PGMOL says James Tarkowski should have been sent off against Liverpool

How about they work on fixing the rules and the officiating so they don't have to constantly come out and say, "We got it wrong"???

The PGMOL should endorse what they preach after these events. But rarely do Everton get much support in such cases and the most recent debacle v Man Utd in January. Also, the famous 1-1 draw in 2020 v Man Utd. Siggy, plus God knows how many disgusting fouls by RS players against Everton players. And the numerous disallowed goals...over decades.

And St Virgil gets away with influencing the officials every game. On the pitch, in the tunnel, and in the media.

Tarkowski got slaughtered for a heavy tackle. The RS expect every team to stand off and give them free reign to do what they want.

At least Everton gave as good as they got and more and, aside from standing off for their offside goal, put in a good defensive shift.

But the game, from an enjoyment factor and value for money, is waning.

I agree with everything you say, I'm not interested in what the PGMOL have to say — they are a big part of the problem.

And Ferguson joining the pundits prostituting themselves to earn money — does anybody take any notice of their points of view?

To be fair, I have had the darts on.

Like Dave, I fully agree with you about VAR. PGMOL has a vested interest in retaining it because their members earn hundreds of pounds extra per week filling the roles. I think it's £1,500 for a VAR role itself and £800 for the assistant. It has sucked the joy out of the game.

No wonder the clubs in the EFL don't want any truck with it.

It was better when he wasn't talking for 25 years. Now he singing like a fucking canary, the money-grabbing twat.

We didn't get Kopites shouting down Dirk Kuyt with his horrific tackle from two miles up in the air.

The infield VAR representative.

Let's do what Liverpool would do in this situation: Blame the Chelsea fans.

Mike C, I'm confused. You are ‘disgusted' with a football pundit telling the truth? I'm disgusted by the ones who spout nonsense just to curry favour.

Ferguson isn't there to protect our players and I'm fine with him preserving his integrity by saying it as he sees it.

We get away with one – it happens, not very often in our case though compared to others – and all of a sudden in the rs media... which is most of it... it's a national scandal.

You shouldn't be surprised really.

But Mike's absolutely correct that ultimately it's Chelsea's fault.

I've got skin thick enough not to get upset by anyone telling the truth about our club or our players.

Oh, Si, and you're right, it was deffo a red card but I would not admit that to Carra and Dalgliesh. I also think Dunc was only there as a token jesture to have a blue in the studio. Apart from that, we didnt roll over.

Individuals having integrity is why Everton have been in a 40-year fallow period?

I'm sick of the likes of Warnock, a know-it-all on Ref Watch, saying "He knew what he was doing." Didn't Mac Allister have his left foot raised, studs showing?

But if you have both feet off the ground and make contact with the player half-way up his leg, you are asking for trouble. Even Big Dunc said it should have been a red card.

Christy, Warnock thinks the goal should have been disallowed.

As anyone who has ever played the game will know, it's entirely possible to play the ball and deliberately leave something on the opponent, which is what I believe Tarkowski did. I believe he knew what he was doing and I've seen him make similar tackles on several occasions, so it's not an unfortunate one-off.

The modern game is over-sanitised but outlawing that type of tackle is a sensible improvement. The fact that it was commonplace when we were all younger is irrelevant, as is the argument that we've seen far worse perpetrated against us in derbies.

Nothing to see here, move along.

"I spoke to him and apologised because it was not a great tackle," he told Premier League Productions.

"When the ball fell between us I thought he was going to come and was expecting it to be a big old school 50-50 challenge. But he pulled out of the tackle and as I lunged, followed through and in, I caught him pretty high.

"I've apologised to him and he accepted it, so not a great one from me."

The unfortunate thing was that the follow though cleaned the man out good and proper. Mac Allister, who by the way dishes it out every match, was not hurt and was up and running straight after

There was no way that Tarkowski could have avoided that. By today's rules, that is deemed as wrong. I give up. I really do. It is supposed to be a man's game. If you want a non-man's game, go to Walton Hall Park.

Gerard, Carragher, Kuyt, Mac Allister et al — the list is endless of RS who permenantly get away or got away with clear reds for snidey nasty dangerous tackles and challenges.

Tarkowski cleared the ball. It had gone a distance before the collision. In fact, one could argue that Mac Allister was late, and came off worse as a result because he clearly got nowhere near the ball.

I completely get that it could be a red. Maybe even should be a red with current interpretations.

But who the hell is getting so wound up about it? It's two guys tackling. The upset and outrage has to be people trying to fake passion for a team because they simply don't have it authentically within them.

Kind of like those guys who spend entire matches holding a cup of water so they can jump on a table and throw it in the air when England score. They don't have it in them naturally so they copy what they've seen.

As a very big club with a lot of 'new' supporters, Liverpool have a lot of those types.

The RS player wasn't hurt, didn't break his leg. The outrage is laughable. For outrage, try 39 Italians crushed to death.

Horrible bastards now threatening women and kids online with death. You'd think that club would have had enough of death.

So it “could” it “might” have broken the Argie's leg? Well did it? I seem to remember he played the full 90-odd minutes. Load of bullshit and as for these internet warriors getting at Tarkowski, cowards every one of them.

I'd love to see one of them go face-to-face with him! Big deflect from the hiding behind words not to give their goal offside.

Tarks went in hard and won the ball cleanly.
The RS player was coming in quick and hard too and Tarks could not have avoided the follow through which happens so often.

What is the guy supposed to do and why the booking.

Referees who don't understand the game cannot see this.

I think the VAR guy had a bit more understanding of the incident but in a Derby match at Analfield I suppose the ref. had to do something.

I remember the likes of Tommy Wright and Ray Wilson sliding in, wrapping their leg around the ball, winning the ball, the winger going over, Tommy and Ray getting up and starting an attack. As for tackles like Tarkowski's… normal!

One game springs to mind from the '60s, Leeds v Chelsea? Then a good watch; nowadays, it would have been abandoned due to lack of players on the pitch! Mind, when we played Leeds at Goodison and they went off for 10 minutes!

Great days! … Proper footy!!!

It’s just not for me.

The shout used to be “If you don't get stuck in, you will get hurt” and I think this is what happened to Mac Allister the other night.

The outrage is to be completely expected once you realise which team was playing the other night.

The phoney bastards hate us, and turned up the other night wanting to annihilate us so they could gloat about destroying a team which means nothing to them. Get On It!

,a Href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c4gr3ryxdpko">Everton condemn death threats towards Tarkowski

I've run out of words to describe them.

Tony, I almost posted before about being taught as a kid, you stand more chance of getting hurt if you go in half-hearted or pull out.

For whatever reason, we massively get under their skin. Wait until we move into the city's new riverside icon and start challenging and winning again.

Let's end it there.

A whole bunch of cowardly keyboard warriors put very firmly in their place by the beautiful Mrs Tarkowski by all accounts.

I'll bet none of these heroes would have the bottle to say it to his face though, gobshites!

The one that cost Everton the match????

Let RS fans moan about the tackle. I couldn't care less to be honest but I'm pissed off about losing to an offside goal.

"(the referee) said the Tarkowski incident was a reckless challenge (which is a yellow card) and a result of the play of the ball, and the VAR believed that was supportable. But sometimes the VAR needs to be more independent, especially on these serious foul play challenges, to fully assess force and intensity."

So what they're saying is VAR should referee the game now? Time to get rid of it if that's the case.

And they go on to say that it was the distance Tarkowski travelled to get to the ball that created the intensity of the contact. So surely that mitigates against it being serious foul play?

Also one of the things that really pisses me off is the medias insistence on showing them singing that song before every game.

They don't do it for any other team. That shows the media bias to promote their agenda and no one else's.

We are going to end up with defenders aren't allowed to tackle at all.

My God this is unbelievable.

He was punished, he got a yellow card.

Do you seriously think those dogsbreaths would be wasting a moment of their time discussing this if it was the other way round. Not a chance. Too busy being the victims all the time. If this were the other way round they would be moaning about the goal being offside.

‘Did he have a bet on getting sent off against the reds’
Don’t be so fucking stupid.

The referee thought it was a yellow, VAR thought it was a yellow and Tarks went out of his way to apologise, which the Red Twat accepted, what more do you want? The player wasn’t even injured for crying out loud.

No wonder these referee’s are not allowed to speak when you listen to some of the shite being spouted by their bosses.

The most important thing in football is scoring goals, but because the Liverpool winner wasn’t contentious, I can understand why the PGMOL, have remained silent🤦‍♂️

Understood John, for me there is too much subjectivity in Offside nowadays though.

Im more in the Brian Clough (if memory serves, happy to be corrected) ‘if he’s not interfering in play then what’s he doing on the pitch’ school of thought.

