Olivia
Online
Garrett Moots, M.Sc.
@GarrettMoots
Environmental Microbiologist. Laboratory for Environmental Pathogen Research. University of Toledo.
Toledo, Ohio
Joined July 2023
381 Following
146 Followers
848 Posts
Pinned Tweet
😁👍🏻
Dr. Von Sigler, a professor of environmental biology, and Garrett Moots, a doctoral student studying ecology and organismal biology, discuss their findings that toxins from harmful algal blooms are present in the sand nearest to the water. @UToledo
https://t.co/3i2ToaU4tq
@MC_of_A No And ones in soccer. Though this is slowly changing
@StarWarsDaily_ 6. Not as bad as everyone says, but nowhere near Andor
@ERPJon But he didn’t make a play on the ball at all.
People need to realize that fouls, inherently, are accidental. The intent argument is a strawman used to justify anything and everything
🤔
for $1k a month a studio apartment in the grand castle in grandville michigan could be all yours
Referee perspective:
1. Point of contact: calf rake to ankle
2. Mode of contact: studs
3. Force: high
4. Where is the ball: other side of opponent
5. Position of the body: behind opponent
The one with the vicious contact where the ball isn't even in the picture?
seeing the people trying to argue that balogun shouldn’t have gotten a red card only proves that horan was right😭
Oh, to have the confidence to watch your fourth ever football game and declare offside a silly rule and the most obvious red card of the tournament fraudulent.
@TaylorTwellman I see "in general" in the language, so its more of a guideline than a hard rule.
Pro referee explains it here:
https://t.co/t7gFs3Gbun
A common misconception is that a red card depends on whether a player intended to hurt an opponent. Intent may influence how a referee perceives a challenge, but it is not the deciding factor under the Laws of the Game.
The primary question is: Did the challenge use excessive force and/or endanger the safety of the opponent?
When answering that question, referees consider several factors, including:
-Point of contact
-Speed and intensity of the challenge
-Force used
-Studs exposed
-Ability to play the ball
-Whether the opponent's safety was endangered
-The vulnerability of the area contacted
Applying those considerations:
Messi: The challenge was reckless. The studs made contact with the calf (soft tissue). While late and deserving of a caution, the point of contact and overall nature of the challenge did not clearly meet the threshold for serious foul play.
Balogun: The challenge was different. His studs came down directly onto the opponent's Achilles tendon, defined as vulnerable tissue. Even without any apparent intent to injure, that point of contact and the danger created can satisfy the criteria for serious foul play. Contact to the Achilles presents a substantially greater risk of serious injury than comparable contact to the calf.
The distinction isn't the player's reputation or intent. It's whether the challenge, viewed objectively, endangered the safety of the opponent.
If you don't want to take my word for it, a Pro referee explains it here:
the fact that the US is now good enough at soccer to compete against europeans has tricked some of you guys into thinking youre also ready to argue about red cards against europeans online
@ReedRothchild12 @aakashgupta I honestly do not know much about it other than they claim it is one of the safest long term disposal sites in the world. You probably know more than me. What is your opinon of it?
@dyingdidactic @ThePinkDalek @JohnSmithb0dx @kirawontmiss No need to use the R word, even though I have stated multiple times I think it is harsh and am simply reposting the laws of the game. Sports bring out emotions in people, and when people are emotional, good luck explaining logic and rules to them.
@StocktonJewkes By understanding the langauge of the laws of the game. Intent is not a primary consideration:
https://t.co/ZKa5svCffu
A common misconception is that a red card depends on whether a player intended to hurt an opponent. Intent may influence how a referee perceives a challenge, but it is not the deciding factor under the Laws of the Game.
The primary question is: Did the challenge use excessive force and/or endanger the safety of the opponent?
When answering that question, referees consider several factors, including:
-Point of contact
-Speed and intensity of the challenge
-Force used
-Studs exposed
-Ability to play the ball
-Whether the opponent's safety was endangered
-The vulnerability of the area contacted
Applying those considerations:
Messi: The challenge was reckless. The studs made contact with the calf (soft tissue). While late and deserving of a caution, the point of contact and overall nature of the challenge did not clearly meet the threshold for serious foul play.
Balogun: The challenge was different. His studs came down directly onto the opponent's Achilles tendon, defined as vulnerable tissue. Even without any apparent intent to injure, that point of contact and the danger created can satisfy the criteria for serious foul play. Contact to the Achilles presents a substantially greater risk of serious injury than comparable contact to the calf.
The distinction isn't the player's reputation or intent. It's whether the challenge, viewed objectively, endangered the safety of the opponent.
@ThePinkDalek @JohnSmithb0dx @kirawontmiss No, Im literally stating the opposite. Not every challenge is a red card, and these fouls are not even the same, which is what you seem to take issue with. I am simply repeating what the laws of the game state. They do not care about your feelings unfortunately.
@BetterCallAlba Idk why this is so hard for people to understand
https://t.co/ZKa5svCffu
A common misconception is that a red card depends on whether a player intended to hurt an opponent. Intent may influence how a referee perceives a challenge, but it is not the deciding factor under the Laws of the Game.
The primary question is: Did the challenge use excessive force and/or endanger the safety of the opponent?
When answering that question, referees consider several factors, including:
-Point of contact
-Speed and intensity of the challenge
-Force used
-Studs exposed
-Ability to play the ball
-Whether the opponent's safety was endangered
-The vulnerability of the area contacted
Applying those considerations:
Messi: The challenge was reckless. The studs made contact with the calf (soft tissue). While late and deserving of a caution, the point of contact and overall nature of the challenge did not clearly meet the threshold for serious foul play.
Balogun: The challenge was different. His studs came down directly onto the opponent's Achilles tendon, defined as vulnerable tissue. Even without any apparent intent to injure, that point of contact and the danger created can satisfy the criteria for serious foul play. Contact to the Achilles presents a substantially greater risk of serious injury than comparable contact to the calf.
The distinction isn't the player's reputation or intent. It's whether the challenge, viewed objectively, endangered the safety of the opponent.
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
240.7M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.2M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.7M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
110.7M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.2M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
90.9M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
87.7M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
81.6M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
73.1M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
70M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.8M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
63.9M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
62.7M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
60.8M followers