Any ban connected with the severity of the injury is inherently problematic because it would need to be based on the prognosis of the player. A player with an ACL injury might be out for 9 months or 15 months. It depends on their rehabilitation and loads of other stuff. It’s impossible to base a ban on something so uncertain.
If we’re going down that route, dangerous tackles need to be reviewed post-game by a panel and hand out bans based on the dangerousness of the tackle and taking into account the seriousness of the injury.
I’d be absolutely all for players getting 10 game bans. Would stamp out the sly and vindictiveness fouls that happen from time to time.
It is also totally unfair because the nature of the tackle does not necessarily dictate the severity of the injury. A far more innocent and innocuous foul can sometimes happen to cause a major injury, whereas someone could be far more forceful/violent/reckless in making a challenge that might not result in any injury at all.
For me punishment has to be based on the incident itself and not the outcome of the incident.
We had injuries like this every few games, when Wenger was manager.
When Liverpool are down to no FB’s and having to play CB’s in their position, then they can start to consider themselves hard done by.
Wenger never really complained about injuries and the media didn’t care either so I don’t see the fascination with this VVD injury.
Perhaps it highlights how lucky they’ve been with injuries, in recent seasons, to key players.
This is outstanding from the cult of Liverpool. VVD is such a beloved saint of the pundit class that he’s made them decide that England’s undisputed #1 is indeed that sort of player :ozil:
Did they actually get it wrong though? Is it not the rules that are wrong?
Pickford obviously should have been sent off, but by the letter of the law the right decision was made. Referees obviously do make mistakes, but what should they apologise for here? Following the rules?
