Final Score Brentford 1 (KLP) Liverpool 2

[mhead bee]

The edge of area view of him putting his head into Jaquet is not great, one angle shows a clear motion towards him. Was contact made? There is no angle of that. The behind goal angle, looks like he actually makes contact with the chest.
I personally think he should have been shown the full context too. If you watched the angle from edge of area for the previous 10 seconds then you'd see Jaquet deliberately bump into him several times, including using his shoulder. You can see Yarmo looking at the ref with arms raised to get his attention and the ref wasn't looking. Did Yarmo see it as an opportunity and forgot VAR? Maybe. Who knows.
I hate in these instances that refs dont get shown what potentially caused these indicents and dont take that into consideration.
Or how the hell a small brush can cause a grown man to go, and stay, down for a few minutes motionless.

How Brooks can go to the screen with a very poor quality view of an incident and decide its definitely a red card headbutt bit failed to see that the Gabriel incident was not a headbutt.
He was VAR when that happened and decided against further action.

It’s the old retaliation thing, which I f***ing hate, someone stamps on you, and if you do anything back you are the criminal for retaliating.

It is obvious that the shoulder to the face caused a reflex reaction and Yarmo shouldered him back and almost shook his head a bit rather than head butted him. But the instigator is called “clever” and the victim is called stupid and accused of letting everyone down.

 

[JCMcBee]

It’s the old retaliation thing, which I f***ing hate, someone stamps on you, and if you do anything back you are the criminal for retaliating.

It is obvious that the shoulder to the face caused a reflex reaction and Yarmo shouldered him back and almost shook his head a bit rather than head butted him. But the instigator is called “clever” and the victim is called stupid and accused of letting everyone down.

....I was seething like you on Saturday night...for exactly the same reasons....it spilled over onto this forum on the YY thread...I was somewhat over zealous... however....we all know ref's and VAR didn't factor in provocation and goading whilst looking at that incident on Saturday...or any similar incident when a player reacts.....VAR is a machine...it doesn't do subjectivity and human behaviour..... it's not real.

 

[maddogging]

I actually wonder now whether we will see a landslide of this thing happening - what with Jacquet saturday and Luke Shaw last week (both should have been booked), players from big clubs will know that they can instigate something, cause the other player to snap, then just walk away whistling, knowing they have got away with it scott free.

‘After review, the Brentford number 6 has made a head butting motion, however, under provocation from the Liverpool number 5, a yellow card for each player will be issued’

The whole crowd would agree, it’s just so simple to resolve

 

[Les Beeavinu]

‘After review, the Brentford number 6 has made a head butting motion, however, under provocation from the Liverpool number 5, a yellow card for each player will be issued’

The whole crowd would agree, it’s just so simple to resolve

Shouldn't have even got to the VAR screen, Darren England should have used some nous. The ref didn't see it, it was VAR who decided everyone needed to get busy.

 

[LostBee]

It is obvious that the shoulder to the face caused a reflex reaction and Yarmo shouldered him back and almost shook his head a bit rather than head butted him. But the instigator is called “clever” and the victim is called stupid and accused of letting everyone down.

This is delusional.

He put his forehead in an opposition players face.

Yes he was provoked but you cant do that.

Get over it.

 

[Les Beeavinu]

This is delusional.

He put his forehead in an opposition players face.

Yes he was provoked but you cant do that.

Get over it.

Do you have clear evidence that he did that? The player went to ground on what must have been the lightest of contact, if any. The referee said "headbutting motion" so it seems unclear to me that there was any contact.

 

[JCMcBee]

This is delusional.

He put his forehead in an opposition players face.

Yes he was provoked but you cant do that.

Get over it.

....yep.... fight or flight...YY chose fight.... he's a very naughty 22 yr old young man.... Ukrainian too don't you know....anger management classes I suspect

 

[Les Beeavinu]

My final comment - I understand that the laws meant that the referee had the option to send him off but you will never convince me that there was any violent conduct involved, even though the offence says so.

Compare and contrast to Jacquet deliberately taking out Schade in the second half - a trip that could have resulted in a far more serious injury than a non or minimal head movement and therefore a much more violent action. Shows how f***ed up the interpretations of the laws have become.

I should add that Jacquet rightly only got a yellow for his offence.

 

[LostBee]

Do you have clear evidence that he did that? The player went to ground on what must have been the lightest of contact, if any. The referee said "headbutting motion" so it seems unclear to me that there was any contact.

