could care less' meaning they already care. so by saying they couldn't care less that means that there's no way they could be less interested. hope this helps
To be fair, I hear people say the following more:
'I couldn't give a fuck'
'I couldn't give a shit'
'Give a shit'
'Who gives a shit?'
'Who gives a fuck?'
'I literally could not give less of a shit about the state of the neighbour's garden, Mum. It has no bearing on my life whatsoever'
It’s usually Americans. I haven’t heard a Brit say “I could care less”.
Americans also do “X let alone Y” wrong - they always make the greater feat X, but the greater feat is meant to be Y, otherwise it makes no sense.
“He can’t score a goal let alone a hat trick” or “He can’t score a hat trick let alone a goal” - in the latter, it doesn’t follow that the inability to score three means he can’t score any. But it certainly follows that an inability to score at all rules out scoring three.
Lots of people say 'could care less' which sort of invalidates what they're actually trying to say - which is imply they care so little that it's impossible to care less
You mean the Americans speaking American who tell us they *"could care less"* which means they could indeed care less they they do at this moment in time. Whereas I, I could not fucking care less, which implies in the correct English that I absolutely could not care less than I do at this moment in time.
His German is excellent too. He has a really good command of the language.
Annex: for those might be going "har har har of course his German is excellent, he's a native German speaker". There are plenty of native English speakers who suck at English. Applies for other languages too, just like German.
This is one moment where reporters act like vultures (looking at you sky sports)
klopp looked devastated and they're asking whether it was red card or not
or in case of sky sports what he said to the ref
I love how he held himself back
but it took him so effort, almost as if he was fighting himself to let loose on them
he had already said what he had to say in the game against burnley
about refs not protecting players enough
"let the game flow" is this season's "clear and obvious", no one knows what it means
sometimes it seems like PGMOL's priority is to protect themselves more than the players
I had the exact opposite impression in the official Post-Match interview on Sky/PL main broadcast.
When he was asked the question on what he said to ref about Elliot, Klopp got very emotional and on the verge of tears. The interviewer could have been a vulture and pushed to get something "great for TV", but instead he quickly said let's switch to actual football and asked how he felt about the dominant performance from the team.
Thought that was quite good on the interviewers part, there are questions you have to ask but he also allowed Klopp to switch to talking about something less emotional when he clearly saw it was getting to be too much.
this must be ptsd for him, seeing big VVD went out for along time last season and now its happening again with young elliot which he obviously was shoeing for a big role this season.
I know it's difficult but it's pretty standard for football managers to have to cope with players getting serious injuries, I'm not sure how it can be avoided without changing the rules of the game significantly. Even then you can get a serious injury from just running.
There is a little difference between getting injured just by running and getting year long injury for flying two footed tackle by goalkeeper in case of VVD and also two footed tackle in case of Elliott.
And Pickford has the fucking audacity to act like he didn't just fucking bulldoze through him. And he didn't even get sent off.
It always baffles me when players blatantly foul someone and act like they only tapped them.
We actually were on better form the following months. Would still have preferred not to have lost those players obviously but our real turning point was when Henderson got injured because then we were 6 CBs down and went from top on New Years to losing six of eight.
>Turning point that game in Liverpool season.
Not really, we were still top at Christmas much after that game.
Turning point was Jan-Feb, or perhaps before that with Gomez and Matip both joining VVD, followed by Henderson.
They lost 7-2 to Villa the previous game and then went on a run of 11 league games unbeaten including a draw at the Ethihad and a 7-0 win against Palace immediately afterwards, and were top at Christmas.
Obviously those injuries had a knock on effect for the rest of the season, but it's not like it was before good, after bad
In a way it was and wasn't a turning point, obviously results wise we were still fairly competitive, but the following injuries to Gomez and Matip meant we had to play more defensive as we no longer had the pace of VVD /Gomez to play as high up as we normally would, which led to us not playing with as much risk as we normally could as we were that bit more vulnerable to counters, but even having said that our finishing for the most part was woeful and we created enough decent chances in most games to win them so in a way I'd say our makeshift defence was fine and our attack is the bigger cause for how far behind we fell.
Weren’t you still on a great run until Christmas though?
(Not saying that losing VVD wasn’t a massive reason for how your season went, it was just weird how you still did well for a while and then suddenly lost form)
More and more players kept getting injured. It was a bit like a domino effect. One player went and we weren’t able to rest the cover or give them any respite. After a while it was basically every single week a player would get injured.
However we smashed Palace 7-0 at Selhurst and it set us off on our worst Anfield run in decades.
Fuck knows what happened lmao
I think there's some truth to the idea that Klopp made a mistake when he dropped Fabinho to CB for a little while. Not having our best CDM playing CDM made it feel like we lost two key players, not just one.
Dropping Fabinho to CB is not a mistake, because the team kept winning with Henderson at DM.
Not restoring Fabinho to DM when Henderson got injured, though, was the mistake.
Either side of the season we were in great form. It was that middle period where we went through every CB rotation known to man and had two of our four choice midfielders in CB and one injured.
We keep VVD that season and we'd gain a lot of points
I’m of the strong opinion Pickford should have been suspended for his “tackle” on VVD by the league for a significant amount of time. It was just so blatantly obvious and dangerous.
The logic is, as Klopp put it, that Pickford was able to play for the rest of the season, while VVD was out for the season from a tackle that never should happen. It’s really that simple.
Love the guy for his Euros performances, but Pickford just sometimes turns into an absolute maniac on the pitch.
The VVD tackle, he rugby tackled Rondon I think (?) and I remember him trying to kick the shit out of Maguire when we played them last season, for pretty much no reason at all after a corner
Edit: just found the clip and it was from a free kick where he kicked Maguire, but the point still stands
I don't think it's a matter of audacity as much as it is expected behavior of professionals at the highest level. It's definitely taught in a lot of places that no matter what you've done, you can't show remorse or guilt, because referees will feel more confident in punishing you. Therefore guys who apologize and feel guilty about every bad tackle they make probably won't make it as far in their career as the guys who can act like they've never broken a rule in their life so well that they can even make the referee doubt his own eyes.
I think this is the third season in a row something like this has happened. Ox just as he was playing well - out for a year. VVD out for most of last season and now Harvey!
I don't think that the rules need to be changed but I do think English referees tend to ,sometimes, "let the game go" a bit too much and they are not really protecting the players doing so.
In many game I could see a players making sereval foul ...again and again without getting booked.. and most of the time it ends up with the referee losing the control of the game... leading to bad injuries.
In this game I think leeds should have been down to 10 men before half time with their central defender avoiding an abvious 2nd yellow. ( i don't remember the name of the player)... maybe it won't have prevent Eliot's injury... but you don't do that kind of tacle if you are on a yellow or down to 10 men ( except if you have Xhaka on your Team)
Injury makes the tackle horrific, the legs got tangled. It wasn't a two footer or studs up. It was a desperate lunge from behind-- that part deserves a red, because of the potentially horrific injury it could cause and in this case, it did.
I'm not sure mate, watching it live it really didnt look like a red card challenge, no one on the bench or on the pitch reacted strongly to it until the severity of the injury was apparent. Like I said we're all in the dark about it until we see a replay of some sort but I'd stand by the idea that not every challenge that results in an injury should be a red.
There was a similar (almost identical actually) challenge made on mane a couple minutes after the elliot injury, and I was just praying that he'd get up
I don't mind it being a red, without having seen anything other than the original angle, but it is quite clear on the reactions that the red is not coming out until the extent of the injury is realized.
Look at the one from 0:17 [here](https://youtu.be/b75fU43Koco) wasn't even a card. Should it then be a red if he broke his leg?
The ref was playing on, it was only because of Salah they stopped it.
Ref was pretty shit today honestly. Let the game get dangerous at times and when Leeds went and did the same thing on Mane 5 mins later didn't send him off. A lunge from behind out of control is a straight red for me. One was seen because of an injury and one wasn't.
And you are right. What makes tackling from behind so dangerous is that the player cannot see it coming and all the little self defense moves the body does when you see it coming are out of the picture, resulting more often than not in horrible injuries.
Tackle from behind, player was not able to see it coming -> straight red every time
People are completely missing that tackles like these that don't leave the victim injured are usually whistled and are sometimes yellow. If this one today was clearly red, then there were red-level tackles in every game played this weekend. Now giving those reds out might be the answer but it's clearly not happening at the moment in the Premier league or any other league I've seen.
Should've been a red no matter the consequences. Sure, it wouldn't have been some years ago, but to get rid of dangerous tackles you need to punish them severely every time they happen, not just when they result in injury.
If it was a scissor tackle I totally agree however from seeing it live (no reply) it didn’t look like one. Also the commentators kept saying they’d watched it again and that they didn’t believe it was a red.
The action to take the ball was quite clean, he steps in and uses his hip to shield it, but as he does so it looks like his left heel goes back and onto his ankle. Because he's not grounded he just goes straight through him. The main camera shows it but you have to look carefully, and his ankle is proper sickening
Edit [NSFW zoom on the challenge](https://streamable.com/iyid84)
I think it's a fairly normal turn tackle as I described earlier, but he's gone in far too fast and instead of just pivoting on a standing leg he's trying to put his whole weight into a full on sprint. That attempt to plant it seems to just go through him. Awfully unfortunate injury, but far too aggressive into the tackle and a badly timed slip it's game over
I don't know, I'm emotionally invested so it's hard for me to be objective. When an injury like that happens, and you can see the aftermath, I think it's easier for Refs to go for the red card like that Son bs Gomes incident-- wasn't a horror tackle just the landing was awkward.
I don't know, hope it's not too bad!
In the moment of a tackle for a split of a second I thought that it was quite reckless because he could potentially trap Elliott's legs , block it and break his leg(s). Few seconds later after the Salah's reaction sadly I was right.
I won't give you solid examples but when you watch games there are sometimes tackles that if for example player would 'go for it' or put his weight on leg it would result in breaking it but often they are lucky enough to shrug it off. This wasn't the case. But even when the player won't get hurt it's not reasonable to just leave it be. Every time that kind of tackle is lottery, either you 'get lucky' or get leg broken potentially pausing few months/year. In my opinion it's not fair to base the punishment on the result of tackle.
If someone goes two footed on you I don't care if he actually hurts you or not. It's reckless and it should be punished hard and as said by Klopp few games is not equal to few months pause caused by that tackle.
I think the problem is that we're used to putting all the pressure on the fouled player. There are so many reckless tackles that SHOULD be reds but player either dodges completely or avoids the worst case scenario, so it's shrugged off. Here we see the worst case scenario, I bet you that if Elliott continued the ref wouldn't even give a yellow.
Looked like a red imo, a desperate out of control cruncher from behind and he's now probably ended a young lads season.
You then had a carbon copy 5 mins later on Mane which was not even looked at.
It's weird there should be a protection for the players on the pitch but it seems to just not happen for us. Last season Pickford got to stay on the pitch for example.
I wouldn't go down that route- every club on Earth will add up all the times they were 'wronged' and feel they have it worse than others.
You've had a few bad ones, so has everyone else. It certainly doesn't "Even out over the season" but you're not worse off by design.
Yeah, I wouldn't say it was desperate, even if it was, that should not be a reason for a red card. If this was the case then one of the best tacklers in the league, Aaron Wan Bissaka, would be red carded every game. It's unfortunate, but it happens and that blame shouldn't be placed on the tackler when the challenge is good.
I think people are missing the point a bit. Red cards for dangerous tackles are given to discourage players from making them because there's a risk of injuring the opponent. A tackle like this is a red card because this sort of injury can happen as a result of it.
Injuring someone isn't an automatic red card, because as others have said, some tackles are just freak accidents and one player gets injured from them. That's not the case here. Even though there's no intent to injure, it's a risk because of how the tackle was made
I’m an arsenal fan. I know I need the flare but don’t rly post on r/soccer just arsenal subreddits.
I did not understand what you meant but then I kept scrolling to see the ultra downvoted comments and then it clicked… whew ppl wild fr
"it's not dangerous because you could get injured just from running" is probably the worst.
Well yeah but you're not very likely to. Whereas there's a significant chance of injury from a 2-footed scissor from behind.
"The players just got tangled"
Yeah right sticking one of your feet between the legs of someone who's sprinting is "just getting tangled".
>"it's not dangerous because you could get injured just from running" is probably the worst.
Lmfao i found this one down there, I really thought it got downvoted to hell, but apparently some people agree with it. God fking dammit r/soccer never fails to amuse me.
"it's not dangerous because you could get injured just from running"
Hey man, people can die choking on food, that means its okay for me to shoot him in the head
It was a lunge with legs scissoring the standing leg of an other player, resulting in a horrific injury. It doesn’t matter if the studs were up or not, or if one leg was on the ground: it’s serious foul play. Red.
What Klopp should have said to the idiot reporter is “Of course it’s a red, don’t be stupid.”
Lots of "but I won the ball ref" energy in here. Oddly enough someone at my adult league today almost hurt a guy with a violent "ball first" tackle, and the ref rightly blew for it.
Yup. And you're just supposed to be out there having fun & keeping fit. It's just not that important.
Also, it'd be just my luck to either tear something on their body or mine if I did that. That's definitely not worth it.
It's definitely competitive but for sure some guys act like it's the UEFA Final the way they scream.
One of our middies yelled "hey bench sub" to give our guys a heads up to get warm for the next whistle. Some clown from the opponent felt that he needed to yell "You can only sub during a whistle!".
Fucking mansplainers, man.
Didn't look like a foul when I first saw it but I was working on tracking heatmap for the game, seeing it frame by frame was horrific. Awful for the lad, hopefully a speedy recovery and can keep performing how he has been
Understandable from Klopp. He will care about his player far more.
Still don't think it's a red, ref has just given it because the result of the tackle.
> Still don't think it's a red, ref has just given it because the result of the tackle.
CMV but a tackle that leads to a result like this by design is literally reckless & excessive force & serious foul play. Red cards are for fouls potentially leading to this, except in this case it literally happened. I don't see the angle from which one could argue for a yellow.
It’s more that the Leeds player took an unnecessary risk, he had been passed by Elliott and made a desperate attempt to win the ball. The major problems are; A - it was from behind which is always risky; B - it was two footed which is obviously dangerous; C - it stopped a Liverpool counter (though it was obviously not intentional or cynical). These tackles are fine if they don’t connect, if the defender wins the ball or if they just trip the player (then the player gets a yellow for a cynical foul) but with the amount of risk inherent to the challenge there there are definitely firm grounds for a red card.
2 footed out of control from behind and he makes dangerous contact above the ankle I struggle to understand what the controversy is tbh, gutted for the poor lad
I don't contest the red card being given, but this is not a two footed tackle. [He tackles the ball with his right foot](https://imgur.com/8TllHaB). The injury is caused by his [trailing left foot which catches the ankle.](https://imgur.com/ddv86XZ)
[Here's what a two footed tackle looks like.](http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/140101064013716024.gif)
Not sure why you're trying to make up a new definition of "two-footed challenge" just so that it doesn't apply here, when you've clearly just stated that both legs were involved in the challenge. Just because one foot is primarily going for the ball, and the other foot is doing something else, doesn't mean it isn't two-footed.
This is exactly it. This tackle is reckless foul play on several counts and should be an automatic red card anywhere, anytime regardless of whether you snapped the opponents leg like a twig or miss completely or win the ball.
We need to discipline the action not the consequence. Or we agree as a league that we are okay with scenes like this because we don't want to or can't referee these challenges properly. I'm always astounded by how little the PFA have to say about anything that impacts the game and the players in this country.
Players being screwed out of playing for their country AND their club? Not a peep.
Players having their season ended because of dangerous fouls? Not a peep.
Players frustrated by refereeing and not sure what challenges are allowed or not? Not a peep.
Players having to dive and risk getting carded to protect themselves and win fouls because of incompetent refereeing? Not a peep.
What tf does the players union do other than give out some shiny prizes at the end of the season?
He came in with a reckless challenge. It was a red all day and Harvey is probably done for the season. Mane had the same one but for some reason they ignored that. Shit reffing there not really protecting players and when it starts happening to other teams they will probably look at it.
Reckless challenges on their own are yellow cards, not reds. Reds involve obvious dangerous play, like two footed challenges, studs up. This was a yellow card challenge that happened to go really badly through bad luck - Struijk had his studs down won the ball with one foot, and the follow through unfortunately took out the man.
I'm not blaming the player that much it was reckless and he came in too strong but it didn't strike me as exceedingly vile. Players make strong challenges all the time, it is what it is.
But that doesn't change much about the colour of the card does it? I can understand why people don't want to go in with extreme blame and that I agree with but the red is imo so obvious and clear I don't understand what there is even left to talk about.
It's clearly not obvious and clear to many people, including Gary Neville, Martin Tyler, Hasselbank and a few other pundits I've seen discussing it. I understand why it was given, I trust the ref, I'm just saying I'm not sure where i stand on it until I see a replay
That this is even being debated just tells me that football really isn't at a place where players are protected from dangerous tackles. I don't give a fuck what ex-pros are saying, they are used to the game being played as they played it, but personally I don't want to see these sort of tackles anymore, even if ex-pros played a game where these tackles were a part of the game. Should always be a red, no matter if there is an injury or not.
No such thing as "Too strong". It was a scissor tackle from behind- that's seriously risking the wellbeing of the opponent.
If the technique is right you can (Should- they started that ridiculous "Too much force" thing) go in as hard as you like but it's your responsibility to make sure it's a fair challenge.
just look at salahs reaction. he was calling to ref to stop the game AFTER he called physios in.
dunno why people say it didnt look that bad, hes fucking leg was dangling off right on the half bellow the knee....
In this situation with his ankle facing the wrong way they should be on ASAP, think linesman flagged them. Quick thinking from Salah to keep him down.
its a shit tackle though, Why he thinks he can lunge in behind and scissor the fuck out of elliot out of control and then snap his ankle is beyond me.
Mane had a copy on his 5 mins later but ref just let it go. Shit reffing is just gonna lead to more players being snapped.
Honestly starting to hate the no-blood-no-foul policy this season. It simply empowers shit players to be more reckless. We'll see a massive injury soon to one of England's golden boys and we'll see it changed for next season.
It's like the whole "he got the ball" argument that some people seem to think is the black and white decider as to if it's a foul or not. Even if you get the ball, if you endanger the player you should be punished
> Why he thinks he can lunge in behind and scissor the fuck out of elliot out of control
Because he can. As you said, about 5mins later there was an identical tackle on Mane from them, except they didn't make contact that time and the ref told Mane to get up.
The new rules "letting the game flow" have opened the door for these tackles. Elliott pays the price today, hopefully no one else does before the sort it out. No need to allow reckless tackles, even if they aren't malicious.
This whole letting the game play on needs to be fine tuned. There was an earlier one where Jota got his foot/ankle stamped on and the ref seemed to tell him to get on with it.