It seems it would have been much better if Tarks had just let the ball run through to Diaz but that’s never going to happen though is it in reality.

Tarks was aware of Diaz’s position and had to take action so therefore Diaz is affecting play imho. Offside.

Well, that's that then: "I have judged". That has to be the last authoritative word on this subject. Close down the thread. "I have judged".

Nigel Scowen: 49: "Paul@42. My God this is unbelievable".

Agree Nigel.

I see that the red shite cowards have posted a score or more death threats to Tarkowski and his family. Fucking heroes. They have a good deal of form in this department.

Imagine, one or two or three of them actually confronting Tarkowski?

Don’t worry though Paul the amazingly beautiful Mrs Tarkowski put them back in their little box.

Examples all over the place James, of nasty little Red Shite foul play, let’s not forget Vlad the Suarez and his infamous biting fiasco. I’ve never seen teeth marks like that before on another player.

For a fellow Evertonian to suggest that Everton should give Tarkowski a six game ban and a two week fine for committing a foul on a Liverpool player in a Derby, beggars belief it really does.

A couple of minutes to go, Everton hit a long diagonal free kick to the back post aiming for Brainthwaite, the ball never quite got there because it was intercepted by Jones, and that was the last action of that particular play because the flag had already gone up for offside🤷‍♂️

I don’t think the PGMOL, have covered themselves in being impartial, imo, because the game finished one-nil, but rather than talk about this very controversial goal, they have chosen to ignore it because a Liverpool player was on the end of a very strong tackle and that is all anyone seems to have gone on about 🤷‍♂️

There’s two parts to the offside decision and the second hasn’t been discussed.

The first is whether the offside player was interfering with play when Tarkowski attempted to play the ball. There is a strong argument that he didn’t although the last part of that argument, whether he was “ making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball” is debatable to me as him simply being there was an obvious action.

However the second part of the offside decision rests on whether a new phase of play had started once Tarkowski had played the ball. A new phase of play only starts when a deliberate attempt to play the ball has been made and the following criteria should be considered: (Law 11 if anyone is interested)

1. The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it. - The ball didn’t travel from distance and Tarkowski had to get in front of the offside player, so this isn’t satisfied.

2. The ball was not moving quickly - it was moving quickly

3. The direction of the ball was not unexpected - this is satisfied, however this alone is not enough to justify a deliberate play of the ball.

4. The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control - Tarkowski had to stretch in front of the offside player to block the ball, therefore this is not satisfied.

Therefore, since Tarkowski didn’t satisfy the criteria for “deliberately playing the ball”, a new phase of play doesn’t start. Therefore the new phase of play arguably only starts when Garner attempts to control the ball and, at this point, the offside player is making a deliberate movement towards the ball and now satisfies the criteria for interfering with play.

Therefore - according to the laws of the game - he is offside.

That’s not the rhetoric that Sky Sports want you to be aware of though.

I still see it called differently in consecutive games on the same Saturday league pitch.

The rationale that it is a red is that Tarks could have made the clearance without the follow through that followed. I don't know about that, the speed of modern football is such that I don't know if that is feasible if your focus is on a big clearance. Another interpreation might be, if it is obvious your opponent is going to get in some way ahead of you to clear, don't put yourself in the way.

The other finesse is that Tarks meant it. Maybe he did but I don't see how that is remotely possible to prove and I wasn't aware thought crime has entered football rules.

"I spoke to him and apologised because it was not a great tackle."

If Tarks thinks it was bad, I say he gets the last word.

PS... oops, Si beat me to it.

It wasn't a tackle... it wasn't even a 50/50 and it wasn't reckless.

Tarks was the obvious favourite to win that ball. The only reckless play was by Mac Allister who lunged in to contest a ball that was never ever going to be his.

Are people still drunk from Wednesday night?

And yes, before anyone says so, right now the match tomorrow concerns me more.

Tarks is getting death threats. He is seeking to appease.

Can we please be clear, once and for all, it was neither 'a tackle' nor ' a challenge'. It was a clearance. That Tarks is describing it as a tackle implies he is appeasing. I don't blame him given the abuse to his family and death threats. He is trying to defuse the situation.

But the video says, unequivocally, no room for argument, it was a clearance, a hoof upfield, undertaken well ahead (in football terms) of the arrival of McAllister. The rest of my post stands in terms of how that could be interpreted and judged.