I'm absolutely amazed that this is in question.

The angle behind the goal clearly shows he made contact.

Am I going mad?

 

[Les Beeavinu]

I'm absolutely amazed that this is in question.

The angle behind the goal clearly shows he made contact.

Am I going mad?

You've got better eyes than me then. Taking away what the law says it was, do you consider it was violent conduct? If you do, you might have answered your last question.

 

[JANORAK]

SSN reporting that police are investigating someone kicking a rugby ball into the Gtech during the game. My instant reaction is it’s a heinous crime. I know police like to involve themselves in all things football, but they should have something else to do, surely?

 

[LongLostBee]

SSN reporting that police are investigating someone kicking a rugby ball into the Gtech during the game. My instant reaction is it’s a heinous crime. I know police like to involve themselves in all things football, but they should have something else to do, surely?

Just curious….would you have the same view when it lands on your 6 year old daughters head and breaks her neck?

 

[LostBee]

Taking away what the law says it was

Mad argument imo.

It's the laws of the game mate, you can't just pick and choose when they are applied!

 

[Les Beeavinu]

Mad argument imo.

It's the laws of the game mate, you can't just pick and choose when they are applied!

Where does the law say you will automatically get sent off for violent conduct even if it wasn't? You didn't answer my question, did you consider it was violent conduct?

 

[aawharris]

Do you have clear evidence that he did that? The player went to ground on what must have been the lightest of contact, if any. The referee said "headbutting motion" so it seems unclear to me that there was any contact.

Jacquet is 4 inches or so (when he isnt lying on the floor cheating) taller than Yarmo.
So.Jacquets shoulder hits Yarmos face, yet when Yarmo does the same thing back, the top of his head catches the cheats jaw.
Big difference is Yarmo didnt fall on the floor like a b*tch and their cheat did.

 

[Les Beeavinu]

Oh, I said my final comment so I'll leave it there. It happened we've just got to deal with it.

 

[aawharris]

Where does the law say you will automatically get sent off for violent conduct even if it wasn't? You didn't answer my question, did you consider it was violent conduct?

Goes back to Joao Pedro trying to take Yarmos head off with his elbow.
That was clearly violent conduct but nothing given

 

[LostBee]

Where does the law say you will automatically get sent off for violent conduct even if it wasn't? You didn't answer my question, did you consider it was violent conduct?

I think he butted him, not particularly hard granted.

What I think constitutes VC is completely irrelvant, it's not up to me.

I swear this must be a fever dream...

 

[Kingston Bee]

My final comment - I understand that the laws meant that the referee had the option to send him off but you will never convince me that there was any violent conduct involved, even though the offence says so. Compare and contrast to Jacquet deliberately taking out Schade in the second half - a trip that could have resulted in a far more serious injury than a non or minimal head movement and therefore a much more violent action which shows how f***ed up the interpretations of the laws have become.

Agree, just another example of why football is finished, as we once knew it. Its *ucke* up in so many ways i get fed up with myself for ranting what seems like most weeks now about one issue or another. It wont stop me watching Brentford but it sure is sapping away at my enjoyment of watching the beautiful game.

 

[Sofasteve]

Imagine if that rugby ball had of hit Jacquet, would have been a later finish than the Villa drone game.

 

[King Bee]

I'm absolutely amazed that this is in question.

The angle behind the goal clearly shows he made contact.

Am I going mad?

Let me offer a different viewpoint. We all agree that Jacquet appears to initiate the confrontation. Could an alternative view be that Yarmoliuk is punished for what may have been an instinctive reaction rather than a deliberate act of aggression?

What’s clear from the video is that YY's attention is elsewhere. He's appealing to the referee about the jostling in the penalty area, not looking to confront Jacquet. The latter approaches from outside YY's peripheral vision and gets right into his face, the natural reaction is to turn towards him. You’d do the same. A reflexive head movement that results in slight contact is very different from deliberately moving your head towards an opponent to strike him, do you agree?

The crucial distinction under Law 12 is whether YY deliberately used his head against Jacquet with excessive force or brutality, rather than simply turning in response to someone suddenly entering his space. Contact alone doesn't automatically establish violent conduct.

