User Tag List

Page 18 of 22 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 211

Thread: Match reaction vs Chavs

  1. #171
    Wibble Coney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,162
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Niall_Quinn View Post
    No, because he'd be queuing in an offside position the whole match.
    But will he be active?

  2. #172
    Goat Balls fakeyank's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Punjab
    Posts
    7,009
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Syn View Post
    He was great in this game. A superb defender.

    Isnt that considered a red card tackle? Studs up and all?

    Either way, it looks freaking awesome.. one of the best players for Arsenal this season!

  3. #173
    Tennis Expert Syn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    10,502
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Dunno, maybe. It's hard to tell how close Koscielny was to Sturridge from that angle. He might be well in front of him - so it's not like Sturridge jumped over him; he's just holding back from going to the ball.

    But even if he was in line, we'll never know because Sturridge isn't a team player and won't sacrifice a broken leg to leave Chelsea's rivals missing their best CB then. The selfish twat.

  4. #174
    Member Olivier's xmas twist's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    16,417
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by fakeyank View Post
    Isnt that considered a red card tackle? Studs up and all?
    Either way, it looks freaking awesome.. one of the best players for Arsenal this season!
    No as The Commentator saidm Kos got his footing just right, had he mis timed it he could have been off.

  5. #175
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    31,840
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Letters View Post
    Theo limped straight off, I don't think he came back on? Pretty sure he was immediately substituted.
    Nope. He pulled it. Was clear as day it was his hamstring. Went off and limping badly and was then put back on by the worst medical staff in the business imo and he broke down and hes now out for the rest of the games we have meaning Gervinho plays and hes shit

    Thanks Wenger

  6. #176
    Wibble Coney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,162
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie the Gooner View Post
    No as The Commentator saidm Kos got his footing just right, had he mis timed it he could have been off.
    It is also clear - see where he is looking - that he is targetting and aiming for the ball, after which his foot starts to come down - he is guiding it away with no intent to hit the other player. Worst case is that he could be considered a bit reckless. When Balotelli tackled Song the other week, he kept his foot up and if you see where he is looking, he is not aiming at the ball - there is definite intent to hit Song's leg. That is why the idea of such incidents not being reviewed after the game - even if the ref says he saw it - is ludicrous.

  7. #177
    Tennis Expert Syn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    10,502
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Coney View Post
    It is also clear - see where he is looking - that he is targetting and aiming for the ball, after which his foot starts to come down - he is guiding it away with no intent to hit the other player. Worst case is that he could be considered a bit reckless. When Balotelli tackled Song the other week, he kept his foot up and if you see where he is looking, he is not aiming at the ball - there is definite intent to hit Song's leg. That is why the idea of such incidents not being reviewed after the game - even if the ref says he saw it - is ludicrous.
    I don't think intent is relevant but what works in Kos' favour is that the ball was in the air - if Sturridge went for it, he'd have to jump for it anyway, so Kos can't make any contact with a standing leg. In some ways, it's similar to how Van Persie broke his foot in 2009 from Cheillini's (? sp?) challenge...they're both taking a risk. But the ball wasn't on the ground and Kos didn't go over the ball. I don't think there is much danger as long as he gets the ball. If he doesn't get it and Sturridge goes for it, it could be nasty. But he did get the ball so who gives a fuck. You don't award penalties on the basis that 'if he didn't time it properly, it'd be a foul'.

  8. #178
    Wibble Coney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,162
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Syn View Post
    I don't think intent is relevant but what works in Kos' favour is that the ball was in the air - if Sturridge went for it, he'd have to jump for it anyway, so Kos can't make any contact with a standing leg. In some ways, it's similar to how Van Persie broke his foot in 2009 from Cheillini's (? sp?) challenge...they're both taking a risk. But the ball wasn't on the ground and Kos didn't go over the ball. I don't think there is much danger as long as he gets the ball. If he doesn't get it and Sturridge goes for it, it could be nasty. But he did get the ball so who gives a fuck. You don't award penalties on the basis that 'if he didn't time it properly, it'd be a foul'.
    Intent is highly relevant in cleaning up the game.

    You don't award penalties on the basis that 'if he didn't time it properly, it'd be a foul'
    In a sense, yes. However, if the player is overly reckless, then it needs penalising. A reckless tackle is a cardable offence, thus a foul and therefore if it happens in the box, it is a penalty.

    If two players both 'recklessly' go for a ball then I don't see how you could award a foul either way on that basis, though. It has to be one-sided to be penalised, I reckon.

  9. #179
    Tennis Expert Syn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    10,502
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Intent is pretty much impossible to prove though. I agree that you shouldn't look at the result. I think the only thing that should be looked at is if it's dangerous. Not intent. Not the result. You can bet that if Balotelli had snapped Song's leg, the same challenge would've got a red card. Intent might've been more easy to see in that case but in Shawcross or Taylor's case, you can't accuse them of intent. Only stupidity - and that's what should be punished.

  10. #180
    Member Kano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    10,319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Coney View Post
    Intent is highly relevant in cleaning up the game.



    In a sense, yes. However, if the player is overly reckless, then it needs penalising. A reckless tackle is a cardable offence, thus a foul and therefore if it happens in the box, it is a penalty.

    If two players both 'recklessly' go for a ball then I don't see how you could award a foul either way on that basis, though. It has to be one-sided to be penalised, I reckon.
    referees can award a penalty without contact.

    the rules state that kicking or attempting to kick or stop an opponent in the box can be a foul.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •