Premier League 20/21

[brokencrossbar1]

https://youtu.be/1eSHy3nJwH4

Player suffered a broken neck in 3 places from a fall similar to the one that a number of players have suffered due to Kane's deliberate actions.

Is it a foul to back into someone, players back into people all over the pitch, you'd be blowing all game...

When you back into someone who is in mid air that is dangerous play. As a ref you know that you have to use your discretion. Gaelic is more physical than soccer but you cannot for instance shoulder someone in mid air. The issue with Kane, and anyone else who might do it as far as I am concerned, is that he initiates the contact with the player with no attempt by himself to play the ball. To do it once is fine but he has done it 3-4 times in recent games and in my opinion that is a deliberate attempt to get a free time in a potentially very dangerous way.

He initiated contact before by simply diving, this is an evolution of that

[Main Street]

Previously people never noticed or bothered with Spurs in the league, i.e. until this season, now the arrows are flinging non stop, I wonder why.

[J70]

https://youtu.be/1eSHy3nJwH4

Player suffered a broken neck in 3 places from a fall similar to the one that a number of players have suffered due to Kane's deliberate actions.

Is it a foul to back into someone, players back into people all over the pitch, you'd be blowing all game...

Depends what you mean by backing into someone.

Leaning back on the defender behind you like, say, Kenny Dalglish used to expertly do, basically sitting on his thigh, and then rolling him, basketball style, is a perfectly legitimate part of the game, as long as you're in control of the ball.

What Kane did, making no attempt to play the ball and merely stooping or ducking into the space when the opponent has his eye on the ball and is expecting you to also jump, is dangerous and a foul.

When I used to play in the shittiest of shit levels in Dublin, it was called "making a back". Not sure if that label is used elsewhere.

[Milltown Row2]

https://youtu.be/1eSHy3nJwH4

Player suffered a broken neck in 3 places from a fall similar to the one that a number of players have suffered due to Kane's deliberate actions.

Is it a foul to back into someone, players back into people all over the pitch, you'd be blowing all game...

Depends what you mean by backing into someone.

Leaning back on the defender behind you like, say, Kenny Dalglish used to expertly do, basically sitting on his thigh, and then rolling him, basketball style, is a perfectly legitimate part of the game, as long as you're in control of the ball.

What Kane did, making no attempt to play the ball and merely stooping or ducking into the space when the opponent has his eye on the ball and is expecting you to also jump, is dangerous and a foul.

When I used to play in the shittiest of shit levels in Dublin, it was called "making a back". Not sure if that label is used elsewhere.

When the ball is being played, be it a high ball or low ball, plenty players will 'back' into a player before they have control of the ball, stooping has been done also, and I can't remember too many calls for fouls before.

If you are going to do that, then plenty of defending players will all jump forward on the ball (and into the back of a player)  knowing that it will draw a foul as the attacker will naturally stoop to protect himself in most occasions.

If Kane is doing this on purpose, its a hard one I'd imagine, for the ref to actually pull him for

[J70]

There's the normal pushing back and standing your ground. Then there's what Kane did in those clips. He was correctly pulled for it, and I've seen plenty of players pulled for it in the past. Stooping down and upending an opponent going up for a header is a foul, and always has been.

[quit yo jibbajabba]

The flinging himself to the ground on contact isnt getting mentioned enough either

[brokencrossbar1]

The flinging himself to the ground on contact isnt getting mentioned enough either

That's just a given for Sir Harry

[thewobbler]

Look there was contact. Ah but it was minimal. Ah but according to the rules of the game it was a foul. Ah but it's a man's game. Ah but it's cheating. Ah but it can't be cheating if not against the rules. Ah but it's unsporting. Ah what's that got to do with anything? Ah would you raise your kids to do that? Ah much sooner than I would than allow them t behave like [player] from [derogatory nickname for your club], who you always defend. Ah but he just super competitive, you can't expect him to take the edge out of his game. Ah snooze. This is pointless.

