Football 2011-2012

[eFestivals]

Simple facts are. He was in the air, both feet, studs up. If he had made contact it would have very easily been a broken leg or worse.

These are red card offences all day, and have been for ages.

If he made contact he'd have to have waited for half an hour for Nani to be there to make contact with. It's only dangerous play if there's a player being put in danger, which very definitely wasn't the case with this.

It was less dangerous than the Rodwell card that got recinded, so such things are not red card offences all day, they're not even red cards after slow motion replays.

And you sound a complete muppet saying every kick would be a red. There is a difference between a strong legal challenge, and diving in on a player. He is a world class premiership defender, he should not be diving in like that!!

the muppet is you thinking there was any seriopusness to that comment.

And how the fuck can any player dive in on a player that'sd ten yards away from where he's diving to? Nani only arrived at the potential pplace of contact long after Kompany had moved on the ball - which is why Nani, the biggest girlie cheat in the world at playing up fouls, didn't think it was a foul.

I thought the ref was terrible in the game but he at least got that decision correct.

that was wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

In fact I would rather the game stayed an 11 v 11. Utd were already 1 - 0 up, would have been interesting to see how it panned out.

PMSL .... Utd might have won, it's not like it's never heard of for them to win games where the other team dominates as City were doing.... but I'd have be hugely surprised if they did do.

Edited January 10, 2012 by eFestivals

[Jaybles]

If he made contact he'd have to have waited for half an hour for Nani to be there to make contact with. It's only dangerous play if there's a player being put in danger, which very definitely wasn't the case with this.

It was less dangerous than the Rodwell card that got recinded, so such things are not red card offences all day, they're not even red cards after slow motion replays.

[Ed209]

Long term damage, ending a football career!

[jammy2211]

Hughes at QPR. Seems a bit odd to me, he left Fulham because of their supposed lack of ambition, but QPR aren't going to be giving him stupid money to spend, and are a lot further away than Fulham from the top atm. I mean, Fulham could make a reasonable attempt at a cup every season, occassionally the Europa League, QPR are hoping to remain in the Prem and possibly build.

[Jaybles]

Oh I see. I thought you meant kompany could have killed him or something.

That tackle was never in danger of hurting anyone because there was no one near enough to get hurt. Who knows, If it had been a direct 50-50 with Nani then Kompany might never have lunged like that

[eFestivals]

You are right........... Definitely half an hour away......my mistake.

far enough away that the only contact between the players was Nani running into the side of Kompany, a mile away from the risk of any damage from Kompany's feet.

It is nothing like the Rodwell challenge, purely because Rodwell was not in the air. It is not hard to understand.

There was a long discussion here about the Rodwell thing, where I demonstrated (while not thnking it a red) via stills from the footage just how much he was in the air and just how high his feet were. Kompany was nearer the ground with both.

If Nani had been in the place where Kompany lu7nged towards I'd have no problem with it being a red. But he was a mile away, there was zero chance of a leg-breaker.

Which is why the biggest girlie cheat over fouls in the world didn't think it was a foul, let alone a red.

Edited January 10, 2012 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Everyone in the game is told if you leave the ground, two footed, it is a red card!

not true.

Everyone in the game is told if you leave the ground, two footed, andf put another player in danger by doing so it is a red card!

Nani was in no danger. Kompany had got the picnic basket out and was having his second bite of a sandwich when Nani finally turned up.

[eFestivals]

There was a red card that Lumpard was given for a foot-high full-on 2-foot flier at Alonso which included contact at abpout a foot into the air a few years back. It got recinded.

That got recinded because, just as with Nani, Alonso was out of range.

However, with that Lumpard one (as I argued here at the time, in favour of a red) Alonso was directly in line with flying Frank and running towards him. So my argument in favour of a red for that one was based on their still being a high potential for a leg-breaker (if Alonso hadn't taken avoiding action).

Nani didn't take any avoiding action, because he had no need to, because he was in no danger at all.

