snakehips 0 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 No surprise it has been upheld by the lilly-livered mongrels at Wembley. However, let me paint a picture for you: 2018 World Cup final. England v Argentina. 0-0. The last minute of extra time; we're heading for penalties (that's pelanties, Stevie). Dan Gosling shoots from just inside the box on the right hand side. The ball hits the bar and then bounces across goal. The England number 9, a Mr A. Carroll launches himself (you know where I'm going with this) at the ball and bundles it in with his feet, just before the defender gets to it. GOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLL we all shout. "No goal," says the FA in unison, "he was off the ground." "hokay meesers FA. Thenk you so much, you are soo vry nice" say the astonished Argentinians who promptly take the ball up the other end and score. NOT ON YOUR FUCKIN' NELLY. THAT WOULD BE A GOAL AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT. THE STEVENAGE PLAYER DID NOT HAVE THE BALL. I rest, m'lud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toon_Man 0 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Next three matches will be very tough now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 dreading the sunderland match now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 6432 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) The F.A are about as consistent as a tourrettes sufferer playing scrabble. They are sticking by the ref and they aren't going into it further. They have offered no explanation or reasoning as per usual. They clearly don't care about the incident or the consequences and they simply want it to fade out. Just look at the De Jong challenge, they just stick by the ref and sweep it under the carpet. Nice analogy but I can't tell if that means consistent or inconsitent? Flaps 15 pts Cunt 28 pts Wankers 72 pts Norks 18 pts Dirtbox 69 seems a canny player to me. Edited January 11, 2011 by trophyshy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 The F.A are about as consistent as a tourrettes sufferer playing scrabble. They are sticking by the ref and they aren't going into it further. They have offered no explanation or reasoning as per usual. They clearly don't care about the incident or the consequences and they simply want it to fade out. Just look at the De Jong challenge, they just stick by the ref and sweep it under the carpet. Nice analogy but I can't tell if that means consistent or inconsitent? Flaps 15 pts Cunt 28 pts Wankers 72 pts Norks 18 pts Dirtbox 69 seems a canny player to me. Surely there's more points for inconsistent?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bizza 105 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Never mind, was worth a punt. We should count ourselves lucky they didn't extend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 133 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Heard it said on a podcast this week, which I agreed with to a certain extent, that it seems the whole approach to the tolerance of tackles has changed since the Eduardo incident, of course with the exception of De Jong, which makes all the more unpalatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest You FCB Get Out Of Our Club Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Heard it said on a podcast this week, which I agreed with to a certain extent, that it seems the whole approach to the tolerance of tackles has changed since the Eduardo incident, of course with the exception of De Jong, which makes all the more unpalatable. There was one on Robbie Savage last night which was as bad as you'll ever see, looked a nailed on leg breaker, and the bloke got off scott free. Regretably Savage is fine though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19720 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Heard it said on a podcast this week, which I agreed with to a certain extent, that it seems the whole approach to the tolerance of tackles has changed since the Eduardo incident, of course with the exception of De Jong, which makes all the more unpalatable. There was one on Robbie Savage last night which was as bad as you'll ever see, looked a nailed on leg breaker, and the bloke got off scott free. Regretably Savage is fine though. desveres a broken leg for the armani tatoo alone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 You could break his neck and he'd still run around spouting s*** - he has no brain at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 6129 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 No surprise here, further proof that the FA will sit on their hands in defense of their referees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMoog 0 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 We all know the FA's a bunch of clowns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bob Almighty! 0 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I was gutted when I found out about the appeal. I can sort of understand why it wasnt rescinded though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 6129 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Some more images of the incident. ..and some decent footage of it from 12:00 minutes... http://rutube.ru/tracks/3966724.html?v=f68...;bmstart=720240 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpneumonic 0 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 A ref's perspective from football365.com "We had a period of time at the start of the season where all the focus was on bad tackles for a few weeks. This week, as well as the Gerrard incident, we saw Cheik Tiote sent off in Newcastle's dismal defeat at Stevenage. We have a real issue now with another lazy phrase which is creeping into commentators, fans and pundits parlance. 