Refereeing decisions have been at the centre of a huge storm with Liverpool over the weekend.
Luis Diaz’s disallowed goal has been making all of the headlines over the past few days, but there were also two questionable red cards during the game against Tottenham, including one for Curtis Jones.
Jones was sent off against Spurs for a high challenge on Yves Bissouma, and immediately after the tackle, Gary Neville was defending the player, claiming that there was no intent in the challenge whatsoever.
However, speaking on ESPN, Nedum Onuoha has shared some concerns around the way Neville spoke about this incident, claiming that intent is not a part of the law, and these comments being presented as facts will affect not only how fans see referees, but also how fans see players such as Jones when tackles like this are made.
Onuoha not a fan of Neville’s comments
The pundit spoke about how Gary Neville treated Jones’ red card on Sky Sports.
“People listen with their ears and your ears can dictate what you see with your eyes. I think it was Gary Neville saying about Curtis Jones that he’s not tried to do him and there’s no intent, but intent isn’t one of the words used when described if something should be a red card. But when you say there’s no intent and it’s wrong, that’s how people perceive the way the game is going to be refereed. That misses the point,” Onuoha said.
“That is his opinion and not the fact of the incident, but it’s being delivered as a fact and I hate that. Because it affects the way we see it, Curtis Jones, I’m sure he’s a great guy, and he accidentally rolled over the ball. It was an accidental thing that happens in football. Nobody intends to do it and it’s always a red card.”
MORE LIVERPOOL STORIES
Hard
This is a really difficult one to judge as we can see both sides of the argument.
On one hand, Neville was right, Jones wasn’t trying to hurt Bissouma with his challenge and it’s unfair to tar him with that brush.
However, as Onuoha says, by the letter of the law, intent is irrelevant, so we shouldn’t be discussing challenges like that in these terms.
Perhaps the law needs changing to take intent into account, because these arguments are divisive and hard to judge.