Aphrodite

We kicked the ball longer As if it's a track and field event

Something really tiresome about poppy fascism; if you want to wear it then do so, if not then don't, defeats the point if people start wearing them cos they think they have to.

Justice for the cameraman

"Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety nine percent perspiration"- Thomas Edison Commentator was trying to sound cultured

I agree it risks a red card, but what I'm asking is do you believe that accidentally putting another player in danger of getting seriously injured is a definite red card. See answer I gave above ^^ Otherwise the only time anyone would be sent off would be if they lamped someone or deliberately snapped them in half I already know your view, I'm asking someone else about theirs. Also no requiring intent would not mean someone would need to punch another to be sent off, that makes absolutely no sense. It would however require the referee to believe the player meant the foul. How would a referee have any idea of what a player means to do though?

Hardly any contact and no intent equals definite red card? a studs up dangerous challenge does But that basically means intent is now completely unimportant. An accident is a definite red if it could possibly hurt someone? I haven't watched the incident enough to decide if I believe there was intent by the way, I'm just referring to the post above which said he believed there was no intent but still a definite red card. there was no intent imo, but it was dangerous and worthy of a red card Ok, but could you answer my question. You're view is that if you accidentally put another player in danger of getting seriously injured you believe that's a definite red card? Yes- that is exactly what the law says. If you 'seriously endanger the safety of an opponent' you get a red card. Strange then that everyone and their mothers (including referees) often mention intent. If the rules consider an accident to be no less punishable than an intended foul then that's quite amazing to me. Though it seems that if that's the case most people in Football don't realise and plenty of referees don't apply it. As plenty of players accidentally endanger and in fact seriously injure opponents without being punished, with the only possible reason for the lack of punishment being that it was an accident. The only offence which requires intent is handball- maybe that's what you are thinking of. General guideline. Careless = foul Reckless = yellow card Endangers safety/excessive force= red card

I agree it risks a red card, but what I'm asking is do you believe that accidentally putting another player in danger of getting seriously injured is a definite red card. See answer I gave above ^^ Otherwise the only time anyone would be sent off would be if they lamped someone or deliberately snapped them in half

Hardly any contact and no intent equals definite red card? a studs up dangerous challenge does But that basically means intent is now completely unimportant. An accident is a definite red if it could possibly hurt someone? I haven't watched the incident enough to decide if I believe there was intent by the way, I'm just referring to the post above which said he believed there was no intent but still a definite red card. there was no intent imo, but it was dangerous and worthy of a red card Ok, but could you answer my question. You're view is that if you accidentally put another player in danger of getting seriously injured you believe that's a definite red card? Yes- that is exactly what the law says. If you 'seriously endanger the safety of an opponent' you get a red card.

There's no mention of intent in the laws. Very few tackles are intended to hurt someone (with the exception of ones like Keane v Haaland), doesn't mean they can't be dangerous or cause injury.

Intent means nothing really tbh, it's all about whether the tackle is dangerous or made with excessive force.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/31/article-2225636-15C5F96D000005DC-234_306x423.jpg I hope this doesn't sound like I'm being shan, but that looks more like Ste than Michael Owen. I thought it was Scott Parker

Can we have a smiley of that bloke's face

Cristiano Ronaldo for Man U v Man City- there's a clip of it on YouTube. Tiote for us vs Stevenage two years back as well.

Agreed, it is a textbook definition of excessive force, contact and intent are irrelevant. Similar to Tiote's red card against Stevenage a few years back.

Was an awful tackle, clear red card

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2225515/Mark-Clattenburg-latest-Chelsea-race-case-jeopardy-John-Mikel-Obi-faces-disrepute-charge.html?ITO=1490&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Mourinhio got a two game touchline ban

That's the one. He had death threat directed towards not just him but his family too. Chelsea are right up there with the mackems when it comes to being scum. That aftermath of that game also involved Chelsea making false allegations about the referee which were later proven to be untrue.

Anders Frisk, Chelsea v Barcelona

They have probably heard what has been alleged and have reported it to the Police so that the Police will investigate it. Police often only investigate things where a complaint has been made. Also, this f***ing country at times. The f***ing hysteria. Racism is a problem because a bunch of whites kidnapped blacks, shipped them to the far corners of the world and made them work for nothing. Blacks were then systematically denied access to welfare and education which conveniently enabled a public perception amongst whites that they were inferior. This led to an understanding amongst whites that there was a genuine genetic inferiority in being black. This was obviously compounded by blacks only being able to achieve low social standing in Western society. This is a huge travesty and one that can't ever be justified. I appreciate thats a potted history that misses out of lot of things but can we not just have a bit of perspective. The hysteria and rhetoric that surrounds these allegations and instances (Suarez, Terry et al) does nothing to contribute to the race debate. It also creates an image of hyper-sensitivity which quite simply doesn't really exist in the day to day lives of most people. This is a bit of a rant but it f***s me off. The amount of fuss the media will make over something like this will far and away exceed the 100's of genuine injustices that happen day to day. We're just dumbing ourselves down. They should stay out of it imo, got fuck all to do with them, if the Chelsea players want to report it then that's up to them.

I just don't get it, they have fuck all to do with the case, how can they just chime in and say they want the police to investigate it?

Chelsea claim he called Mata a 'Spanish twat', none of the video clips that are being posted on YouTube look remotely convincing though.

Nice to see a bunch of lawyers making judgement on a case before it has started.

Association of Black Lawyers (who?) have reported the incident to the Metropolitan Police. Here we go again.. Wish people would get a life

Chelsea have form for this- they made similar claims about Graham Poll which were shown to be untrue. Think they're trying to send a message that they don't want him refereeing them again.