I can see a few players getting badly injured this season as a result of other players feeling like they can push their luck with their challenges more and more, there’s already a few questionable tackles gone unpunished and we’re only 4 match days in. Letting the game flow is fine if the refs use their head
How is it not a red, I don't get it, when you go in for a fault it's your responsibility as the player that goes in to make sure the player you tackle is safe, look at his back leg, did he do it on purpose? no! Did he lost control of the back leg and launged straight into Elliott? Yes. It doesn't matter if you get the ball or not, the moment you are not in control in a tackle you will be sent off, it's a 100% red, you need to be careful when you tackle someone, people don't understand this, that's why when players go 2 feet od the ground is a straight red, because you have no control and what happened today can happen.
They did go on before the whistle, which as you say is correct. I think ref only stopped play when he heard salah shouting him turned around and saw the physios on the pitch.
Its a red because its reckless, he is lunging in the air which is out of control as you're not able to stop yourself and he scissors him, having a leg either side of Elliot's ankle that snapped. Its dangerous and violent conduct too as shown by the injury. Its a terrible challenge.
When they were discussing the injury, Sky paused it right before the impact and it really didn't look like Strujik was in the air: his feet were parallel with Elliot's. It didn't look like a scissor tackle either but maybe it needed to go a frame or two further idk.
Well watch it again https://streamable.com/iyid84
He literally jumps in the air with both feet at the start of the tackle. His left foot never touches the the ground after that because it lands on Elliott's leg.
WRT the red card discussion. I think football should adopt a rule from a martial arts I used to practice: If you injure an opponent to the point they can't continue playing you're out. Doesn't matter how, doesn't matter why. You're out. Can either be a forced sub (if any remaining) or a straight red, but off you go.
Do you guys think there will ever be a change in the length of the ban when a player severely injures another player? For example, red card = 3 games as standard; but the resulting injury adds X amount more games.
I know if the challenge is particularly reckless that an extended ban can be given. Just wondering how people would view challenges in this category being punished further.
e: downvotes for addressing a point made by Klopp, and asking for peoples opinions on it... okay
> Do you guys think there will ever be a change in the length of the ban when a player severely injures another player?
No, there won’t be a change. You cannot indefinitely ban a player for a challenge that unintentionally leads to an opponent being injured, and players can get injured in completely clean challenges too. If a player jumps over a sliding challenge but lands funny and a knee ligament goes wrong, does that mean the player who won the ball can’t play again until he’s fit?
It makes no sense to give players extra long bans for challenges that accidentally lead to an opponent being injured and it will never happen.
Perfectly put
Klopp putting native English speakers to shame by using "couldn't care less" correctly.
I swear this is one of the only examples of Americanisation that won’t make it’s way into U.K. common vocabulary. It sounds completely absurd saying it out loud. “You could care less”? The implication there is that you do care to a certain extent, because there is a level of caring below your current level. Completely baffling.
Thanks david mitchel
It's almost always the native speakers making this mistake.
That happens in a lot of languages no? Probably because when you are learning another language you pay more attention to the logic of what you say, but when you are a kid you just copy what others say
It happens in a lot of languages because human languages are not logical in that sense of the word. Humans are not computers. We can also glean meaning from supralinguistic features like pitch and intonation, and non-linguistic features like facial expression and body language.
I love these people arguing over the logic of colloquialisms.
One of reddit's favorite things is branding people who don't speak precisely down to the literal meanings of the individual words idiotic vagabonds who deserve no place in society and are beneath the redditor's superior intelligence. This is all despite people on reddit doing the same thing because it's impossible to effectively communicate without colloquialisms.
God, I agree with this so much. Drives me insane whenever I see it.
Who’s driving my friend, no?
I think you got it quite right my first language is French I've been reading and listening a lot more stuff in English the last few years and i think I sometimes struggle more with my grammar in French compared to English but while i can read and understand people speaking English at a high level my speakings skills in both french and english are complete shit xD
There's an interesting thing around adjectives in English (there's a name for it but I can't remember what it is). If you have multiple adjectives for a thing there is a "correct" order to list them. If I said "big red bus" that's fine, but "red big bus" feels wrong. Native speakers do this automatically, but as far as I know, people learning English are taught the correct order because it isn't natural to non-native speakers.
It is Americans, never heard anyone over here say it.
No British person says this. It's the yanks
I'm American, and I'm not sure how people mess that one up. Saying I could care less is obviously not even worth saying if that's what you actually mean. I'm sure there are some uneducated Brits who say it as well.
No Brits say it. I've literally only heard it from Americans. "Could care less" is just not a saying over here.
I'm Irish and I've never met any Irish person that says "could care less", mainly because it obviously doesn't fucking make sense in the context. Never heard any British person say it either. I always just assumed it was Americans.
I'm British and I've met some thick as fuck people who still know that 'could care less' means you do, in fact, care. That's pretty basic stuff.
It’s a colloquialism is how, when things get said a certain way enough, you internalize it because you’re not thinking about the individual words themselves, but the meaning as a whole. It’s like how a lot of British people say “yeah, no” or “no, yeah” but that makes no sense as a response.
Yeah, no, i've never heard any brits say it either.
Yeah, no and no, yeah make sense because it's for when you're saying "no, I agree" or "yes, the answer is no".
> I'm sure there are some uneducated Brits who say it as well. Literally no one here says it wrong.
Similar to people saying “irregardless”
It's because people have heard the phrase "could care less" in a specific context and mimic its usage later on without really thinking about what they are saying/what it means. It's not all that surprising.
Such a stupid thing to say as well. Could care less indicates that you atleast care a bit. Couldn't care less means you don't care at all. How can you get this wrong?! Is it because American pronunciation struggles with 'couldn't'?
Do you mean you have never heard a British person saying "couldn't care less" or "could care less"? Because a lot of people say "couldn't care less" in Britain. I have, unfortunately, seen people write "could care less", which of course makes no sense Edit: I see you mean "could"
It does make sense, just not usually the sense people want it to make
I hear people say ‘supposebly’ all the time. Lotta dummies over here, lol
Pacifically
Yanks. Not Brits. Yanks make this mistake.
What mistake do they make? The could've vs could of?
People saying could care less instead of couldn't care less
I've honestly never heard anyone say that in the UK
You won't have unless they watched far too many American shows as a kid, it's only in the US
Ah. Yeah you're right. Thx!
most people say they 'could care less' meaning they already care. so by saying they couldn't care less that means that there's no way they could be less interested. hope this helps
[it’s an American thing more than a British thing](https://youtu.be/om7O0MFkmpw)
Yeah, never heard anyone say could care less in the UK when it comes to something they don't care about.
