madras

How wasn't ours a penalty? Kirkland missed the ball and punched Carroll in the head! If that's not classed as a penalty then I'm stumped as to what is. cos it didn't seem anywhere near enough to impede the player and the keeper was going for the ball. other way round and you wouldn't say it was a pen. It doesn't matter if he was getting the ball or not. Keepers get away with stuff like all the time. Think that was the only good thing Dean did all match. Keepers get a free-kick for the slightest touch from a corner or whatever, and then he comes charging out, misses the ball, and punches a player in the head and expects to get away with it. didn't punch him.more of a swipe, and had the ball fell to carroll i very much doubt he'd have gone down. Now you're just being picky. A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player strikes or attempts to strike an opposing player. Kirkland didn't deliberately set out to hit him, but he did and was punished for it according to the letter of the law. thats like saying if any contact is made before contact with the ball then it's a free kick Isn't that pretty much the exact definition of a free-kick? watch a football match...thats covers almost every fair tackle No it's not. A fair tackle is when the balls taken first. A free-kick is when a defender goes through the player and then gets to the ball. so no nudges from the side,no using an arm or hand to fend someone off ? None of them are classed as 'a tackle'. When you attempt to tackle the ball but make contact with the player before the ball that's a direct free kick. how many times does the arm or hand make first contact with the opposing player during a tackle/tussle and it isn't a free kick,or the hips or knees ? i always think if a player uses his arms etc it's a free kick if it impedes the opposition...if not call it's basketball for feet. Yes but in this case the arm was being used to go for the ball as opposed to a foot. The hand missed the ball, hit the players face and impeded him. Penalty just as much as it would be if it were a foot missing the ball taking the player and impeding him. i see it more as the player makes an attempt for the ball,misses and touches the opposing player but nowhere near enough to impede him....however there was contact. i'd say no pen unless i see it again and think it impeded him. which i haven't saw on three watches. The penalty wasn't for impeding him, it was for striking him. It sounds picky, but there it is. was it ? then he should've been sent off for striking an opponent. (don't watch any corners ...your head will explode)

How wasn't ours a penalty? Kirkland missed the ball and punched Carroll in the head! If that's not classed as a penalty then I'm stumped as to what is. cos it didn't seem anywhere near enough to impede the player and the keeper was going for the ball. other way round and you wouldn't say it was a pen. It doesn't matter if he was getting the ball or not. Keepers get away with stuff like all the time. Think that was the only good thing Dean did all match. Keepers get a free-kick for the slightest touch from a corner or whatever, and then he comes charging out, misses the ball, and punches a player in the head and expects to get away with it. didn't punch him.more of a swipe, and had the ball fell to carroll i very much doubt he'd have gone down. Now you're just being picky. A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player strikes or attempts to strike an opposing player. Kirkland didn't deliberately set out to hit him, but he did and was punished for it according to the letter of the law. thats like saying if any contact is made before contact with the ball then it's a free kick Isn't that pretty much the exact definition of a free-kick? watch a football match...thats covers almost every fair tackle No it's not. A fair tackle is when the balls taken first. A free-kick is when a defender goes through the player and then gets to the ball. so no nudges from the side,no using an arm or hand to fend someone off ? None of them are classed as 'a tackle'. When you attempt to tackle the ball but make contact with the player before the ball that's a direct free kick. how many times does the arm or hand make first contact with the opposing player during a tackle/tussle and it isn't a free kick,or the hips or knees ? i always think if a player uses his arms etc it's a free kick if it impedes the opposition...if not call it's basketball for feet. Yes but in this case the arm was being used to go for the ball as opposed to a foot. The hand missed the ball, hit the players face and impeded him. Penalty just as much as it would be if it were a foot missing the ball taking the player and impeding him. i see it more as the player makes an attempt for the ball,misses and touches the opposing player but nowhere near enough to impede him....however there was contact. i'd say no pen unless i see it again and think it impeded him. which i haven't saw on three watches.