Jacquet manufactured the confrontation and YY was penalised for naturally reacting to it.
Indeed one could argue that YY's head movement is consistent with an instinctive response to someone suddenly appearing directly in front of him, rather than a deliberate attempt to strike. Minimal contact, followed by an exaggerated reaction, raises legitimate questions about whether the incident warranted a dismissal per Les’ suggestion.

 

[ladbroke]

Shouldn't have even got to the VAR screen, Darren England should have used some nous. The ref didn't see it, it was VAR who decided everyone needed to get busy.

He only got involved cause he went down. And stayed down.
I think I read during the Haaland one at the time is that if he had gone down they may have acted. Note the word may.

 

[Werderbee]

Goes back to Joao Pedro trying to take Yarmos head off with his elbow.
That was clearly violent conduct but nothing given

That makes me sooo mad..like you said, nothing done and that was an attempted assault. The level of nonsense in this league baffles me. Nothing surprises me anymore.

 

[Jezybee]

SSN reporting that police are investigating someone kicking a rugby ball into the Gtech during the game. My instant reaction is it’s a heinous crime. I know police like to involve themselves in all things football, but they should have something else to do, surely?

If the Investigating officers are DCI Brooks and PC England, then Igor Thiago’s booking gets upgraded to a red card as the invisible force he generated that knocked Jacquet over really was quite strong.

 

[JANORAK]

Just curious….would you have the same view when it lands on your 6 year old daughters head and breaks her neck?

If she was that vulnerable I wouldn’t have her anywhere near the game. More danger from the ferocity of a wayward shot, than the velocity in a falling rugby .
I could understand an investigation if, say the ball was full of drugs and had been drop kicked into a prison….

 

[Les Beeavinu]

If she was that vulnerable I wouldn’t have her anywhere near the game. More danger from the ferocity of a wayward shot, than the velocity in a falling rugby .
I could understand an investigation if, say the ball was full of drugs and had been drop kicked into a prison….

A crime has been reported, the police can't really choose not to bother.

 

[aawharris]

If she was that vulnerable I wouldn’t have her anywhere near the game. More danger from the ferocity of a wayward shot, than the velocity in a falling rugby .
I could understand an investigation if, say the ball was full of drugs and had been drop kicked into a prison….

I would say you are incorrect regarding the dangers of the two things

 

[Sandybee]

Agree 100% @aawharris but to compete at this level we have to do the same.
Provoke, dive, con, cheat, etc, etc
Not what I want us to be but nice guys don’t win.

 

[Banana]

If she was that vulnerable I wouldn’t have her anywhere near the game. More danger from the ferocity of a wayward shot, than the velocity in a falling rugby .
I could understand an investigation if, say the ball was full of drugs and had been drop kicked into a prison….

When you go to a football match you take a risk that a football might hit you. To mitigate this you can lookout for the ball and use your arms/movement to avoid that risk.

You can't account for a ball falling at terminal velocity on your 6 year old kid however. Stop being a dunce.

 

[bexleybee]

In response to Sky covering the rugby ball incident, a seemingly endless number of idiots asking what offence has been committed.

Like yeah mate, everyone should be able to yeet objects into a football stadium from outside without fear of punishment

 

[Untouchable]

The crucial distinction under Law 12 is whether YY deliberately used his head against Jacquet with excessive force or brutality

The more I watch this the more I think we should appeal.

My view (and I appreciate others differ) is that the replays shown to the referee did not demonstrate contact. But let’s assume I’m wrong. The referee has to establish that excessive force or brutality has taken place for violent conduct to be made out.

The referee did not announce there has been a headbutt. He said:

“After review, the Brentford No.6 commits a headbutting action. The final decision is a red card”. No contact in this scenario means no violent conduct.

Secondly, the referee appears to only have been shown a slow motion replay of the incident. The VAR protocol says:

“normal speed should be used for the ‘intensity’ of an offence”

How can you judge excessive force or brutality (ie the intensity part of the offence) if you haven’t seen it in normal speed?

For those who say it was a deserved red card, I’d be grateful if you could also direct me to the relevant part of Law 12.

 

[Gee Bee]

If she was that vulnerable I wouldn’t have her anywhere near the game. More danger from the ferocity of a wayward shot, than the velocity in a falling rugby .
I could understand an investigation if, say the ball was full of drugs and had been drop kicked into a prison….

You do realise it was kicked from high rise flat and extremely dangerous

 

[King Bee]

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct | IFAB

Football foul rules, handball football rules, types of fouls in football

www.theifab.com

 

[Banana]

The more I watch this the more I think we should appeal.