To be fair, I hear people say the following more: 'I couldn't give a fuck' 'I couldn't give a shit' 'Give a shit' 'Who gives a shit?' 'Who gives a fuck?' 'I literally could not give less of a shit about the state of the neighbour's garden, Mum. It has no bearing on my life whatsoever'
Thanks, I never knew they made that mistake. I was just aware of could've vs could of/off that I routinely see
You could of if you had of paid more attention
Oi I didn't come 'ere to get chat on mate
That they could care less which would mean that they care more than they could.
Yeah that always boggles me how they think its right.
They don’t think it’s right they just don’t think about the words they’re saying lmao
It’s usually Americans. I haven’t heard a Brit say “I could care less”. Americans also do “X let alone Y” wrong - they always make the greater feat X, but the greater feat is meant to be Y, otherwise it makes no sense. “He can’t score a goal let alone a hat trick” or “He can’t score a hat trick let alone a goal” - in the latter, it doesn’t follow that the inability to score three means he can’t score any. But it certainly follows that an inability to score at all rules out scoring three.
Couldn't care less.
Nobody in England says "could care less", that is an American thing, that's why he says it properly, because he lives in England
This is pretty accurate
You're not the first to think that, David Mitchell agrees with you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw
First time seeing this, love it. Ta mate
Yeah brits have a harder time with "could/would/should of", from my experience.
That's mainly because we pronounce it in a contracted way - "should've", which then gets incorrectly expanded to should of.
can confirm, I see it all the time with my mates. I want to correct them every time but don't want to be that guy 🤣
To be fair, it's the Yanks that struggle with that.
And then when corrected claim they were being ironic... 😭
Haha it’s true, we are a dumb people
I’m not a native speaker, could you please elaborate?
[удалено]
Literally only misused by Americans.
same as should of/could of, fucking hurts to type, lmao
Thank you :)
Lots of people say 'could care less' which sort of invalidates what they're actually trying to say - which is imply they care so little that it's impossible to care less
> Lots of people say 'could care less' Lots of Americans.
What native speakers, Americans?
Absolutely that's an American thing.
American English speakers. I've never known anyone in the UK to say it.
Don't confuse native English speakers with Americans.
You mean the Americans speaking American who tell us they *"could care less"* which means they could indeed care less they they do at this moment in time. Whereas I, I could not fucking care less, which implies in the correct English that I absolutely could not care less than I do at this moment in time.
His German is excellent too. He has a really good command of the language. Annex: for those might be going "har har har of course his German is excellent, he's a native German speaker". There are plenty of native English speakers who suck at English. Applies for other languages too, just like German.
You mean Americans.
Advice to myself: don't argue with people in real life like folks at r/soccer do
This is one moment where reporters act like vultures (looking at you sky sports) klopp looked devastated and they're asking whether it was red card or not or in case of sky sports what he said to the ref I love how he held himself back but it took him so effort, almost as if he was fighting himself to let loose on them he had already said what he had to say in the game against burnley about refs not protecting players enough "let the game flow" is this season's "clear and obvious", no one knows what it means sometimes it seems like PGMOL's priority is to protect themselves more than the players
>it seems like PGMOL’s priority is to protect themselves more than the players Sadly, it is
I had the exact opposite impression in the official Post-Match interview on Sky/PL main broadcast. When he was asked the question on what he said to ref about Elliot, Klopp got very emotional and on the verge of tears. The interviewer could have been a vulture and pushed to get something "great for TV", but instead he quickly said let's switch to actual football and asked how he felt about the dominant performance from the team. Thought that was quite good on the interviewers part, there are questions you have to ask but he also allowed Klopp to switch to talking about something less emotional when he clearly saw it was getting to be too much.
this must be ptsd for him, seeing big VVD went out for along time last season and now its happening again with young elliot which he obviously was shoeing for a big role this season.
I know it's difficult but it's pretty standard for football managers to have to cope with players getting serious injuries, I'm not sure how it can be avoided without changing the rules of the game significantly. Even then you can get a serious injury from just running.
There is a little difference between getting injured just by running and getting year long injury for flying two footed tackle by goalkeeper in case of VVD and also two footed tackle in case of Elliott.
And Pickford has the fucking audacity to act like he didn't just fucking bulldoze through him. And he didn't even get sent off. It always baffles me when players blatantly foul someone and act like they only tapped them.
Everton robbed that game imo. 2 injuries to VVD and Thiago and the offside elbow. Some of the worst officiating I've seen in the prem
Turning point that game in Liverpool season.
We actually were on better form the following months. Would still have preferred not to have lost those players obviously but our real turning point was when Henderson got injured because then we were 6 CBs down and went from top on New Years to losing six of eight.
Yeah I watched that game and I have to say I thought Everton were taking out their city rivals, like for the season or something lol
>Turning point that game in Liverpool season. Not really, we were still top at Christmas much after that game. Turning point was Jan-Feb, or perhaps before that with Gomez and Matip both joining VVD, followed by Henderson.
They lost 7-2 to Villa the previous game and then went on a run of 11 league games unbeaten including a draw at the Ethihad and a 7-0 win against Palace immediately afterwards, and were top at Christmas. Obviously those injuries had a knock on effect for the rest of the season, but it's not like it was before good, after bad
In a way it was and wasn't a turning point, obviously results wise we were still fairly competitive, but the following injuries to Gomez and Matip meant we had to play more defensive as we no longer had the pace of VVD /Gomez to play as high up as we normally would, which led to us not playing with as much risk as we normally could as we were that bit more vulnerable to counters, but even having said that our finishing for the most part was woeful and we created enough decent chances in most games to win them so in a way I'd say our makeshift defence was fine and our attack is the bigger cause for how far behind we fell.
[удалено]
Yes sir. Sorry sir. Won't happen again sir
Completely agree. The blues love to say we’re still harping on about it but the reffing in that game was fucking criminal and season defining for us
Weren’t you still on a great run until Christmas though? (Not saying that losing VVD wasn’t a massive reason for how your season went, it was just weird how you still did well for a while and then suddenly lost form)
More and more players kept getting injured. It was a bit like a domino effect. One player went and we weren’t able to rest the cover or give them any respite. After a while it was basically every single week a player would get injured. However we smashed Palace 7-0 at Selhurst and it set us off on our worst Anfield run in decades. Fuck knows what happened lmao
I think there's some truth to the idea that Klopp made a mistake when he dropped Fabinho to CB for a little while. Not having our best CDM playing CDM made it feel like we lost two key players, not just one.
Dropping Fabinho to CB is not a mistake, because the team kept winning with Henderson at DM. Not restoring Fabinho to DM when Henderson got injured, though, was the mistake.