How wasn't ours a penalty? Kirkland missed the ball and punched Carroll in the head! If that's not classed as a penalty then I'm stumped as to what is. cos it didn't seem anywhere near enough to impede the player and the keeper was going for the ball. other way round and you wouldn't say it was a pen. It doesn't matter if he was getting the ball or not. Keepers get away with stuff like all the time. Think that was the only good thing Dean did all match. Keepers get a free-kick for the slightest touch from a corner or whatever, and then he comes charging out, misses the ball, and punches a player in the head and expects to get away with it. didn't punch him.more of a swipe, and had the ball fell to carroll i very much doubt he'd have gone down. Now you're just being picky. A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player strikes or attempts to strike an opposing player. Kirkland didn't deliberately set out to hit him, but he did and was punished for it according to the letter of the law. thats like saying if any contact is made before contact with the ball then it's a free kick Isn't that pretty much the exact definition of a free-kick? watch a football match...thats covers almost every fair tackle No it's not. A fair tackle is when the balls taken first. A free-kick is when a defender goes through the player and then gets to the ball. so no nudges from the side,no using an arm or hand to fend someone off ? None of them are classed as 'a tackle'. When you attempt to tackle the ball but make contact with the player before the ball that's a direct free kick. how many times does the arm or hand make first contact with the opposing player during a tackle/tussle and it isn't a free kick,or the hips or knees ? i always think if a player uses his arms etc it's a free kick if it impedes the opposition...if not call it's basketball for feet.

How wasn't ours a penalty? Kirkland missed the ball and punched Carroll in the head! If that's not classed as a penalty then I'm stumped as to what is. cos it didn't seem anywhere near enough to impede the player and the keeper was going for the ball. other way round and you wouldn't say it was a pen. It doesn't matter if he was getting the ball or not. Keepers get away with stuff like all the time. Think that was the only good thing Dean did all match. Keepers get a free-kick for the slightest touch from a corner or whatever, and then he comes charging out, misses the ball, and punches a player in the head and expects to get away with it. didn't punch him.more of a swipe, and had the ball fell to carroll i very much doubt he'd have gone down. Now you're just being picky. A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player strikes or attempts to strike an opposing player. Kirkland didn't deliberately set out to hit him, but he did and was punished for it according to the letter of the law. thats like saying if any contact is made before contact with the ball then it's a free kick Isn't that pretty much the exact definition of a free-kick? watch a football match...thats covers almost every fair tackle No it's not. A fair tackle is when the balls taken first. A free-kick is when a defender goes through the player and then gets to the ball. so no nudges from the side,no using an arm or hand to fend someone off ? If that hand or arm is clobbering a player in the head when the balls went past, then no. wasn't a clobbering. seems very much like a case of us therefore pen. then a few weeks down the line,identical situation, them therefore no pen

How wasn't ours a penalty? Kirkland missed the ball and punched Carroll in the head! If that's not classed as a penalty then I'm stumped as to what is. cos it didn't seem anywhere near enough to impede the player and the keeper was going for the ball. other way round and you wouldn't say it was a pen. It doesn't matter if he was getting the ball or not. Keepers get away with stuff like all the time. Think that was the only good thing Dean did all match. Keepers get a free-kick for the slightest touch from a corner or whatever, and then he comes charging out, misses the ball, and punches a player in the head and expects to get away with it. didn't punch him.more of a swipe, and had the ball fell to carroll i very much doubt he'd have gone down. Now you're just being picky. A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player strikes or attempts to strike an opposing player. Kirkland didn't deliberately set out to hit him, but he did and was punished for it according to the letter of the law. thats like saying if any contact is made before contact with the ball then it's a free kick Isn't that pretty much the exact definition of a free-kick? watch a football match...thats covers almost every fair tackle No it's not. A fair tackle is when the balls taken first. A free-kick is when a defender goes through the player and then gets to the ball. so no nudges from the side,no using an arm or hand to fend someone off ?

bassong...he was pulling him back for 20yds and everyone on here would be seething if it were the other way round. definite sending off but outside the box.

How wasn't ours a penalty? Kirkland missed the ball and punched Carroll in the head! If that's not classed as a penalty then I'm stumped as to what is. cos it didn't seem anywhere near enough to impede the player and the keeper was going for the ball. other way round and you wouldn't say it was a pen. It doesn't matter if he was getting the ball or not. Keepers get away with stuff like all the time. Think that was the only good thing Dean did all match. Keepers get a free-kick for the slightest touch from a corner or whatever, and then he comes charging out, misses the ball, and punches a player in the head and expects to get away with it. didn't punch him.more of a swipe, and had the ball fell to carroll i very much doubt he'd have gone down. Now you're just being picky. A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player strikes or attempts to strike an opposing player. Kirkland didn't deliberately set out to hit him, but he did and was punished for it according to the letter of the law. thats like saying if any contact is made before contact with the ball then it's a free kick Isn't that pretty much the exact definition of a free-kick? watch a football match...thats covers almost every fair tackle

How wasn't ours a penalty? Kirkland missed the ball and punched Carroll in the head! If that's not classed as a penalty then I'm stumped as to what is. cos it didn't seem anywhere near enough to impede the player and the keeper was going for the ball. other way round and you wouldn't say it was a pen. It doesn't matter if he was getting the ball or not. Keepers get away with stuff like all the time. Think that was the only good thing Dean did all match. Keepers get a free-kick for the slightest touch from a corner or whatever, and then he comes charging out, misses the ball, and punches a player in the head and expects to get away with it. didn't punch him.more of a swipe, and had the ball fell to carroll i very much doubt he'd have gone down. Now you're just being picky. A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player strikes or attempts to strike an opposing player. Kirkland didn't deliberately set out to hit him, but he did and was punished for it according to the letter of the law. thats like saying if any contact is made before contact with the ball then it's a free kick

didn't look much like a "clobber" to me. contact definitly but no way enough to impede him in any way.

