Guest sicko2ndbest Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 The law clearly states lunging at an opponent. In no way does cheik lunge at the opponent, and jonnys photos clearly back this up Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200711/r199159_760632.jpg If Belletti had attempted to head the ball there, would that have been a red card for Cahill as he wasn't in control and potentially endangering an opponent, even though he didn't hurt him? No, because the laws don't say "any overhead kick which is deemed dangerous is punishable by sending off". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PM Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Smith made a lunge like that at the ball early on, it was meant to be a pass but went out for a throw, I didn't see him get red carded like. I don't even know why I'm bothering, the FA are pricks and wouldn't ever rescind any red card of ours. Seem to remember Habib Beye's being rescinded in the relegation season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 The law clearly states lunging at an opponent. In no way does cheik lunge at the opponent, and jonnys photos clearly back this up He's off the ground! He doesn't walk up to the bloke and tap him on the shoulder, a couple of yards away he lifts his feet off the ground towards the ball/player - that's a 'lunge' in my books. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 The law clearly states lunging at an opponent. In no way does cheik lunge at the opponent, and jonnys photos clearly back this up He's off the ground! He doesn't walk up to the bloke and tap him on the shoulder, a couple of yards away he lifts his feet off the ground towards the ball/player - that's a 'lunge' in my books. Ball-yes Player-no. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 No, because the laws don't say "any overhead kick which is deemed dangerous is punishable by sending off". But it could be interpreted as a challenge if the defender's attempted to go for the ball too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan_Taylor Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 The law clearly states lunging at an opponent. In no way does cheik lunge at the opponent, and jonnys photos clearly back this up He's off the ground! He doesn't walk up to the bloke and tap him on the shoulder, a couple of yards away he lifts his feet off the ground towards the ball/player - that's a 'lunge' in my books. At the ball though, the player is 2 or 3 paces back, and as I'm writing this I'm realizing there is no way in hell this is getting rescinded Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sicko2ndbest Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Can't believe I'm doing this Driving a car = not illegal (making a tackle) Drink driving without killing someone = illegal (bad tackle without hurting someone) Drink driving killing someone = even more illegal (bad tackle whilst hurting someone) Just because something doesn't have a bad outcome it doesn't make the action without punishment. Yes, the tackle would have been worse if he'd broken his leg, but it doesn't make it OK cos he didn't! f***ing hell Btw does lunging at the far post when trying to get on the end of a cross, scoring the goal but following in on the keeper deserve a red? Nobody wanted to answe this one then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bealios Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Although I don't think it will be rescinded, once you go for a tackle, it doesn't matter how far off the ground you are, even at 1 inch of the ground you're still out of control. Dangerous precedent being set here though, we're basically saying that if you tackle and your foot is a certain height off the ground, you're off. How many inches is a red card? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Although I don't think it will be rescinded, once you go for a tackle, it doesn't matter how far off the ground you are, even at 1 inch of the ground you're still out of control. Dangerous precedent being set here though, we're basically saying that if you tackle and your foot is a certain height off the ground, you're off. How many inches is a red card? About 6 inches by 4? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 The problem is that we are looking at this in minute detail - down to the angle that the two players are coming together. I can just seen the FA being more simplistic about it, sitting down and just saying "Jump = Red. Let's go home." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 The problem is that we are looking at this in minute detail - down to the angle that the two players are coming together. I can just seen the FA being more simplistic about it, sitting down and just saying "Jump = Red. Let's go home." Exactly! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatwax Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Can't believe I'm doing this Driving a car = not illegal (making a tackle) Drink driving without killing someone = illegal (bad tackle without hurting someone) Drink driving killing someone = even more illegal (bad tackle whilst hurting someone) Just because something doesn't have a bad outcome it doesn't make the action without punishment. Yes, the tackle would have been worse if he'd broken his leg, but it doesn't make it OK cos he didn't! f***ing hell Btw does lunging at the far post when trying to get on the end of a cross, scoring the goal but following in on the keeper deserve a red? Nobody wanted to answe this one then? Because it's stupid. There's a difference between sticking your leg out to tap in a cross and flying into a tackle Kung Lao 'Mortal Kombat' style. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 The last time there was this much cuffle over was something intent of not was when Stevie Gee jumped to the deck when Chris Morgan went to tackle him. Match report + Rob Styles talking about intent. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/4786663.stm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 How can you intend to hurt a player by lunging for the ball and the player contesting the tackle is running next to you? I've seen this mentioned a few times. I'm completely baffled how anyone can say they're running next to each other or in the same direction. They come together at almost 90 degrees. No they don't In the last 5 metes they are virtually side by side. Tiote gets to the ball and is in the process of hooking the ball back with his heel as the Stevenage falls over the back of his legs. Watch it again then. Because Tiote runs AT him, they're never side by side. They'd only be side by side if Tiote was running from behind or in front - he comes from the other side of the pitch. NO. http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/3002/tiote.jpg Not side by side have some have said, but he does NOT run or lunge at the player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphrodite Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 As has been said, I think looking at this forensically using diagrams sort of misses the point. The referee only had a split-second to take the call and they're only going to overrule the decision if it's obviously wrong, which this thread has proved it isn't! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 How can you intend to hurt a player by lunging for the ball and the player contesting the tackle is running next to you? I've seen this mentioned a few times. I'm completely baffled how anyone can say they're running next to each other or in the same direction. They come together at almost 90 degrees. No they don't In the last 5 metes they are virtually side by side. Tiote gets to the ball and is in the process of hooking the ball back with his heel as the Stevenage falls over the back of his legs. Watch it again then. Because Tiote runs AT him, they're never side by side. They'd only be side by side if Tiote was running from behind or in front - he comes from the other side of the pitch. NO. http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/3002/tiote.jpg Not side by side have some have said, but he does NOT run or lunge at the player. But as I mentioned earlier, it doesn't really matter if he was lunging at the player or not. I don't think anyone so far has argued that Tiote went in to smash the lad or anything. However, what he did do was lunge recklessly into a 50/50 situation. Reckless = red. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 How can you intend to hurt a player by lunging for the ball and the player contesting the tackle is running next to you? I've seen this mentioned a few times. I'm completely baffled how anyone can say they're running next to each other or in the same direction. They come together at almost 90 degrees. No they don't In the last 5 metes they are virtually side by side. Tiote gets to the ball and is in the process of hooking the ball back with his heel as the Stevenage falls over the back of his legs. Watch it again then. Because Tiote runs AT him, they're never side by side. They'd only be side by side if Tiote was running from behind or in front - he comes from the other side of the pitch. NO. http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/3002/tiote.jpg Not side by side have some have said, but he does NOT run or lunge at the player. But as I mentioned earlier, it doesn't really matter if he was lunging at the player or not. I don't think anyone so far has argued that Tiote went in to smash the lad or anything. However, what he did do was lunge recklessly into a 50/50 situation. Reckless = red. It isn't 50-50 though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 As has been said, I think looking at this forensically using diagrams sort of misses the point. The referee only had a split-second to take the call and they're only going to overrule the decision if it's obviously wrong, which this thread has proved it isn't! Btw the fact that it's even in question whether it was a sending off or not merely confirms that they'll not rescind it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 haven't watched the game (don't plan to either), am entirely sober (just in from work) and will fast forward to the incident............. at full speed and the origainal angle it looks like a red card due to the jump and the height. now for the other angles and slow mo's.... no it's not. he goes for the ball with his right foot, his left being the other side of the man (ie tiotes side), his right foot makes only contact with the ball, not even a booking. get the appeal in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 How can you intend to hurt a player by lunging for the ball and the player contesting the tackle is running next to you? I've seen this mentioned a few times. I'm completely baffled how anyone can say they're running next to each other or in the same direction. They come together at almost 90 degrees. No they don't In the last 5 metes they are virtually side by side. Tiote gets to the ball and is in the process of hooking the ball back with his heel as the Stevenage falls over the back of his legs. Watch it again then. Because Tiote runs AT him, they're never side by side. They'd only be side by side if Tiote was running from behind or in front - he comes from the other side of the pitch. NO. http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/3002/tiote.jpg Not side by side have some have said, but he does NOT run or lunge at the player. But as I mentioned earlier, it doesn't really matter if he was lunging at the player or not. I don't think anyone so far has argued that Tiote went in to smash the lad or anything. However, what he did do was lunge recklessly into a 50/50 situation. Reckless = red. It isn't 50-50 though. Why did Tiote make a tackle at all then, if there was little or no chance of the other player beating him to the ball? How stupid is that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 PLUS...... this is NUFC we are talking about here, not MUFC. Upheld. (and I must admit I am desperately clinging on to the comments of the people aruging against the decision in the hope that a miracle can happen). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 haven't watched the game (don't plan to either), am entirely sober (just in from work) and will fast forward to the incident............. at full speed and the origainal angle it looks like a red card due to the jump and the height. now for the other angles and slow mo's.... no it's not. he goes for the ball with his right foot, his left being the other side of the man (ie tiotes side), his right foot makes only contact with the ball, not even a booking. get the appeal in. :slowclap: :slowclap: :slowclap: :slowclap: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foluwashola Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 The jump is deceiving, by the time the players actually come together it plays out it is a standard tackle that takes place numerous times throughout a game. He was slightly naive coming off the ground to begin with but don't think that actually affected the tackle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 How can you intend to hurt a player by lunging for the ball and the player contesting the tackle is running next to you? I've seen this mentioned a few times. I'm completely baffled how anyone can say they're running next to each other or in the same direction. They come together at almost 90 degrees. No they don't In the last 5 metes they are virtually side by side. Tiote gets to the ball and is in the process of hooking the ball back with his heel as the Stevenage falls over the back of his legs. Watch it again then. Because Tiote runs AT him, they're never side by side. They'd only be side by side if Tiote was running from behind or in front - he comes from the other side of the pitch. NO. http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/3002/tiote.jpg Not side by side have some have said, but he does NOT run or lunge at the player. But as I mentioned earlier, it doesn't really matter if he was lunging at the player or not. I don't think anyone so far has argued that Tiote went in to smash the lad or anything. However, what he did do was lunge recklessly into a 50/50 situation. Reckless = red. It isn't 50-50 though. Why did Tiote make a tackle at all then, if there was little or no chance of the other player beating him to the ball? How stupid is that? Jesus Wept. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now