Numbers Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 So let me get this right, because he left the ground its deemed reckless even tho he won the ball but the two bit tramp made a meal of it its red end of? These pricks are ruining football tbh. Soon they will be all running around in ballet pumps... Fa have no stones so its definately not gonna be overturned...just a bunch of mongs. We're getting there. So you think thats right do you? He won the ball,wasnt going for the man in a zillion years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foluwashola Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 So let me get this right, because he left the ground its deemed reckless even tho he won the ball but the two bit tramp made a meal of it its red end of? These pricks are ruining football tbh. Soon they will be all running around in ballet pumps... Fa have no stones so its definately not gonna be overturned...just a bunch of mongs. We're getting there. Nobody's disputing that it is "deemed reckless". The thing is the people who it is "deemed reckless" by are a bunch of fucking pansies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 I thought the punishment was based on what did happen not what might have happened. You can be punished on intent rather than on what actually happens. The intent was to win the ball without hurting their player. He did what he intended to do. Where's the red card offence there? In the lunge. Christ, I've repeated myself about 500 times now. He's lunging at him, and if he'd made contact with the player, he could have snapped his leg in two. The fact he didn't is irrelevant in the Rules of the Game. Whether you agree or not, thems the rules. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 So let me get this right, because he left the ground its deemed reckless even tho he won the ball but the two bit tramp made a meal of it its red end of? These pricks are ruining football tbh. Soon they will be all running around in ballet pumps... Fa have no stones so its definately not gonna be overturned...just a bunch of mongs. We're getting there. So you think thats right do you? He won the ball,wasnt going for the man in a zillion years. Nobody is saying it's right, but those are the rules. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sicko2ndbest Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 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. Okay, I definitely haven't seen it. Lol Interpretation is 1/10 truth 9/10 agenda As van wilder would say 'write that down' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 So let me get this right, because he left the ground its deemed reckless even tho he won the ball but the two bit tramp made a meal of it its red end of? These pricks are ruining football tbh. Soon they will be all running around in ballet pumps... Fa have no stones so its definately not gonna be overturned...just a bunch of mongs. We're getting there. So you think thats right do you? He won the ball,wasnt going for the man in a zillion years. Doesn't matter what you or I think. The rules say it's reckless and a red. Be angry at the rules, not me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 So let me get this right, because he left the ground its deemed reckless even tho he won the ball but the two bit tramp made a meal of it its red end of? These pricks are ruining football tbh. Soon they will be all running around in ballet pumps... Fa have no stones so its definately not gonna be overturned...just a bunch of mongs. We're getting there. Nobody's disputing that it is "deemed reckless". The thing is the people who it is "deemed reckless" by are a bunch of fucking pansies. In that case no-one is disputing it's a red then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphrodite Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 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! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketsbaia Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 football has gone insane Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 I thought the punishment was based on what did happen not what might have happened. You can be punished on intent rather than on what actually happens. The intent was to win the ball without hurting their player. He did what he intended to do. Where's the red card offence there? In the lunge. Christ, I've repeated myself about 500 times now. He's lunging at him, and if he'd made contact with the player, he could have snapped his leg in two. The fact he didn't is irrelevant in the Rules of the Game. Whether you agree or not, thems the rules. If he's in mid air when he hits the ball/player then aye I agree. Here though, when he gets to the ball he's in a position he'd have been in had he slid or made a block tackle, and the outcome was the same as if these two things had happened. As I said with overhead kicks in the penalty area from corners, etc...if a player connects with the ball and scores before the defender gets to head it, should he be sent-off in the same way as if he'd mistimed it and cracked the defender? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 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. You need to go to Specsavers. ASAP. http://i51.tinypic.com/27xgjtg.jpg http://i56.tinypic.com/2lm72nn.jpg http://i53.tinypic.com/14t7y49.jpg Running AT him. I think my glasses are fine mate. Thanks for the concern though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 That last picture is perfect, he's not running at him, the lad no longer has the ball under control. Not even a foul let alone a red card. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sicko2ndbest Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 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! Fucking hell That's me done 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? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 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! My example with the five year old waving the knife was better, tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foluwashola Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 So let me get this right, because he left the ground its deemed reckless even tho he won the ball but the two bit tramp made a meal of it its red end of? These pricks are ruining football tbh. Soon they will be all running around in ballet pumps... Fa have no stones so its definately not gonna be overturned...just a bunch of mongs. We're getting there. Nobody's disputing that it is "deemed reckless". The thing is the people who it is "deemed reckless" by are a bunch of fucking pansies. In that case no-one is disputing it's a red then? Well it's quite hard to dispute when the referee quite clearly pulled that little red thing from his pocket. Should it be a red card? Should it fuck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketsbaia Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 second one looks side by side, to be fair Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbers Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 So let me get this right, because he left the ground its deemed reckless even tho he won the ball but the two bit tramp made a meal of it its red end of? These pricks are ruining football tbh. Soon they will be all running around in ballet pumps... Fa have no stones so its definately not gonna be overturned...just a bunch of mongs. We're getting there. So you think thats right do you? He won the ball,wasnt going for the man in a zillion years. Doesn't matter what you or I think. The rules say it's reckless and a red. Be angry at the rules, not me. So let me get this right, because he left the ground its deemed reckless even tho he won the ball but the two bit tramp made a meal of it its red end of? These pricks are ruining football tbh. Soon they will be all running around in ballet pumps... Fa have no stones so its definately not gonna be overturned...just a bunch of mongs. We're getting there. So you think thats right do you? He won the ball,wasnt going for the man in a zillion years. Doesn't matter what you or I think. The rules say it's reckless and a red. Be angry at the rules, not me. Not angry at you mate, i would understand if he went flying in after a lunge at knee height, id even say ooof that was a bit naugty but really it wasnt anything like that. Cunts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphrodite 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! My example with the five year old waving the knife was better, tbh. Didn't see that. Have you considered a career as a lawyer? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 That last picture is perfect, he's not running at him, the lad no longer has the ball under control. Not even a foul let alone a red card. Aye, but he's still of the ground and lunging at player/ball. The referee deemed it 'dangerous play' and I can't see the FA panel disagreeing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 The panel who will decide the fate of the appeal are Steve Cram, Lee Dixon and the Villa fans with the 'sob on the tyne' banner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sicko2ndbest Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 That last picture is perfect, he's not running at him, the lad no longer has the ball under control. Not even a foul let alone a red card. Aye, but he's still of the ground and lunging at the ball. The referee deemed it 'dangerous play' and I can't see the FA panel disagreeing. Corrected Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbers Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 The panel who will decide the fate of the appeal are Steve Cram, Lee Dixon and the Villa fans with the 'sob on the tyne' banner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 So let me get this right, because he left the ground its deemed reckless even tho he won the ball but the two bit tramp made a meal of it its red end of? These pricks are ruining football tbh. Soon they will be all running around in ballet pumps... Fa have no stones so its definately not gonna be overturned...just a bunch of mongs. We're getting there. So you think thats right do you? He won the ball,wasnt going for the man in a zillion years. Doesn't matter what you or I think. The rules say it's reckless and a red. Be angry at the rules, not me. "Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play." Where in those photos has he lunged at the opponent? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PM Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Incidentally, the word intent is not in the laws when it comes to tackles. Intent is absolutely not an issue here, it doesn't matter whether he intended to win the ball, intended to snap the Stevenage player, whatever. Irrelevant. The key phrase here is "Any tackle which endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play." And by definition, a lunge where a player jumps a good couple of feet has to endanger the safety of an opponent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Is he fuck running at the player, he's running to get the ball, he jumps to get the ball, he gets the ball. 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