How wasn't ours a penalty? Kirkland missed the ball and punched Carroll in the head! If that's not classed as a penalty then I'm stumped as to what is. cos it didn't seem anywhere near enough to impede the player and the keeper was going for the ball. other way round and you wouldn't say it was a pen. It doesn't matter if he was getting the ball or not. Keepers get away with stuff like all the time. Think that was the only good thing Dean did all match. Keepers get a free-kick for the slightest touch from a corner or whatever, and then he comes charging out, misses the ball, and punches a player in the head and expects to get away with it. didn't punch him.more of a swipe, and had the ball fell to carroll i very much doubt he'd have gone down.

Problem is, that tactic isn't allowed against Liverpool. Remember 3 or 4 years ago when Shearer & co kicked Arsenal off the park? I'd like a repeat of that please chaps. Just get into them from the first whistle and t*** them. i'd like to see us do that.

How wasn't ours a penalty? Kirkland missed the ball and punched Carroll in the head! If that's not classed as a penalty then I'm stumped as to what is. cos it didn't seem anywhere near enough to impede the player and the keeper was going for the ball. other way round and you wouldn't say it was a pen.

was a sending off (bassong) but wasn't a pen. not sure ours was a pen. cattermole didn't play the man in the way some are trying to make out and those on here saying he should have walked wouldn't be saying it had it been one of ours.

how about N'zogbia plays his best game for us this season on the left-wing then gets played LB when he's basically the worst full-back i've ever seen. incredible really so your blaming kinnear for enrique getting injured then in the warm up Of course he is. He's that bright so you agree that after N'zogbia played brilliantly at LW against Spurs he should moved to LB - a position he's absolutely woeful at??? Kinnear had so many better options. You dont put your most dangerous player at LB man, jesus. Even Edgar and Taylor are better in that position. n'zogbia wasn't brilliant against spurs,he's not our most dsangerous player and it was the obvious move that most would have went for. Who is our most dangerous player? gutierrez He's not like. At the moment, our most potent attacking threat (minus Martins) is Charlie getting to the by-line and fizzing crosses over at pace. Jonas could be but he absolutely refuses to cross the ball (or shoot) which defeats the point of beating people. n'zogbia done it against spurs. he also held on to the ball far too long too many times. i'll take jonas's head up looking for runs,like he did for owen at pompey and against stoke stoke each and every time. also he doesn't like to waste a ball. i can think of at least 2 fizzed crosses by n'zogbia (V spurs)when he had time to look up but hadn't...basically just giving the ball away. I'd rather he was doing that than not crossing at all - Viduka turned one of them into a sitter for Owen. Jonas did well for Owen at Pompey but after being gifted it in that position by a defensive error leaving a huge gap - it was hardly incisive vision. I like Jonas but he's nowhere near as dangerous as he should be and not as much a threat as Charlie. you'd rather he deliberatly played the ball to where he knew we had no one ? bizzarre (the viduka one i didn't include as on that occasion he played the ball towards our player) Where he knows we have no-one? No but into a dangerous area where one of our forwards should be gambling. no...for whatever reason if you look up and see there is no-one there you don't play it. there is a time for percentage balls ie when you have to hit it to stop it going out and can't get your foot round it. Obviously but Jonas NEVER crosses it. He's Dyer-esque in that sense, if he can't cross he needs to learn. he can cross...think martins second V villa. a damn sight more dangerous than n'zogbias as he actually aimed for someone as opposed to thumping it in hoping someone may get there. That's wasn't a cross, it was a pull back from the byline edge of the six yard box. Fair enough if he was doing that every game but that's the only time I can think that he's done it. very much like n'zogs fizzer than viduka nearly laid off to owen. n'zogbia never picks out a man.

