Gunns foul

[king canary 7,680]

24 minutes ago, Mason 47 said:

I don't like that clip, which is the one being shared ad infinitum on socials. Makes it look like Gunn just clears him out, if you watch the whole sequence then it's very clear he comes through and wins the ball.

I thought the ref had a strange performance yesterday. Seemed very quick to dish out yellows for us 1st half, but then showed excellent perception when it was apparent Rosenoir had told his players 2nd half to push for second yellows with 'gamesmanship'.

Yeah a wider angle would show him actually winning the header.

It's a rough one for Connolly but I'm wondering what people are expecting from Gunn here- is he supposed to not challenge for the ball?

[king canary 7,680]

3 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

Connolly is only ever looking at the ball, and has no idea Gunn is coming. Gunn jumps for the ball and wins the header cleanly; he has done nothing wrong. It's not even a 'challenge' per se; it's just a player cleanly winning a header. The contact afterwards is accidental and unfortunate. Technically, Connolly is trying to go for the ball and gets there second, so can understand the referee giving us the free-kick. Because of the nature of the contact, though (i.e. Connolly clearly getting smashed on Gunn's follow-through), the smart move would probably have been just to stop the game immediately for the head injury and restart with a drop ball.

As for the Giannoulis one, I think he's a bit lucky. Clearly swings the elbow and catches the man in the head. It looked like incidental contact at first, but the Hull player had a big lump on his head that was obviously caused by the point of Dimi's elbow. Couldn't have had any complaints if that were given as a red.

The damning part for Dimi is that he clearly has a look first before swinging the arm. If he doesn't do that you can argue it's just a flailing arm that made accidental contact but he clearly knows he's there. Very lucky boy.

[Number9 272]

7 minutes ago, Aggy said:

If your elbow happens to be pointed at the exact angle that it whacks an opponent smack in the face, quite a distance away from your body, and that’s slowed down on VAR for instance, then you’re very lucky to still be on the pitch.

He was lucky not to be sent off, Kenny too made a bad tackle whilst on a yellow,  the commentary team we're calling for another yellow card.

[Northluck C 30]

12 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

The neutral Sky pundits in the studio both thought Giannoulis should've been sent off.

Michael Dawson played for Hull for 4 years and was anything but neutral. 

[hogesar 9,760]

4 minutes ago, king canary said:

The damning part for Dimi is that he clearly has a look first before swinging the arm. If he doesn't do that you can argue it's just a flailing arm that made accidental contact but he clearly knows he's there. Very lucky boy.

I see this being debated but I think we all know with VAR he would be sent off.

Well, you'd think so. But it is VAR.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,865]

12 minutes ago, Petriix said:

If someone throws their face at you while you are in the air then it's not really your fault which bit of you they run into. 

Not really sure that applies here.

From the laws of the game on The FA's website:

"A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

A player who is guilty of serious foul play should be sent off and play is restarted with a direct free kick from the position where the offence occurred (see Law 13 – Position of free kick) or a penalty kick (if the offence occurred inside the offender’s penalty area)."

Gunn clearly only had intentions to play the ball. But, did he endanger Connolly's safety? 

[cornish sam 966]

37 minutes ago, Mason 47 said:

I don't like that clip, which is the one being shared ad infinitum on socials. Makes it look like Gunn just clears him out, if you watch the whole sequence then it's very clear he comes through and wins the ball.

They seem to have done everything they can to crop the ball out of it and remove any context... It's almost like whoever edited it had an agenda....

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,865]

7 minutes ago, Northluck C said:

Michael Dawson played for Hull for 4 years and was anything but neutral. 

Fair point, I actually forgot who the second pundit was, I only remembered Clinton Morrison.

[Satriales 699]

The fact that the Hull fans didnt boo Gunn, suggests to me they didnt think it was a foul either.

[Branston Pickle 3,696]

30 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

The neutral Sky pundits in the studio both thought Giannoulis should've been sent off.

The Sky pundits were anything but neutral - as with the binner game it was very little about us and seemed pretty clear they wanted/expected Hull to win.  They had just signed their Liverpool guy and were ‘pushing for the play offs’ against us mid-table cloggers …who now just happen to be a point behind them.