Tarks is apologising because he could/should have done more to avoid the collision after Mac Allister recklessly lunged in.

Brendan, no-one would apologise for that. It is even more ridiculous to say a ‘robust’ player like Tarkowski would.

He had a few options there. He went for the one where he got to follow through and set a tone. Put down a marker. I don't believe he tried to break his legs and it's not the sort of challenge that terms like 'studs up' and 'both feet off the ground' were coined for (see Gerrard on Naysmith for a textbook picture of that). If MacAllister was injured it was because he dangled his legs in the way rather than commit or avoid.

But it's 'excessive' and is usually a red card in the modern game. Personally I think excessive force should be a legitimate part of the game. If you play against people with exceptional skill, speed, vision... then why not have the ability to compete by putting the wind up them with your own exceptional skill set.

A "robust" but honest player like Tarks would.

But we know, in broadish terms, what someone was thinking when they open up their body and curl a ball in the top corner. We know what someone was thinking when they drag down a striker who is running through on goal in the last minute. And we know what a defender is thinking when they have a chance to play a ball but instead put in a full bodied challenge through the ball. It's instinctive, it's a split second decision, it's in the heat of the moment, but it's still someone doing what they meant to do.

I'm not judging him at all. It's completely natural in football, for me, to want to dominate your opponent physically. I don't believe he was thinking "I'm going to injure this guy" but of course he was being excessive with his force. In this case, it's a local Derby - a more heated moment than most - and he probably went a bit too excessive for the modern game.

I should add that I've never said he intended to injure MacAllister.

As I said in my first post on the matter, and I'll say it in my last post on the matter... it's not that big a deal.

Throw in an early full-blooded challenge by all means, it's what I was told when I was playing as a centre-half before going in goal.

Let your opponent know you are around and to expect more, but not with the intention of injuring him.

I think if anyone was genuinely considered to be playing ‘contact' sport that way, then they would be open to actual criminal prosecution for assault.

The debate is whether the challenge could be judged to be using excessive force, reckless, or out of control, which can get you dismissed from the game.

‘Potential leg breakers' are just that – potential. Players walk away from them with just grazes or bruises in the vast majority of cases. Sometimes, however, they do cause real damage. Players will know themselves if they have crossed any sort of line or made a poor split-second decision in the heat of the moment.

Brendan, you are just doubling down on nonsense now. Tarkowski apologised, without any sort of coercion, for what he accepts was a bad challenge by him. Can't you simply accept that?

Pretty similar circumstances, Tarkowski takes ball and man and most certainly intended to “leave a mark” on Richarlison.

I'll bet you were out of your seat claiming it was a reckless challenge. I know I was!

No matter how many times I see the incident replayed... I don't see MacAllister at any point in control of the ball... "ipso facto" there is no "challenge" by Tarkowski.

I'm not saying he didn't do anything wrong… but the fact that he wanted to hold his hand up, keep things simple in his apology and move on... isn't surprising.

It's an occupational hazard. We've all had injuries. For me, two broken legs, two broken ankles and ligament damage.

Not once did the opposite player mean to hurt me.

If you do a referee's course, they will teach you that you can't prove intent so therefore you can't be punished for it.

You can only give what you observe and not what you think is going on in someone's head.

I'm amazed this is even a talking point on an Everton fan site.

We were robbed by another refereeing decision – that's the story.

Well of course we all know, and could see, what he was doing, he was attempting to win the ball ahead of an opponent, but I doubt very much his intention was to injure Mac Allister.

I'm not defending Tarkowski, by the way, but I'm still in two minds whether it deserved a red card or not. He won the ball fairly, as was clearly seen by how far the ball travelled, and the follow-through looked bad, but I honestly don't know how that can be prevented?

It was a full-blooded challenge, early in a derby match, but what if he hadn't made it, and stood off, letting Mac Allister get a shot in and score???

The uproar on here would have been off the Richter scale, with many screaming “Why didn't Tarkowski throw a challenge in?”

Regards the challenge on Richarlison. Well again, nobody knows what was going through Tarkowski's mind. Richarlison was on the touchline, with absolutely no danger of a goal being scored, unlike Wednesday night when Mac Allister could have got into a position to score.

So yes, the challenge on Richarlison was reckless and definitely unnecessary, whereas the challenge on Mac Allister was necessary, but ultimately reckless.

‘I'm not saying he didn't do anything wrong'.

Brendan, claiming he didn't do anything wrong is exactly what you have been doing!