—-
As sure as the sun comes up every day, football fans will unrepentantly describe identical scenarios in polar opposite ways, depending on the colour of the shirts of those involved.

[Boycey]

Not sure where to post but here will do.

The incident in last night's PSG game, racist or non racist? I'm going for non racist, a mis-interpretation... But I look forward to possibly being told I am a dinosaur...

[GiveItToTheShooters]

Not sure where to post but here will do.

The incident in last night's PSG game, racist or non racist? I'm going for non racist, a mis-interpretation... But I look forward to possibly being told I am a dinosaur...

I agree with you. It was a descriptive term to locate which player needed to be booked, amongst presumably a group of white players. Obviously the linesman shouldve used his name or number instead, but its not racism.

And, if the roles were reversed and it was "the white guy" in a group of black players. It wouldnt be deemed to be racist. The double standards are shocking as well.

[ziggy90]

Not sure where to post but here will do.

The incident in last night's PSG game, racist or non racist? I'm going for non racist, a mis-interpretation... But I look forward to possibly being told I am a dinosaur...

I agree with you. It was a descriptive term to locate which player needed to be booked, amongst presumably a group of white players. Obviously the linesman shouldve used his name or number instead, but its not racism.

And, if the roles were reversed and it was "the white guy" in a group of black players. It wouldnt be deemed to be racist. The double standards are shocking as well.

Dunno about that, East Europeans have a history of racism. I know, that's racist too!

[RedHand88]

John Barnes is asking questions about the "racist" claim.

[nrico2006]

Not sure where to post but here will do.

The incident in last night's PSG game, racist or non racist? I'm going for non racist, a mis-interpretation... But I look forward to possibly being told I am a dinosaur...

I agree with you. It was a descriptive term to locate which player needed to be booked, amongst presumably a group of white players. Obviously the linesman shouldve used his name or number instead, but its not racism.

And, if the roles were reversed and it was "the white guy" in a group of black players. It wouldnt be deemed to be racist. The double standards are shocking as well.

Spot on.

[sid waddell]

Not sure where to post but here will do.

The incident in last night's PSG game, racist or non racist? I'm going for non racist, a mis-interpretation... But I look forward to possibly being told I am a dinosaur...

I agree with you. It was a descriptive term to locate which player needed to be booked, amongst presumably a group of white players. Obviously the linesman shouldve used his name or number instead, but its not racism.

And, if the roles were reversed and it was "the white guy" in a group of black players. It wouldnt be deemed to be racist. The double standards are shocking as well.

I think it was almost certainly a misunderstanding involving clumsy and poorly chosen language exacerbated by a language barrier but at the same time I would not blame Demba Ba and assistant Pierre Webo for reacting the way they did, given that they both almost certainly have extensive lived experience of racism

I think it probably highlights that it would be better if they were some sort of formalised language around player identification

[sid waddell]

John Barnes is asking questions about the "racist" claim.

What I find interesting about John Barnes as a public figure these days is that he is regularly quoted by white people who are essentially trying to downplay or dismiss racism

But the people who quote him tend to not understand the nuances of Barnes's arguments on the subject of racism as a whole

Barnes is actually pretty radical and his critique of racism goes much, much deeper than your standard bland platitudes - his critique is about the whole structure and culture of majority white societies

What he doesn't do is point to individuals who utter racist words and say "the way to solve this is by vilifying the individual who utters the racist words", he looks much deeper than that - at the culture and societal structure that perpetuates racism - and how it can be changed

Barnes essentially argues that white majority societies, particularly white colonial societies such as Britain and the US, are white supremacist - that this white supremacism is perpetuated by bad media, bad education, bad history and any amount of bad, right-wing government policy

And that until that is rectified, the culture of racism will continue

He argues that the pulling down of racist symbols is mere tokenism without a radical change in the structure of society and culture

And that honesty about the culture that perpetuates racism is essential to changing it

This is the sort of critique that is widely and ludicrously vilified by right-wingers as "cultural Marxism"

Yet those same people cherry pick Barnes quotes in a context free fashion to try and back up whatever stupid narrative they're pushing