My view (and I appreciate others differ) is that the replays shown to the referee did not demonstrate contact. But let’s assume I’m wrong. The referee has to establish that excessive force or brutality has taken place for violent conduct to be made out.

The referee did not announce there has been a headbutt. He said:

“After review, the Brentford No.6 commits a headbutting action. The final decision is a red card”. No contact in this scenario means no violent conduct.

Secondly, the referee appears to only have been shown a slow motion replay of the incident. The VAR protocol says:

“normal speed should be used for the ‘intensity’ of an offence”

How can you judge excessive force or brutality (ie the intensity part of the offence) if you haven’t seen it in normal speed?

For those who say it was a deserved red card, I’d be grateful if you could also direct me to the relevant part of Law 12.

I agree. And under Law 12 it's a direct free kick

1. Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
<snip>
strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)

A headbutt is not automatically violent conduct....see below

VIOLENT CONDUCT

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.

 

[JANORAK]

You do realise it was kicked from high rise flat and extremely dangerous

Ah, no I didn’t! Forget my dribblings above.

 

[mhead bee]

This is delusional.

He put his forehead in an opposition players face.

Yes he was provoked but you cant do that.

Get over it.

No he didn’t

You get over it

Thanks

 

[lanzabee]

The edge of area view of him putting his head into Jaquet is not great, one angle shows a clear motion towards him. Was contact made? There is no angle of that. The behind goal angle, looks like he actually makes contact with the chest.
I personally think he should have been shown the full context too. If you watched the angle from edge of area for the previous 10 seconds then you'd see Jaquet deliberately bump into him several times, including using his shoulder. You can see Yarmo looking at the ref with arms raised to get his attention and the ref wasn't looking. Did Yarmo see it as an opportunity and forgot VAR? Maybe. Who knows.
I hate in these instances that refs dont get shown what potentially caused these indicents and dont take that into consideration.
Or how the hell a small brush can cause a grown man to go, and stay, down for a few minutes motionless.

How Brooks can go to the screen with a very poor quality view of an incident and decide its definitely a red card headbutt bit failed to see that the Gabriel incident was not a headbutt.
He was VAR when that happened and decided against further action.

Couldn't agree more

 

[longtimeagobee]

The more I watch this the more I think we should appeal.

My view (and I appreciate others differ) is that the replays shown to the referee did not demonstrate contact. But let’s assume I’m wrong. The referee has to establish that excessive force or brutality has taken place for violent conduct to be made out.

The referee did not announce there has been a headbutt. He said:

“After review, the Brentford No.6 commits a headbutting action. The final decision is a red card”. No contact in this scenario means no violent conduct.

Secondly, the referee appears to only have been shown a slow motion replay of the incident. The VAR protocol says:

“normal speed should be used for the ‘intensity’ of an offence”

How can you judge excessive force or brutality (ie the intensity part of the offence) if you haven’t seen it in normal speed?

For those who say it was a deserved red card, I’d be grateful if you could also direct me to the relevant part of Law 12.

All very well, but Tim Sherwood on Skys Ref Watch just couldn’t understand why it took VAR so long to decide when it was obviously a red. He made his mind up after 3 seconds

 

[Untouchable]

All very well, but Tim Sherwood on Skys Ref Watch just couldn’t understand why it took VAR so long to decide when it was obviously a red. He made his mind up after 3 seconds

There seems to be a prevailing view that head on head contact is automatically violent conduct. All well and good until you actually apply the laws of the game!

 

[badgerbee]

There seems to be a prevailing view that head on head contact is automatically violent conduct. All well and good until you actually apply the laws of the game!

Plus, of course, Tim Sherwood is a know nothing, obnoxious c**t.

 

[Kingston Bee]

All very well, but Tim Sherwood on Skys Ref Watch just couldn’t understand why it took VAR so long to decide when it was obviously a red. He made his mind up after 3 seconds

In his mind its a sending off, one of several different views. The problem we have is its not clear what constitutes a sending off in these circumstances, there is no consistency as per comparison with the Gabriel headbutt on Haarland last season. Seems to come down to how the ref feels at that point in time, which can also change with the help of VAR, as per saturday. Basically if you give the ref/var a decision to make anything can happen, its a sh*t process.