how about N'zogbia plays his best game for us this season on the left-wing then gets played LB when he's basically the worst full-back i've ever seen. incredible really so your blaming kinnear for enrique getting injured then in the warm up Of course he is. He's that bright so you agree that after N'zogbia played brilliantly at LW against Spurs he should moved to LB - a position he's absolutely woeful at??? Kinnear had so many better options. You dont put your most dangerous player at LB man, jesus. Even Edgar and Taylor are better in that position. n'zogbia wasn't brilliant against spurs,he's not our most dsangerous player and it was the obvious move that most would have went for. Who is our most dangerous player? gutierrez He's not like. At the moment, our most potent attacking threat (minus Martins) is Charlie getting to the by-line and fizzing crosses over at pace. Jonas could be but he absolutely refuses to cross the ball (or shoot) which defeats the point of beating people. n'zogbia done it against spurs. he also held on to the ball far too long too many times. i'll take jonas's head up looking for runs,like he did for owen at pompey and against stoke stoke each and every time. also he doesn't like to waste a ball. i can think of at least 2 fizzed crosses by n'zogbia (V spurs)when he had time to look up but hadn't...basically just giving the ball away. I'd rather he was doing that than not crossing at all - Viduka turned one of them into a sitter for Owen. Jonas did well for Owen at Pompey but after being gifted it in that position by a defensive error leaving a huge gap - it was hardly incisive vision. I like Jonas but he's nowhere near as dangerous as he should be and not as much a threat as Charlie. you'd rather he deliberatly played the ball to where he knew we had no one ? bizzarre (the viduka one i didn't include as on that occasion he played the ball towards our player) Where he knows we have no-one? No but into a dangerous area where one of our forwards should be gambling. no...for whatever reason if you look up and see there is no-one there you don't play it. there is a time for percentage balls ie when you have to hit it to stop it going out and can't get your foot round it. Obviously but Jonas NEVER crosses it. He's Dyer-esque in that sense, if he can't cross he needs to learn. he can cross...think martins second V villa. a damn sight more dangerous than n'zogbias as he actually aimed for someone as opposed to thumping it in hoping someone may get there.

how about N'zogbia plays his best game for us this season on the left-wing then gets played LB when he's basically the worst full-back i've ever seen. incredible really so your blaming kinnear for enrique getting injured then in the warm up Of course he is. He's that bright so you agree that after N'zogbia played brilliantly at LW against Spurs he should moved to LB - a position he's absolutely woeful at??? Kinnear had so many better options. You dont put your most dangerous player at LB man, jesus. Even Edgar and Taylor are better in that position. n'zogbia wasn't brilliant against spurs,he's not our most dsangerous player and it was the obvious move that most would have went for. Who is our most dangerous player? gutierrez He's not like. At the moment, our most potent attacking threat (minus Martins) is Charlie getting to the by-line and fizzing crosses over at pace. Jonas could be but he absolutely refuses to cross the ball (or shoot) which defeats the point of beating people. n'zogbia done it against spurs. he also held on to the ball far too long too many times. i'll take jonas's head up looking for runs,like he did for owen at pompey and against stoke stoke each and every time. also he doesn't like to waste a ball. i can think of at least 2 fizzed crosses by n'zogbia (V spurs)when he had time to look up but hadn't...basically just giving the ball away. I'd rather he was doing that than not crossing at all - Viduka turned one of them into a sitter for Owen. Jonas did well for Owen at Pompey but after being gifted it in that position by a defensive error leaving a huge gap - it was hardly incisive vision. I like Jonas but he's nowhere near as dangerous as he should be and not as much a threat as Charlie. you'd rather he deliberatly played the ball to where he knew we had no one ? bizzarre (the viduka one i didn't include as on that occasion he played the ball towards our player) Where he knows we have no-one? No but into a dangerous area where one of our forwards should be gambling. no...for whatever reason if you look up and see there is no-one there you don't play it. there is a time for percentage balls ie when you have to hit it to stop it going out and can't get your foot round it.

how about N'zogbia plays his best game for us this season on the left-wing then gets played LB when he's basically the worst full-back i've ever seen. incredible really so your blaming kinnear for enrique getting injured then in the warm up Of course he is. He's that bright so you agree that after N'zogbia played brilliantly at LW against Spurs he should moved to LB - a position he's absolutely woeful at??? Kinnear had so many better options. You dont put your most dangerous player at LB man, jesus. Even Edgar and Taylor are better in that position. n'zogbia wasn't brilliant against spurs,he's not our most dsangerous player and it was the obvious move that most would have went for. Who is our most dangerous player? gutierrez He's not like. At the moment, our most potent attacking threat (minus Martins) is Charlie getting to the by-line and fizzing crosses over at pace. Jonas could be but he absolutely refuses to cross the ball (or shoot) which defeats the point of beating people. n'zogbia done it against spurs. he also held on to the ball far too long too many times. i'll take jonas's head up looking for runs,like he did for owen at pompey and against stoke stoke each and every time. also he doesn't like to waste a ball. i can think of at least 2 fizzed crosses by n'zogbia (V spurs)when he had time to look up but hadn't...basically just giving the ball away. I'd rather he was doing that than not crossing at all - Viduka turned one of them into a sitter for Owen. Jonas did well for Owen at Pompey but after being gifted it in that position by a defensive error leaving a huge gap - it was hardly incisive vision. I like Jonas but he's nowhere near as dangerous as he should be and not as much a threat as Charlie. you'd rather he deliberatly played the ball to where he knew we had no one ? bizzarre (the viduka one i didn't include as on that occasion he played the ball towards our player)

