ChezGiven 0 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Wrong KD, you can leave the floor challenging for a header so that clearly isnt the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7011 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 You know you have lost an argument when you start playing the semantics game tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7286 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. You're wrong. You've heard it from referees, etc. It's not a tackle and it's not a challenge, Tiote is going for a ball that noone is in possession of. He gets to the ball first. End of story. The above challenges are completely different as they all go directly into the player. Tiote goes directly into the ball, then contact occurs because the Stevenage player is continuing on his run. Factually it is the Stevenage player that initiates the contact against Tiote who is in possession of the ball. I can't see what Tiote's history and tackles by other players have to do with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7011 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. But who was to say the player wasn't going to have a burst of pace and toe the ball forward and plant his foot just as Tiote got there? I know if I see a player bombing in to get the ball I'll always make sure I get something on it to make sure he doesnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 You know you have lost an argument when you start playing the semantics game tbh You are quoting nonexistent rules in order to win an argument tbf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7286 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 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. It's like punching the air in celebration, then getting charged because you could have potentially hit someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7286 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 But who was to say the player wasn't going to have a burst of pace and toe the ball forward and plant his foot just as Tiote got there? I know if I see a player bombing in to get the ball I'll always make sure I get something on it to make sure he doesnt. You're right, we should judge him on what didn't happen, rather than what actually did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7011 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. You're wrong. You've heard it from referees, etc. It's not a tackle and it's not a challenge, Tiote is going for a ball that noone is in possession of. He gets to the ball first. End of story. The above challenges are completely different as they all go directly into the player. Tiote goes directly into the ball, then contact occurs because the Stevenage player is continuing on his run. Factually it is the Stevenage player that initiates the contact against Tiote who is in possession of the ball. I can't see what Tiote's history and tackles by other players have to do with this? I give up tbh What counts as being in possession? The ball isn't glued to your foot. The Stevenage player had the ball and was dribbling with it. You have to knock the ball forward and run after it or else you would just be stood there with your foot on the ball 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. But who was to say the player wasn't going to have a burst of pace and toe the ball forward and plant his foot just as Tiote got there? I know if I see a player bombing in to get the ball I'll always make sure I get something on it to make sure he doesnt. I'm not even referring to the Tiote tackle in the bit you've highlighted so I'm going to leave this as an agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7011 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 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. It's like punching the air in celebration, then getting charged because you could have potentially hit someone. You're undoing Alex's hard work tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7286 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 What counts as being in possession? The ball isn't glued to your foot. The Stevenage player had the ball and was dribbling with it. You have to knock the ball forward and run after it or else you would just be stood there with your foot on the ball The ball was in Tiote's possession (under his foot) when the contact occurred. Prior to that noone was in contact with the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7286 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 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. It's like punching the air in celebration, then getting charged because you could have potentially hit someone. You're undoing Alex's hard work tbh Because Alex has as much to do with your shite analogy as Tiote has to do with Eduardo being tackled. There's no limit on how fast you can run, jump etc in football so your analogy doesn't work. Driving at 120mph is illegal, running and jumping at whatever speed you like isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21861 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Why is this thread still rumbling on? It was a blatant red card and was never going to be rescinded in a million years. End of thread tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) Why is this thread still rumbling on? It was a blatant red card and was never going to be rescinded in a million years. End of thread tbh Because the debate was reopened by a qualified ref on F365 saying he didn't think it was a red card (or a foul for that matter). It's obviously open to debate about the interpretation of the law in question as well, as evidenced by his comments and those in the thread. Edited January 13, 2011 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Why is this thread still rumbling on? It was a blatant red card and was never going to be rescinded in a million years. End of thread tbh You're not the boss of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21861 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 I said end of thread children. Don't make me come over there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Hark at Big Daddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7011 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Why is this thread still rumbling on? It was a blatant red card and was never going to be rescinded in a million years. End of thread tbh Because the debate was reopened by a qualified ref on F365 saying he didn't think it was a red card (or a foul for that matter). It's obviously open to debate about the interpretation of the law in question as well, as evidenced by his comments and those in the thread. The ref who sent him off was qualified too tbf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Why is this thread still rumbling on? It was a blatant red card and was never going to be rescinded in a million years. End of thread tbh Because the debate was reopened by a qualified ref on F365 saying he didn't think it was a red card (or a foul for that matter). It's obviously open to debate about the interpretation of the law in question as well, as evidenced by his comments and those in the thread. The ref who sent him off was qualified too tbf Shows how open to debate it is then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 You know you have lost an argument when you start playing the semantics game tbh This is absolute bollocks. The semantics involved are absolutely crucial in determining where and when a law applies. 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