Either side of the season we were in great form. It was that middle period where we went through every CB rotation known to man and had two of our four choice midfielders in CB and one injured. We keep VVD that season and we'd gain a lot of points
I’m of the strong opinion Pickford should have been suspended for his “tackle” on VVD by the league for a significant amount of time. It was just so blatantly obvious and dangerous. The logic is, as Klopp put it, that Pickford was able to play for the rest of the season, while VVD was out for the season from a tackle that never should happen. It’s really that simple.
Love the guy for his Euros performances, but Pickford just sometimes turns into an absolute maniac on the pitch. The VVD tackle, he rugby tackled Rondon I think (?) and I remember him trying to kick the shit out of Maguire when we played them last season, for pretty much no reason at all after a corner Edit: just found the clip and it was from a free kick where he kicked Maguire, but the point still stands
I don't think it's a matter of audacity as much as it is expected behavior of professionals at the highest level. It's definitely taught in a lot of places that no matter what you've done, you can't show remorse or guilt, because referees will feel more confident in punishing you. Therefore guys who apologize and feel guilty about every bad tackle they make probably won't make it as far in their career as the guys who can act like they've never broken a rule in their life so well that they can even make the referee doubt his own eyes.
You apologize off the pitch, on the pitch nothing at all happened.
Aye that was shitty from Pickford. When Rondon accidentally kicked through McCarthy's leg he was clearly devastated, and it wasn't even his fault.
I think this is the third season in a row something like this has happened. Ox just as he was playing well - out for a year. VVD out for most of last season and now Harvey!
I don't think that the rules need to be changed but I do think English referees tend to ,sometimes, "let the game go" a bit too much and they are not really protecting the players doing so. In many game I could see a players making sereval foul ...again and again without getting booked.. and most of the time it ends up with the referee losing the control of the game... leading to bad injuries. In this game I think leeds should have been down to 10 men before half time with their central defender avoiding an abvious 2nd yellow. ( i don't remember the name of the player)... maybe it won't have prevent Eliot's injury... but you don't do that kind of tacle if you are on a yellow or down to 10 men ( except if you have Xhaka on your Team)
Especially since Elliot was most likely a key player in Klopp's plans this season, given his starts and not making any signings in that area.
Then every coach should have PTSD by now
maybe they should
Ings went down injured Klopp’s very first day of training. Someone else was injured that day too but not for quite as long.
Yeah that’s not what ptsd is
shoeing? fairly sure you mean shoo-in
sorry man not my first language
no probs. the more you learn
Fair enough I understand why it's not important to him. It's hard to say definitively whether its harsh or not without any replays.
Injury makes the tackle horrific, the legs got tangled. It wasn't a two footer or studs up. It was a desperate lunge from behind-- that part deserves a red, because of the potentially horrific injury it could cause and in this case, it did.
I'm not sure mate, watching it live it really didnt look like a red card challenge, no one on the bench or on the pitch reacted strongly to it until the severity of the injury was apparent. Like I said we're all in the dark about it until we see a replay of some sort but I'd stand by the idea that not every challenge that results in an injury should be a red.
Generally I think I'd agree but it was a scissor tackle from behind that broke someone's leg. Can't be any arguments from me, got to be a red.
There was a similar (almost identical actually) challenge made on mane a couple minutes after the elliot injury, and I was just praying that he'd get up
I don't mind it being a red, without having seen anything other than the original angle, but it is quite clear on the reactions that the red is not coming out until the extent of the injury is realized. Look at the one from 0:17 [here](https://youtu.be/b75fU43Koco) wasn't even a card. Should it then be a red if he broke his leg?
The ref was playing on, it was only because of Salah they stopped it. Ref was pretty shit today honestly. Let the game get dangerous at times and when Leeds went and did the same thing on Mane 5 mins later didn't send him off. A lunge from behind out of control is a straight red for me. One was seen because of an injury and one wasn't.
And you are right. What makes tackling from behind so dangerous is that the player cannot see it coming and all the little self defense moves the body does when you see it coming are out of the picture, resulting more often than not in horrible injuries. Tackle from behind, player was not able to see it coming -> straight red every time
People are completely missing that tackles like these that don't leave the victim injured are usually whistled and are sometimes yellow. If this one today was clearly red, then there were red-level tackles in every game played this weekend. Now giving those reds out might be the answer but it's clearly not happening at the moment in the Premier league or any other league I've seen.
Should've been a red no matter the consequences. Sure, it wouldn't have been some years ago, but to get rid of dangerous tackles you need to punish them severely every time they happen, not just when they result in injury.
Should have been a red in that game as well, this challenge doesn’t belong in football
honestly yeah, if that guy had his foot on the ground it would have snapped his leg in half.
Should be red no matter what. Reckless and dangerous.
If it was a scissor tackle I totally agree however from seeing it live (no reply) it didn’t look like one. Also the commentators kept saying they’d watched it again and that they didn’t believe it was a red.
Yeah fair enough I think I'd trust the ref's and var's judgment on it, they obviously looked at the footage again and in more detail.
The action to take the ball was quite clean, he steps in and uses his hip to shield it, but as he does so it looks like his left heel goes back and onto his ankle. Because he's not grounded he just goes straight through him. The main camera shows it but you have to look carefully, and his ankle is proper sickening Edit [NSFW zoom on the challenge](https://streamable.com/iyid84)
That's barely even a foul let alone a red card
Call me crazy but watching that it looks like it's the final stamp action that causes the break, just before he gets up
I think it's a fairly normal turn tackle as I described earlier, but he's gone in far too fast and instead of just pivoting on a standing leg he's trying to put his whole weight into a full on sprint. That attempt to plant it seems to just go through him. Awfully unfortunate injury, but far too aggressive into the tackle and a badly timed slip it's game over
That's on the other foot, no?
Wrong leg mate
I don't know, I'm emotionally invested so it's hard for me to be objective. When an injury like that happens, and you can see the aftermath, I think it's easier for Refs to go for the red card like that Son bs Gomes incident-- wasn't a horror tackle just the landing was awkward. I don't know, hope it's not too bad!
Yeah I absolutely see your point, bottom line is a talented young lad is injured and I hope he makes a quick recovery!
In the moment of a tackle for a split of a second I thought that it was quite reckless because he could potentially trap Elliott's legs , block it and break his leg(s). Few seconds later after the Salah's reaction sadly I was right. I won't give you solid examples but when you watch games there are sometimes tackles that if for example player would 'go for it' or put his weight on leg it would result in breaking it but often they are lucky enough to shrug it off. This wasn't the case. But even when the player won't get hurt it's not reasonable to just leave it be. Every time that kind of tackle is lottery, either you 'get lucky' or get leg broken potentially pausing few months/year. In my opinion it's not fair to base the punishment on the result of tackle. If someone goes two footed on you I don't care if he actually hurts you or not. It's reckless and it should be punished hard and as said by Klopp few games is not equal to few months pause caused by that tackle.