'You can't leave the ground' is the new 'you can't raise your hands' - and is equally asinine. You are allowed to strap on your back a harness and a jet pack as long as when the actual challenge comes in you are safe with it. It is possible. It is harder, I'll admit, to be safe if you are taking off at pace, but not impossible. The angle of the challenge makes a huge difference. A jumping tackle face on is much more dangerous that one where you are going round the side. Tiote did exactly that - he took off when round the opponent in the air and hooked his foot around. Not only did I not think it was a red card, I didn't think it was a foul. You have to ignore the portion where he is airborne, and just watch the tackle. There is nothing wrong with it. A foul tackle which earns you a red card is defined as serious foul play. The definition in the Law Book of serious foul play is one which is very easy to make your own interpretation of. Here's how it starts: 'A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play.' I wouldn't say that Tiote used excessive force or brutality. Nowhere near it. But the definition continues: 'A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play.' This is where you will get discrepancies. Clearly referee Andre Marriner and his assistant took the view that Tiote endangered the safety of his opponent. I just think that was very harsh, because although his technique was unorthodox, when I break it down I can find little wrong." Make of that what you will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26144 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 That seems like a rationale explanation to me, however, he has the benefit of being able to see it replayed several times whereas Mariner had to make a quick decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 That seems like a rationale explanation to me, however, he has the benefit of being able to see it replayed several times whereas Mariner had to make a quick decision. Hence the appeals process, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 As I said, not a foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 5881 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Some more images of the incident. ..and some decent footage of it from 12:00 minutes... http://rutube.ru/tracks/3966724.html?v=f68...;bmstart=720240 No-one is arguing there is anything wrong with those 3 images, it's the 6 before when he was soaring through the air like Superman that are the issue. I still maintain that once both feet leave the ground you are no longer in control of your tackle. If the Stevenage player had got there a fraction earlier there is no way Tiote could have pulled out and it could have been nasty. More luck than judgement. People are banging on like Tiote could never in a million years mistime a tackle and he's an artist when it comes to timing tackles and winning the ball. Yet this is the same bloke who had 8 yellows by christmas for late tackles and nearly snapped Elano's leg in 2 at the world cup and had people on this very board saying how terrible a tackle that was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 You're just putting words in people's mouths there, KD. I'm only on about this specific incident, which is all he should be judged on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26144 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 That seems like a rationale explanation to me, however, he has the benefit of being able to see it replayed several times whereas Mariner had to make a quick decision. Hence the appeals process, no? The appeals process will generally only allow and appeal if it's reasonably black and white, as this guy says, the Tiote tackle was open to interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 5881 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 You're just putting words in people's mouths there, KD. I'm only on about this specific incident, which is all he should be judged on. Like I said earlier, maybe it's because I had my ankle fucked by a very similar challenge but I'm all for stamping out tackles where both feet leave the ground, regardless of the end product. The 70's and 80's weren't glory days of tackling imo and plenty of players had there careers ended by daft tackles back then. Football evolves every decade and whilst it shouldn't be a non contact sport players should expect to be able to walk the next day. There's no distinction between flying in and getting the ball and flying in and getting the man. They are both dangerous and both have no place in the modern game anymore. Ask these blokes if they think Tiote should have been sent off. All 3 tackles were intended to get the ball btw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 So are you now judging Tiote on tackles made by other people? Even less relevent to the incident in question if so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 5881 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Not like you to purposefully miss my point Alex. I'll say it again slowly. That type of tackling is banned. Not legal if you get the ball or illegal if you don't. Its illegal full stop. Once you leave the floor you can no longer pull out of your challenge. The above 3 pictures are of challenges by players who went in for the ball but due to their recklessness endangered another man's profession It's like getting caught driving at 120mph and saying, well I didn't crash so what's the issue? The issue is next time you might crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 I accept your view re: Tiote's tackle, KD. I just happen to disagree with it. What I don't accept is using other incidents as examples because Tiote's tackle was different to those for reasons already gone over in this thread. I think you know me well enough to know I don't like dirty players and I don't like to see players get injured as a result of bad tackles. Btw, the 1st and 3rd pictures relate to incidents which you could never legislate for, i.e. a quick-footed player beating a man already comitted to the tackle. They are very unfortunate but just one of those things. None of the 3 examples are anything like the Tiote tackle either imo. Link to comment 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