shackbleep 0 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Now i've seen it again it's even more a clear cut red card. Reckless lunge and both feet were off the ground - applying the letter of today's law it's a certain red, regardless of how many feet made contact. Appeal is in and will be dealt with under the fast-track system so a result will be known before Sunday. It's not inconceivable that the ban will be extended. I'd like it to be overturned but I'm almost certain it'll be upheld. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Now i've seen it again it's even more a clear cut red card. Reckless lunge and both feet were off the ground - applying the letter of today's law it's a certain red, regardless of how many feet made contact. Appeal is in and will be dealt with under the fast-track system so a result will be known before Sunday. It's not inconceivable that the ban will be extended. I'd like it to be overturned but I'm almost certain it'll be upheld. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shackbleep 0 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Gemmill's mention of the Karl Henry thing is spot on. So is the mention of De Jong. We all demanded that both should have been sent off and their challenges were on a par with Tiote's yesterday. People claiming he should have stayed on the pitch because those two did quite frankly need to have a word with themselves. Gerrard was sent off today for an almost identical challenge today - don't see many on here complaining about that one. While we're at it, I think Barton was bloody lucky to escape last week. If I had to judge with bias to one side he should have walked too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Gemmill's mention of the Karl Henry thing is spot on. So is the mention of De Jong. We all demanded that both should have been sent off and their challenges were on a par with Tiote's yesterday. People claiming he should have stayed on the pitch because those two did quite frankly need to have a word with themselves. Gerrard was sent off today for an almost identical challenge today - don't see many on here complaining about that one. While we're at it, I think Barton was bloody lucky to escape last week. If I had to judge with bias to one side he should have walked too. Is it fuck comparable to De Jong's challenge. Tiote quite clearly went for and got the ball. Whereas you could see the intent from De Jong was to intimidate Ben Arfa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Totally agree like, he went for the ball and won it. It's the sort of tackle where you have to get the ball or you're in bother but he did get the ball. I thought it was a fucking great tackle tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shackbleep 0 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 He lunged in with two feet off the ground. Under the current rulings that's a red card offence. If it had been the other way we'd have been screaming for a red card and rightly so. Shit loads of black and white tinted specs in here like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shackbleep 0 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Totally agree like, he went for the ball and won it. It's the sort of tackle where you have to get the ball or you're in bother but he did get the ball. I thought it was a fucking great tackle tbh. 15-20 years ago I'd agree with you. Not these days though sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Totally agree like, he went for the ball and won it. It's the sort of tackle where you have to get the ball or you're in bother but he did get the ball. I thought it was a fucking great tackle tbh. In recent years I think I've only seen Beye who times a tackle better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 He lunged in with two feet off the ground. Under the current rulings that's a red card offence. If it had been the other way we'd have been screaming for a red card and rightly so. Shit loads of black and white tinted specs in here like. It's got nothing to do with black and white tinted specs. It was a fantastically timed tackle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 He lunged in with two feet off the ground. Under the current rulings that's a red card offence. If it had been the other way we'd have been screaming for a red card and rightly so. Shit loads of black and white tinted specs in here like. If it had been the other way round I'd have said exactly the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shackbleep 0 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 He lunged in with two feet off the ground. Under the current rulings that's a red card offence. If it had been the other way we'd have been screaming for a red card and rightly so. Shit loads of black and white tinted specs in here like. It's got nothing to do with black and white tinted specs. It was a fantastically timed tackle. 2 feet were off the deck - it was reckless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 He lunged in with two feet off the ground. Under the current rulings that's a red card offence. If it had been the other way we'd have been screaming for a red card and rightly so. Shit loads of black and white tinted specs in here like. It's got nothing to do with black and white tinted specs. It was a fantastically timed tackle. 2 feet were off the deck - it was reckless. Yet he timed it to perfection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shackbleep 0 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 He lunged in with two feet off the ground. Under the current rulings that's a red card offence. If it had been the other way we'd have been screaming for a red card and rightly so. Shit loads of black and white tinted specs in here like. It's got nothing to do with black and white tinted specs. It was a fantastically timed tackle. 