how about N'zogbia plays his best game for us this season on the left-wing then gets played LB when he's basically the worst full-back i've ever seen. incredible really so your blaming kinnear for enrique getting injured then in the warm up Of course he is. He's that bright so you agree that after N'zogbia played brilliantly at LW against Spurs he should moved to LB - a position he's absolutely woeful at??? Kinnear had so many better options. You dont put your most dangerous player at LB man, jesus. Even Edgar and Taylor are better in that position. n'zogbia wasn't brilliant against spurs,he's not our most dsangerous player and it was the obvious move that most would have went for. Who is our most dangerous player? gutierrez He's not like. At the moment, our most potent attacking threat (minus Martins) is Charlie getting to the by-line and fizzing crosses over at pace. Jonas could be but he absolutely refuses to cross the ball (or shoot) which defeats the point of beating people. n'zogbia done it against spurs. he also held on to the ball far too long too many times. i'll take jonas's head up looking for runs,like he did for owen at pompey and against stoke stoke each and every time. also he doesn't like to waste a ball. i can think of at least 2 fizzed crosses by n'zogbia (V spurs)when he had time to look up but hadn't...basically just giving the ball away.

He was certainly left back on at least one occasion, me and Duff11 (ironically) were on about it the other day. ventspils i think

how about N'zogbia plays his best game for us this season on the left-wing then gets played LB when he's basically the worst full-back i've ever seen. incredible really so your blaming kinnear for enrique getting injured then in the warm up Of course he is. He's that bright so you agree that after N'zogbia played brilliantly at LW against Spurs he should moved to LB - a position he's absolutely woeful at??? Kinnear had so many better options. You dont put your most dangerous player at LB man, jesus. Even Edgar and Taylor are better in that position. n'zogbia wasn't brilliant against spurs,he's not our most dsangerous player and it was the obvious move that most would have went for. Who is our most dangerous player? gutierrez

the only debate is wether jonas should have switched to help out n'zogbia at left back with duff or even geremi (was he on the bench ?) moving to the right.

how about N'zogbia plays his best game for us this season on the left-wing then gets played LB when he's basically the worst full-back i've ever seen. incredible really so your blaming kinnear for enrique getting injured then in the warm up Of course he is. He's that bright so you agree that after N'zogbia played brilliantly at LW against Spurs he should moved to LB - a position he's absolutely woeful at??? Kinnear had so many better options. You dont put your most dangerous player at LB man, jesus. Even Edgar and Taylor are better in that position. n'zogbia wasn't brilliant against spurs,he's not our most dsangerous player and it was the obvious move that most would have went for.

and the way they played up here till a non-sending off. I'm giving him no credit at all for the way they played up here, as I assume it was he who told his players to waste time from the moment they went in front, made all the worse by the fact it was about the 3rd f***ing minute. Never had my piss boiling so much when they had the ball they played well and till the sending off we weren't in the game.

and the way they played up here till a non-sending off.

Not the only thing damaging the game today to be fair. Also - were refs really that much better back in the day as it were? Due to my age I've only been watching the game since the 90s (and can't recall really seeing a major change in the overall quality of officials in that time). Seems like the glaring mistakes are happening week in week out rather than now and again. The game needs a video ref, the FA should just swallow their pride and follow Rugby Union/League/NFL/NHL etc where it works consistently well, will cut down the majority of the abuse players give the ref and the cards he ends up showing. I dont think ref's are that much worse but the level of the league has risen whilst referring has been static it should have been addressed a long time ago when they were given full time jobs, says more about the FA's inability to act on the matter than the fact officiating has been bad for years. The pro's of having a video ref greatly out weigh the cons IMO. depends what for. even in those sports mentioned the use of a video ref are severly limited. i don't mind technology being used for "over the line or not" type incidents but if it's brought in for penalties etc each corner will take 40mins by the time each bit of contact has been analysed and it's decided which was first.