The Gunn one is one of those - both players clearly looking at the ball, but their guy didn’t challenge for it and in effect ran into Gunn who got their first and headed the ball.  Challenging a player who’s in the air has been a f-k all season, so it’s 100% correct.  If you mindlessly run into someone, it is not their ‘fault’. I didn’t see any complaints at the time and see no reason for any.

I was at Wombles v Ipswich last week and the home side had a player yellow carded for catching a player - it was his second yellow so he was off.  It wasn’t quite the same but not markedly different to Dimi’s challenge. For me that was not a red card, and I wouldn’t be looking for one if the challenge had been against our player as there’s simply not enough in it.

Edited January 13 by Branston Pickle

[Feedthewolf 4,894]

9 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Not really sure that applies here.

From the laws of the game on The FA's website:

"A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

A player who is guilty of serious foul play should be sent off and play is restarted with a direct free kick from the position where the offence occurred (see Law 13 – Position of free kick) or a penalty kick (if the offence occurred inside the offender’s penalty area)."

Gunn clearly only had intentions to play the ball. But, did he endanger Connolly's safety? 

I think the issue here is it's not really a 'tackle'. The ball is in the air, Gunn times his jump and wins the header cleanly. Sometimes incidents occur where a player gets a bad injury and it really is nobody's fault, it's just a footballing incident. I think this is one of those, personally.

[ricardo 7,402]

Ref got it right, foul on keeper. Hull player not looking where he is running.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,865]

7 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

The Sky pundits were anything but neutral - as with the binner game it was very little about us and seemed pretty clear they wanted/expected Hull to win. 

The Gunn one is one of those - both players clearly looking at the ball, but their guy didn’t challenge for it and in effect ran into Gunn who got their first and headed the ball.  Challenging a player who’s in the air has been a f-k all season, so it’s 100% correct.

I was at Wombles v Ipswich last week and the home side had a player yellow carded for catching a player - it was his second yellow so he was off.  It wasn’t quite the same but not markedly different to Dimi’s challenge. For me that was not a red card, and I wouldn’t be looking for one if the challenge had been against our player. Simply not enough in it.

For what it's worth, I agree that both should not have been red cards.

Gunn only had eyes for the ball and was probably expecting Connolly to get out of the way, but the problem there was that Connolly wasn't expecting Gunn to come charging out like that so didn't seem to know he was there. 

Another referee on another day would've decided that Gunn endangered an opponent's safety and sent him off. It would've been harsh as there was clearly no intent, but understandable.

Similar with Giannoulis; I'd argue it came under 'reckless' (yellow card) rather than 'excessive force' or 'endangering safety' (red card). 

But, as with Gunn, another ref on another day would've given a red for it. 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,865]

4 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

I think the issue here is it's not really a 'tackle'. The ball is in the air, Gunn times his jump and wins the header cleanly. Sometimes incidents occur where a player gets a bad injury and it really is nobody's fault, it's just a footballing incident. I think this is one of those, personally.

I'd be inclined to lean on that side of the fence, and I agree with that.

But as I said before, another ref on another day could easily have interpreted that as dangerous play and sent him off.

[Capt. Pants 4,285]

Connelly was already injured at the time so was always going to be a sitting duck for further treatment. That said I don't think that was Gunn's intention, it was a good header made better because he got a bit of the player as well. A CB would have been proud of that challenger, not even a foul.

We would have course been bleating had it been the other way round and there will always be bias, but it was a superb take man and ball by Gunny.

[Dr Greenthumb 750]

Anyone who thinks Gunn has committed any sort of offence has never played football before

[The Bristol Nest 517]

53 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

He certainly did if you support Norwich. I wonder what impartial fans thought? 

I didn't know the ref was a Norwich supporter 🙂

[mrdi 374]

9 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

Connelly was already injured at the time so was always going to be a sitting duck for further treatment. That said I don't think that was Gunn's intention, it was a good header made better because he got a bit of the player as well. A CB would have been proud of that challenger, not even a foul.

