He went down clutching his hamstring and banging the ground. I really don't know what the timetable would be. But fully non-contact.Not watching, how bad did the injury look? Like “lost season” bad, or “6-8 weeks” bad?
Nasty hamstring, which usually means a fair bit of time off but not something to threaten chunks of next season.Not watching, how bad did the injury look? Like “lost season” bad, or “6-8 weeks” bad?
Thanks. Crap. Hoping some of that banging is an expression of frustration and not pure pain.Agree timing could have been much worse but gutted that he gets injuring coming off his best run of form.
He went down clutching his hamstring and banging the ground. I really don't know what the timetable would be. But fully non-contact.
I don't think so pretty fair no call.Just pure class by PEA. Perhaps should have been called back for a foul?
Wolves might win out.Not looking forward for Tottenham to be flying to Kazakhstan next season.
If Wolves win Europa League they make the UCL next year; it would not effect Tottenham in Europa League next season.Wolves might win out.
Anthony Taylor sent off Victor Moses for two yellow cards in a 2-1 Arsenal FA Cup win over Chelsea in 2017 too.Just a rotten second yellow. Maybe I am bummed because it effectively ends a good game but it seemed soft.
With the amount our forwards get injured that may not be enough depth."In response to the loss, Lampard announced that he was buying Neymar, Luka Modric and Lewandowski."
Got a touch of Michael Owen in him sadly.Just looked at American Messi’s injury history. He really is made of tissue paper.
I didn't realize it was so bad until you pointed it out. That is deeply concerning, especially the number of muscular injuries for a player that young.Just looked at American Messi’s injury history. He really is made of tissue paper.
Where exactly in this sequence is he attempting to play the ball?- Agree with the non-red for Azpilicueta. Was an attempt to play the ball, there was a covering defender by the time the contact continued into the box, etc.
Not playing the ball is not really one of the FIFA or FA criteria for DOGSO though. The most important criteria is usually whether the player was clear and within the frame of the goal or a few feet out (for non handling DOGSO). It really is supposed to be the equivalent of handling a goal ward ball. The idea is to not pile up the consequences for one foul given that a caution and a spot kick is already a very significant penalty for one act of non violent conduct. One way to think about DOGSO is to ask, if the keeper saves the penalty will the fouled team have been very hard done by? If so, show red to ensure the punishment fits the crime even if the penalty is missed.Where exactly in this sequence is he attempting to play the ball?
It is also pretty clear if you pause that tape around six seconds that the other defender was behind the play and could not have disrupted the chance if the foul hadn't occurred.
I think you can make an argument that it shouldn't have been a penalty (which depends on whether one is focused on where the foul begins or ends and the rules are not really clear on that point). But by the letter of the law it is a stone cold red: Foul intentionally committed to deny a clear goal scoring opportunity.
All good because we won though!
Not playing the ball is critical because FIFA has clarified that unintentional fouls committed that deny a CGSO should not see red. This was clearly an intentional foul and we know that because he didn’t try to play the ball, just to impede the player.Not playing the ball is not really one of the FIFA or FA criteria for DOGSO though. The most important criteria is usually whether the player was clear and within the frame of the goal or a few feet out (for non handling DOGSO). It really is supposed to be the equivalent of handling a goal ward ball. The idea is to not pile up the consequences for one foul given that a caution and a spot kick is already a very significant penalty for one act of non violent conduct. One way to think about DOGSO is to ask, if the keeper saves the penalty will the fouled team have been very hard done by? If so, show red to ensure the punishment fits the crime even if the penalty is missed.
Anyway, here are the four FA criteria. I have at least three as not supporting DOGSO.
The following must be considered:
- distance between the offence and the goal
- general direction of the play
- likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
- location and number of defenders
I actually agree in general that I hate this rule and its tendency to ruin big matches or cup ties. Arsenal have been on the other end of this many times, most notably in the 2006 CL final. I’m just saying that by the letter of the rule it’s a CGSO and a red and I’ve seen this kind of situation given red many times.In my view he’s grabbing at him and it’s certainly worth a penalty but anything more is too severe. I tend to be a Neanderthal on these things so you could even talk me out of a penalty but I just don’t think you can convince me that what I saw should result in Chelsea down to 10 men. It’s not cynical, it’s desperate. He may not be playing the ball but he’s not hacking him down or trying to injure him more trying to compete physically to get back in the play
Given how he screamed before he even went down, I was fairly sure he'd torn something. A strain seems like best case scenario tbh.Lampard calls it a hamstring strain for Pulisic, though that’s a pre-scan assessment. A wicked bummer we won’t see what the kid can do against Bayern, but glad it’s not more serious.
Yeah his anguish before he even tried to shoot then the collapse on the follow through had me convinced his hamstring was in shambles. I'd take a strain as best case.Given how he screamed before he even went down, I was fairly sure he'd torn something. A strain seems like best case scenario tbh.