Well let’s unpack this logic here:
Gabriel is already going for the ball so he can’t be fouled, right?
So, given that logic, Kai Havertz then should NOT see red because his opponent too had already made a move for the ball? Can’t have it both ways ya?
Errrr you realise the discussion on Havertz isn’t about whether it’s a foul or not, it’s about how dangerous the tackle was, right?
He jumped into it, studs up, caught longstaff halfway up the shin with his leading leg, then caught him again with his trailing leg. Its so dangerous because it was CMs away from a leg breaker, and Havertz was completely unable to control his momentum when he jumped into it.
If Havertz completely missed (albeit close to longstaff), it could still be a dangerous tackle that should be a red because of the level of danger. You don’t get away with it just because your opponent largely avoids the contact.
Correct.
But, using their logic:
Gabriel is already in motion to play ball so 2 hands pushing on the back of his neck, which is a foul everywhere on the pitch, has no consequence whatsoever to his ability to play the ball.
Why would we then not judge every foul the same way? Kai only went in on a guy that was already in motion to play a ball.
I’m picking on the logic they’re using to define the non foul on Gabriel.