We would have course been bleating had it been the other way round and there will always be bias, but it was a superb take man and ball by Gunny.

Agree with this.
 

Also, the optics of it aren’t helped by the fact Connolly is 5ft 9”; while Angus is 6ft 5”. The Hull-centric pundits were one step short of shouting “it’s not fair! Picking on the little guy!”. Angus put in a top performance last night and this ‘incident’ was one of his highlights. Next! 

[PurpleCanary 5,586]

56 minutes ago, Ray said:

Plus, let's remember, and take into account, Gunn is circa 9 inches taller than Connolly, so had Connolly been the same height then Gunn's elbow would have hit Connolly in the chest and not his face, hardly Gunn's fault Connolly is on the short side for a footballer😆

That is my favourite post of the year so far.😍

[TheGunnShow 6,022]

21 minutes ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

Anyone who thinks Gunn has committed any sort of offence has never played football before

I'd say they're either thick as pig-**** or have an agenda.

[A Load of Squit 5,223]

4 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I'd say they're either thick as pig-**** or have an agenda.

See, Delia was right.

[canarydan23 4,060]

Yeah, really weird anyone thinks Gunn was in the wrong here. If I run forwards whilst looking in the opposite direction, I can't blame the lamppost if I run straight into it.

Gunn only had eyes for the ball. Connolly endangered himself. Any other conclusion lacks sound judgement.

Dimi on the other hand was a touch fortunate.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,450]

Never a foul. Either way. 

[Thirsty Lizard 3,183]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

"That's a fair challenge!" said Harald Schumacher.

I know you're joking, but just so nobody gets the wrong idea. Gunn clearly won the ball and headed it. Schumacher was at no time anywhere near the ball and just smashed the player. 

[Branston Pickle 3,696]

Just now, Thirsty Lizard said:

I know you're joking, but just so nobody gets the wrong idea. Gunn clearly won the ball and headed it. Schumacher was at no time anywhere near the ball and just smashed the player. 

Schumacher did it multiple times, too - great keeper but a dirty **** too!

[dylanisabaddog 5,014]

The ref gave a foul against our player. He got just about everything right all night including that decision. Probably the best ref we've had all season. 

Liam Rosenior

 

What a nice man. I quite agree. 

Dylan 

Edited January 13 by dylanisabaddog

[Mason 47 1,403]

As far as Dimi goes, I feel like he's put his arm out to 'jostle' with the Hull player, normally blocking against the chest, but if you look it seems like Coyle slips a little so his head is lower hence the contact. He probably still goes off with VAR but I actually think there's no intent there.

The only confusing thing is, if it's a yellow then presumably it is for that elbow contact. If it is the elbow contact, it should be a red if considered an offence- no such thing as a 'soft elbow' in the rules.

Both 'red' incidents just a coming-together IMO

[Branston Pickle 3,696]

1 minute ago, Mason 47 said:

As far as Dimi goes, I feel like he's put his arm out to 'jostle' with the Hull player, normally blocking against the chest, but if you look it seems like Coyle slips a little so his head is lower hence the contact. He probably still goes off with VAR but I actually think there's no intent there.

The only confusing thing is, if it's a yellow then presumably it is for that elbow contact. If it is the elbow contact, it should be a red if considered an offence- no such thing as a 'soft elbow' in the rules.

Both 'red' incidents just a coming-together IMO

Wombles had a similar yellow last week for catching with an elbow, so it is clearly not (necessarily) a red card offence.

[Mason 47 1,403]

1 minute ago, Branston Pickle said:

Wombles had a similar yellow last week for catching with an elbow, so it is clearly not (necessarily) a red card offence.

Perhaps then there is such a thing as a soft elbow. There's probably a topical ointment that would help in that case.

[Herman 9,837]

14 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

I know you're joking, but just so nobody gets the wrong idea. Gunn clearly won the ball and headed it. Schumacher was at no time anywhere near the ball and just smashed the player. 

Yep, just to be clear, it was a joke.

I did go and reacquaint myself with Schumacher's incident and it was literally GBH.