2 feet were off the deck - it was reckless. Yet he timed it to perfection. Aye but it's still a red card offence these days. I don't like the rules any more than you lot but i acknowledge that that's the reason he was sent off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 I acknowledge that's why he was sent off as well. I still don't agree with it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shackbleep 0 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 In that respect do you reckon Gerrard should have stayed on the pitch today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 (edited) He didn't extend his legs until he was sure he could get the ball before the man; he was in complete control of the situation imo, as demonstrated by the fact that he won the ball cleanly and made little contact with the player - not that that stopped him feigning injury. I'm not a fan of this, "Me very sorry, umbongo," type statement, as it is essentially an admission of guilt and will kill our hopes of appealing. Obviously Pardew has asked him to make this statement. Edited January 9, 2011 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 In that respect do you reckon Gerrard should have stayed on the pitch today? No. Because unlike Tiote his tackle was late and he quite clearly never got the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7280 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Totally agree like, he went for the ball and won it. It's the sort of tackle where you have to get the ball or you're in bother but he did get the ball. I thought it was a fucking great tackle tbh. On par with Beye who came diving across to poke the ball away from Robinho against Man City in 2008. Ref from a bad position (lazy carnt) gave it a red. Upon review it was rescinded being adjudged to have been the fantastic tackle that it was. One problem with Tiote is his horrible record of mostly innocuous yellows. That would have worked against him with the decision being made on the pitch as well IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7009 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Totally agree like, he went for the ball and won it. It's the sort of tackle where you have to get the ball or you're in bother but he did get the ball. I thought it was a fucking great tackle tbh. In recent years I think I've only seen Beye who times a tackle better. Elano would disagree tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7280 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 He lunged in with two feet off the ground. Under the current rulings that's a red card offence. Honest question here, can you please link me to this rule - I looked for it and could not find it. If it had been the other way we'd have been screaming for a red card and rightly so. Can't agree with that. Shit loads of black and white tinted specs in here like. Nor that. Their player made a blatant meal of it and as I said got to the ball second. There's a massive difference in coming in two footed towards a player, and coming in two footed at the ball. The bad tackles are the ones where players use extra force/propulsion to come through other players to get the ball, not when the same force/propulsion is applied in getting to the ball first. The facts count for nothing though, the FA won't rescind the card because they're a bunch of impotent bureaucrats. If Marriner (cunt) had of not given a foul/card then they would have done the same and sat on their hands, which highlights the hypocrisy. In all cases exlcuding the most obvious they'll side with the referee. Case in point being De Jong's "challenge' on Ben Arfa where excessive force was applied going through our player and the FA did nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7009 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Theres no distinction in the laws of the game between jumping in 2 footed and winning the ball and jumping in 2 footed and missing the ball. Both are illegal. If you made it legal to jump in with both feet everyone would be at it and claiming they were going for the ball and we would see 50 broken legs a season. Im not sure what people cant understand about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 He went in with one foot. Technically when he jumped, neither leg was extended, he did not extend his legs until he was sure he could take the ball before the man, thus reducing the risk of injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 He went in with one foot. Technically when he jumped, neither leg was extended, he did not extend his legs until he was sure he could take the ball before the man, thus reducing the risk of injury. That's what I thought as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7280 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Theres no distinction in the laws of the game between jumping in 2 footed and winning the ball and jumping in 2 footed and missing the ball. Both are illegal. Can you please show me where you are getting these rules from? It's not legal to 'jump in' to a player, with two feet, or one foot or even no feet, it's not a case of jumping in to another player, it's a case of coming in to get the ball which their player didn't even have at the time. If you made it legal to jump in with both feet everyone would be at it and claiming they were going for the ball and we would see 50 broken legs a season. Im not sure what people cant understand about this? Noone is disputing anything like that. Like I said it's illegal to jump into a player at all, regardless of feet. You need to clarify the circumstances you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shackbleep 0 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 He connected with one foot. He jumped in with two. The dim view is taken by the fact that there isn't a standing foot as both are of the ground thus increasing the force of the challenge. 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