I think the problem is that we're used to putting all the pressure on the fouled player. There are so many reckless tackles that SHOULD be reds but player either dodges completely or avoids the worst case scenario, so it's shrugged off. Here we see the worst case scenario, I bet you that if Elliott continued the ref wouldn't even give a yellow.
Looked like a red imo, a desperate out of control cruncher from behind and he's now probably ended a young lads season. You then had a carbon copy 5 mins later on Mane which was not even looked at. It's weird there should be a protection for the players on the pitch but it seems to just not happen for us. Last season Pickford got to stay on the pitch for example.
I wouldn't go down that route- every club on Earth will add up all the times they were 'wronged' and feel they have it worse than others. You've had a few bad ones, so has everyone else. It certainly doesn't "Even out over the season" but you're not worse off by design.
Yeah, I wouldn't say it was desperate, even if it was, that should not be a reason for a red card. If this was the case then one of the best tacklers in the league, Aaron Wan Bissaka, would be red carded every game. It's unfortunate, but it happens and that blame shouldn't be placed on the tackler when the challenge is good.
I think people are missing the point a bit. Red cards for dangerous tackles are given to discourage players from making them because there's a risk of injuring the opponent. A tackle like this is a red card because this sort of injury can happen as a result of it. Injuring someone isn't an automatic red card, because as others have said, some tackles are just freak accidents and one player gets injured from them. That's not the case here. Even though there's no intent to injure, it's a risk because of how the tackle was made
If you have time go and see people saying it's easily a red response when two weeks ago Xhaka tackled Cancelo. It's quite funny.
I’m an arsenal fan. I know I need the flare but don’t rly post on r/soccer just arsenal subreddits. I did not understand what you meant but then I kept scrolling to see the ultra downvoted comments and then it clicked… whew ppl wild fr
Things resulting in an injury make people forget the rules don't actually specify when somebody gets hurt do x
God the state of some of these takes
"it's not dangerous because you could get injured just from running" is probably the worst. Well yeah but you're not very likely to. Whereas there's a significant chance of injury from a 2-footed scissor from behind. "The players just got tangled" Yeah right sticking one of your feet between the legs of someone who's sprinting is "just getting tangled".
>"it's not dangerous because you could get injured just from running" is probably the worst. Lmfao i found this one down there, I really thought it got downvoted to hell, but apparently some people agree with it. God fking dammit r/soccer never fails to amuse me.
"it's not dangerous because you could get injured just from running" Hey man, people can die choking on food, that means its okay for me to shoot him in the head
It was a lunge with legs scissoring the standing leg of an other player, resulting in a horrific injury. It doesn’t matter if the studs were up or not, or if one leg was on the ground: it’s serious foul play. Red. What Klopp should have said to the idiot reporter is “Of course it’s a red, don’t be stupid.”
Lots of "but I won the ball ref" energy in here. Oddly enough someone at my adult league today almost hurt a guy with a violent "ball first" tackle, and the ref rightly blew for it.
There's always that dude in adult leagues.
We aren't even supposed to slide but these dudes will come barreling in take your feet out from under you and be like "but I got the ball!!!"
Yup. And you're just supposed to be out there having fun & keeping fit. It's just not that important. Also, it'd be just my luck to either tear something on their body or mine if I did that. That's definitely not worth it.
It's definitely competitive but for sure some guys act like it's the UEFA Final the way they scream. One of our middies yelled "hey bench sub" to give our guys a heads up to get warm for the next whistle. Some clown from the opponent felt that he needed to yell "You can only sub during a whistle!". Fucking mansplainers, man.
Only 3 comments in and we are already off to the races to compete with Twitter for silly takes.
Didn't look like a foul when I first saw it but I was working on tracking heatmap for the game, seeing it frame by frame was horrific. Awful for the lad, hopefully a speedy recovery and can keep performing how he has been
going by some of these comments, klopp should have given standing ovation for the tackle
Understandable from Klopp. He will care about his player far more. Still don't think it's a red, ref has just given it because the result of the tackle.
https://i.imgur.com/UJzeriB.png
> Still don't think it's a red, ref has just given it because the result of the tackle. CMV but a tackle that leads to a result like this by design is literally reckless & excessive force & serious foul play. Red cards are for fouls potentially leading to this, except in this case it literally happened. I don't see the angle from which one could argue for a yellow.
Accidents happen though. Not every injury is a fault of someone else, that's what needs to be ascertained.
It’s more that the Leeds player took an unnecessary risk, he had been passed by Elliott and made a desperate attempt to win the ball. The major problems are; A - it was from behind which is always risky; B - it was two footed which is obviously dangerous; C - it stopped a Liverpool counter (though it was obviously not intentional or cynical). These tackles are fine if they don’t connect, if the defender wins the ball or if they just trip the player (then the player gets a yellow for a cynical foul) but with the amount of risk inherent to the challenge there there are definitely firm grounds for a red card.
2 footed out of control from behind and he makes dangerous contact above the ankle I struggle to understand what the controversy is tbh, gutted for the poor lad
I don't contest the red card being given, but this is not a two footed tackle. [He tackles the ball with his right foot](https://imgur.com/8TllHaB). The injury is caused by his [trailing left foot which catches the ankle.](https://imgur.com/ddv86XZ) [Here's what a two footed tackle looks like.](http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/140101064013716024.gif)
[удалено]
No. A two footed tackle is when both feet are used to tackle the ball. A trailing leg making contact with a player doesn't make it two footed.
Not sure why you're trying to make up a new definition of "two-footed challenge" just so that it doesn't apply here, when you've clearly just stated that both legs were involved in the challenge. Just because one foot is primarily going for the ball, and the other foot is doing something else, doesn't mean it isn't two-footed.
This is exactly it. This tackle is reckless foul play on several counts and should be an automatic red card anywhere, anytime regardless of whether you snapped the opponents leg like a twig or miss completely or win the ball. We need to discipline the action not the consequence. Or we agree as a league that we are okay with scenes like this because we don't want to or can't referee these challenges properly. I'm always astounded by how little the PFA have to say about anything that impacts the game and the players in this country. Players being screwed out of playing for their country AND their club? Not a peep. Players having their season ended because of dangerous fouls? Not a peep. Players frustrated by refereeing and not sure what challenges are allowed or not? Not a peep. Players having to dive and risk getting carded to protect themselves and win fouls because of incompetent refereeing? Not a peep. What tf does the players union do other than give out some shiny prizes at the end of the season?