 

[Sandybee]

In response to Sky covering the rugby ball incident, a seemingly endless number of idiots asking what offence has been committed.

Like yeah mate, everyone should be able to yeet objects into a football stadium from outside without fear of punishment

It’s the immorality, and the lack of forethought that does my head in. And then we get idiots saying it’s ok, because no-one’s thought to make a law against a loony kicking a ball from a rooftop garden. (Besides, I’m sure there’s a law against it somewhere).I despair sometimes.

 

[bexleybee]

It’s the immorality, and the lack of forethought that does my head in. And then we get idiots saying it’s ok, because no-one’s thought to make a law against a loony kicking a ball from a rooftop garden. (Besides, I’m sure there’s a law against it somewhere).I despair sometimes.

The same people would no doubt be complaining about overreach if there was a specific law.

I applaud the club for acting on it promptly. They know if they don’t, we’ll see copycats with the brainless clout chasers online looking to make it a thing and go viral

 

[guilly]

There seems to be a prevailing view that head on head contact is automatically violent conduct. All well and good until you actually apply the laws of the game!

Even though I don't like it, I think it makes sense from the ref point of view to be harsh on any contact, and even attempt. Things can go out of control very quickly.
A couple of seasons ago, most of the people here were fuming when João Pedro swung an elbow on Yarmoliuk, and the agreement was he should have been sent off (at every post game analysis). Same logic applies here. Of course, Joao Pedro wasn't sent off, but that was a mistake. I don't understand how people can still argue about this one tbh

 

[Untouchable]

A couple of seasons ago, most of the people here were fuming when João Pedro swung an elbow on Yarmoliuk, and the agreement was he should have been sent off (at every post game analysis). Same logic applies here. Of course, Joao Pedro wasn't sent off, but that was a mistake. I don't understand how people can still argue about this one tbh

The laws require excessive force or brutality.

Pedro’s plainly satisfied this definition. It was a violent swing of the elbow that could have caused serious injury.

Do you think that any contact (which IMO remains debatable) Yarmo made was with excessive force or brutality? If the answer is no, he should not have been sent off.

 

[jlove]

The laws require excessive force or brutality.

Pedro’s plainly satisfied this definition. It was a violent swing of the elbow that could have caused serious injury.

Do you think that any contact (which IMO remains debatable) Yarmo made was with excessive force or brutality? If the answer is no, he should not have been sent off.

Don't the laws include the phrase "attempts to..."?

 

[ppobee]

Even though I don't like it, I think it makes sense from the ref point of view to be harsh on any contact, and even attempt. Things can go out of control very quickly.
A couple of seasons ago, most of the people here were fuming when João Pedro swung an elbow on Yarmoliuk, and the agreement was he should have been sent off (at every post game analysis). Same logic applies here. Of course, Joao Pedro wasn't sent off, but that was a mistake. I don't understand how people can still argue about this one tbh

Like others, I still haven't seen footage that is definitive to overturn the decision. Different angles suggest different things, none if it (even the view the VAR showed) is conclusive. But, as others have also said, it wasn't an isolated incident and there is no difference between Jacquet's actions or Yarmo's. Jacquet's possibly more violent - so why was that not checked too?

 

[guilly]

The laws require excessive force or brutality.

Pedro’s plainly satisfied this definition. It was a violent swing of the elbow that could have caused serious injury.

Do you think that any contact (which IMO remains debatable) Yarmo made was with excessive force or brutality? If the answer is no, he should not have been sent off.

It's pointless to go that direction, and one of the reasons there should be zero tolerance for this kind of things. So a "gentle headbutt" in your opinion should not be considered violent conduct, but an "excessive" should? Where do you draw the line?
In your own argument, how do you qualify Pedro as excessive force, if there was not even a contact?

 

[badgerbee]

Like others, I still haven't seen footage that is definitive to overturn the decision. Different angles suggest different things, none if it (even the view the VAR showed) is conclusive. But, as others have also said, it wasn't an isolated incident and there is no difference between Jacquet's actions or Yarmo's. Jacquet's possibly more violent - so why was that not checked too?

Because, like the Haaland incident mentioned numerous times in the discussion, Yarmo didn't hit the turf like the sack of cheating sh*t Jacquet did.........

 

[gbems92]

Even if yarmos "headbutt" did connect it was so minimal. Jacquets reaction is more worthy of a ban. I certainly wouldn't want him in the trenches with me if it was a genuine reaction