See post #75

“The only reckless play was by Mac Allister who lunged in to contest a ball that was never ever going to be his.”

Tarkowski apologised because it was his recklessness that caused the collision because Mac Allister had already opted to only try and block the ball as it was cleared.

Anyone?

You still keep using the term 'challenge'. I thought I said it before but once and for all, it wasn't a challenge or tackle, it was a clearance and the issue is the follow-through of that clearance. Please stop referring to it as 'a challenge' when it wasn't, the video replay is clear on that. I refer back to my original post on what can be construed from what followed.

Why did Tarkowski speak as he did right after the game? I am not so naive – and nor should you be – as to imagine players do not get feedback during and immediately after the game. They are very 'managed' these days. He did what would deflect what he, and I suggest others, would expect would be coming his way. Sad times that is the case but there you go.

I spoke to a ref about this today. His point was, this wouldn't have even been given a foul back in the day, mainly because it wasn't a tackle (or challenge), that the rules haven't changed, but there is nowadays 'guidance' about what the rules mean. A bit like our judicial system nowadays.

It is that guidance that creates the grey area here. There is an onus on players not to do things that risk harming other players or, to put it another way, to avoid doing so where it is possible, And that is the grey area in assessing this, the art of the possible.

I think the current sentiment (and that is all it is, not 'rules') is that, if in doubt, judge it on the perceived injury and its extent. I think the ref saw a clearance in live action. Post incident commentators, with some vivid slow-mo to refer to, see harm that could have been avoided. Personally I'm not convinced on the latter.

"You can only give what you observe and not what you think is going on in someone's head."

Yes, Kevin. That's really my point. Intention doesn't come into this, as some are claiming. If it's reckless or dangerous, so be it, regardless of intent.

But we're in the here and now as regarding the regs.

And yes, he's got previous and is now a marked man with VAR and the referees. Brought the club a bad mark against us.

Watch the Gunners dive tomorrow at the slightest touch.

If the boot was on the other foot, the redshite would not give a damn.

Whereas some Everton fans...

https://youtu.be/gT9xuXQjxMM

Goodison watched in disbelief as he was shown a red. Unfortunately, He'd followed through in exactly the same way Tarkowski did the other night. Later appeals to have the card rescinded fell on deaf ears. Just as they would have done if Tarkowski had been sent off.

The law has changed. It had to. The fences in Aintree have been made safer and gay men are no longer sent to prison for being gay. Sometimes common sense has to prevail to protect the innocent. Those saying the game "has gone" are forgetting all those skilled entertainers who were kicked out of the game by people taught to take ball and man.

I was annoyed at Tarkowski. He gave the referee an opportunity to get the red card out at a crucial stage of the game. Those who think he didn't intend to clatter into the red fella must never have played the game. He's played a million games. Of course he knew what he was doing.

Am I sorry he did it? Am I fuck. He got away with it. I'm only sorry he didn't cut the little bastard in two.

I've watched the tackle about six times now. The more I see it, the more I like it. Anything that has those horrible gobshites foaming at the mouth is fine by me.

Tarkowski hadn't gotten any death threats or "feedback" immediately after the final whistle, and nothing can persuade me that this powerful team captain was "persuaded" to apologize or "appease" against his will in any way, shape or form.

He made a bad tackle -- he himself called it a tackle, and I'll take his term over yours -- and like the man he is, he accepted responsibility and apologized directly to the player.

I find your interpretation fanciful to say the least.

All over a game of football. The world's gone mad.

It's The Shite, they bring the worst out in anyone, they are like a disease, fuck them!

Perhaps if the RS hadn't manipulated the narrative about a game they won, the ref at Arsenal would be under severe pressure about VAR and offside decisions in our favour.

62000 people inside the stadium, noise everywhere, do the sensible thing in future and if you can’t win the ball cleanly without touching a player, who suddenly didn’t fancy the tackle, and don’t put everything into trying to win the ball and protect your goal🤦‍♂️

Don’t get stuck right into Arsenal, today Everton, just let them breathe, so that their more superior players can have more time on the ball and do whatever the fuck they want.

https://www.aberdeenlive.news/sport/football/horror-james-tarkowski-tackle-rated-10080824?int_source=nba

Time and again, we have players out for months on end, yet they not only manage to get Mac Allister fit again from his career-ending tackle but he gets on the scoresheet as well just 4 days later

Sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek at its best.