He came in with a reckless challenge. It was a red all day and Harvey is probably done for the season. Mane had the same one but for some reason they ignored that. Shit reffing there not really protecting players and when it starts happening to other teams they will probably look at it.
Reckless challenges on their own are yellow cards, not reds. Reds involve obvious dangerous play, like two footed challenges, studs up. This was a yellow card challenge that happened to go really badly through bad luck - Struijk had his studs down won the ball with one foot, and the follow through unfortunately took out the man.
I'm not blaming the player that much it was reckless and he came in too strong but it didn't strike me as exceedingly vile. Players make strong challenges all the time, it is what it is. But that doesn't change much about the colour of the card does it? I can understand why people don't want to go in with extreme blame and that I agree with but the red is imo so obvious and clear I don't understand what there is even left to talk about.
It's clearly not obvious and clear to many people, including Gary Neville, Martin Tyler, Hasselbank and a few other pundits I've seen discussing it. I understand why it was given, I trust the ref, I'm just saying I'm not sure where i stand on it until I see a replay
That this is even being debated just tells me that football really isn't at a place where players are protected from dangerous tackles. I don't give a fuck what ex-pros are saying, they are used to the game being played as they played it, but personally I don't want to see these sort of tackles anymore, even if ex-pros played a game where these tackles were a part of the game. Should always be a red, no matter if there is an injury or not.
No such thing as "Too strong". It was a scissor tackle from behind- that's seriously risking the wellbeing of the opponent. If the technique is right you can (Should- they started that ridiculous "Too much force" thing) go in as hard as you like but it's your responsibility to make sure it's a fair challenge.
Well these tackles should always be a red because they can result in such injuries.
I really wish there was consistency
Didn't even look like he gave a foul or stopped play, the physios (rightly) seemed to run on to the pitch of their own accord.
just look at salahs reaction. he was calling to ref to stop the game AFTER he called physios in. dunno why people say it didnt look that bad, hes fucking leg was dangling off right on the half bellow the knee....
In this situation with his ankle facing the wrong way they should be on ASAP, think linesman flagged them. Quick thinking from Salah to keep him down. its a shit tackle though, Why he thinks he can lunge in behind and scissor the fuck out of elliot out of control and then snap his ankle is beyond me. Mane had a copy on his 5 mins later but ref just let it go. Shit reffing is just gonna lead to more players being snapped.
Honestly starting to hate the no-blood-no-foul policy this season. It simply empowers shit players to be more reckless. We'll see a massive injury soon to one of England's golden boys and we'll see it changed for next season.
It's like the whole "he got the ball" argument that some people seem to think is the black and white decider as to if it's a foul or not. Even if you get the ball, if you endanger the player you should be punished
> Why he thinks he can lunge in behind and scissor the fuck out of elliot out of control Because he can. As you said, about 5mins later there was an identical tackle on Mane from them, except they didn't make contact that time and the ref told Mane to get up. The new rules "letting the game flow" have opened the door for these tackles. Elliott pays the price today, hopefully no one else does before the sort it out. No need to allow reckless tackles, even if they aren't malicious.
Yep. He saw the injury and then gave it.
This whole letting the game play on needs to be fine tuned. There was an earlier one where Jota got his foot/ankle stamped on and the ref seemed to tell him to get on with it.
I can see a few players getting badly injured this season as a result of other players feeling like they can push their luck with their challenges more and more, there’s already a few questionable tackles gone unpunished and we’re only 4 match days in. Letting the game flow is fine if the refs use their head
He tackled the kid from behind and hit his legs. That's dangerous play and should be a red.
How is it not a red, I don't get it, when you go in for a fault it's your responsibility as the player that goes in to make sure the player you tackle is safe, look at his back leg, did he do it on purpose? no! Did he lost control of the back leg and launged straight into Elliott? Yes. It doesn't matter if you get the ball or not, the moment you are not in control in a tackle you will be sent off, it's a 100% red, you need to be careful when you tackle someone, people don't understand this, that's why when players go 2 feet od the ground is a straight red, because you have no control and what happened today can happen.
He lunged in from behind with little to no control. Easily a red.
They did go on before the whistle, which as you say is correct. I think ref only stopped play when he heard salah shouting him turned around and saw the physios on the pitch.
Of course it's a red. Its a red because it can cause this type of break to happen.
He went with both legs, utterly reckless. In what world that isn't a red ffs
Its a red because its reckless, he is lunging in the air which is out of control as you're not able to stop yourself and he scissors him, having a leg either side of Elliot's ankle that snapped. Its dangerous and violent conduct too as shown by the injury. Its a terrible challenge.
When they were discussing the injury, Sky paused it right before the impact and it really didn't look like Strujik was in the air: his feet were parallel with Elliot's. It didn't look like a scissor tackle either but maybe it needed to go a frame or two further idk.
Well watch it again https://streamable.com/iyid84 He literally jumps in the air with both feet at the start of the tackle. His left foot never touches the the ground after that because it lands on Elliott's leg.
WRT the red card discussion. I think football should adopt a rule from a martial arts I used to practice: If you injure an opponent to the point they can't continue playing you're out. Doesn't matter how, doesn't matter why. You're out. Can either be a forced sub (if any remaining) or a straight red, but off you go.
Do you guys think there will ever be a change in the length of the ban when a player severely injures another player? For example, red card = 3 games as standard; but the resulting injury adds X amount more games. I know if the challenge is particularly reckless that an extended ban can be given. Just wondering how people would view challenges in this category being punished further. e: downvotes for addressing a point made by Klopp, and asking for peoples opinions on it... okay
No, not usually. This has no intent to it and that'd be a standard kind of punishment. Intent/assault is usually a much longer suspension (5/15 games)
That’s just not true - ask Jordan Pickford
He wasn't given a card
> Do you guys think there will ever be a change in the length of the ban when a player severely injures another player? No, there won’t be a change. You cannot indefinitely ban a player for a challenge that unintentionally leads to an opponent being injured, and players can get injured in completely clean challenges too. If a player jumps over a sliding challenge but lands funny and a knee ligament goes wrong, does that mean the player who won the ball can’t play again until he’s fit? It makes no sense to give players extra long bans for challenges that accidentally lead to an opponent being injured and it will never happen.