[thegremlin_1999]

There was a red card that Lumpard was given for a foot-high full-on 2-foot flier at Alonso which included contact at abpout a foot into the air a few years back. It got recinded.

That got recinded because, just as with Nani, Alonso was out of range.

However, with that Lumpard one (as I argued here at the time, in favour of a red) Alonso was directly in line with flying Frank and running towards him. So my argument in favour of a red for that one was based on their still being a high potential for a leg-breaker (if Alonso hadn't taken avoiding action).

Nani didn't take any avoiding action, because he had no need to, because he was in no danger at all.

[thetime]

Speaking of lampard, if kompany gets 4 games when's lampard gonna get 8 for the challenge vs wolves because that was twice as bad as kompany....

[thegremlin_1999]

Ref punished lampard already, fa cant do anything...

[kaosmark2]

I'm a Fulham fan, and have to say from just the year in charge that Hughes is definitely a quality manager. Had QPR down for relegation but not any more, he'll keep them up fine even if he only makes 2 or 3 signings. It does seem odd to me though, as QPR are a long way off Fulham at the moment and I still don't think they'd be near us even if they spent a good £15m or so.

I think the whole Hughes leaving thing was more then just us 'lacking ambition' though. From what I read at the time it was probably something like he wanted the Villa job, pissed of Al Fayed who said he could just go. We spent £15m+ in the summer so I'm sure that'd have been available to Hughes, clearly there was just a falling out and I'd imagine it could only be the Villa job for the reason. Maybe Chelsea though.

I think the reality is though, both Hughes and O'Neil left strong premiership clubs cause they weren't given the money to move them further up the table and then realised that there isn't going to be a job offer from the 'big 6' for the foreseeable future so kind of had to then take whatever they were given.

I can see Hughes gone from QPR by Summer if Redknapp goes to England and Spurs need a new manager.

[jammy2211]

His time at Blackburn was impressive. Similar his time at City. I wasn't phenomenally impressed with him at Fulham, but that was on the back of Hodgson who did brilliantly there.

I know what you mean about Hughes and O'Neill wanting bigger jobs, then, after not getting them, taking similar jobs in the meantime. I kinda feel that's the most likely explanation. I'd be very surprised if either club gets into Europe (inc. Europa League) in the next 3 years.

[Jaybles]

Nani didn't take any avoiding action, because he had no need to, because he was in no danger at all.

[eFestivals]

He had to hurdle over the challenge.

yep - that's what gives away that it wasn't anything that had any possibility of being a leg-breaker.

He had to jump over Kompany's legs - legs that were in front of him like a hurdle because Kompany's feet had already gone past and the ball had gone before Nani arrived.

Nani had possession

what you mean is that Nani had last kicked the ball. Kompany got to the ball before Nani, meaning that Kompany had possession.

and Kompany dived in two footed with both feet completely off the ground.

from one angle that's right, but from another it's a big over-statement.

As attacks at the ball like that go, it was about as mild as it gets. His feet were very near the ground, and Nani wasn't in the line of fire from those feet or in danger of being impacted by any part of Kompany's feet - as shown by Nani running into the side of Kompany's leg.

The reason this is dangerous is because if he catches Nani, which he was very close to doing, then his whole body weight will come down on Nani.

I'm 100% against leg-breakers. I don't go with the idea that just because lunges were accepted in the past they should still be accepted.

You make it clear that he didn't catch Nani. And you over state how close he was to catching Nani - he wasn't close at all, it was no more dangerous than a pretty standard tackle that might have players bang the bottom of their legs without much impact force from the bang.

He did win the ball cleanly, pretty much because Nani had no choice but to hurdle over the challenge.

He won the ball cleanly because Nani wasn't around to stop him.

The hurdling over him was necessary because Kompany was lying on the ground in front of him - which gets to prove that Nani was in no danger from Kompany's feet.

There is no point debating other challenges where ref's have been inconsistent. If you make a challenge like Kompany did (Which players are all told not to by ref's before the game), then you leave the ref with a decision to make.

I get why the ref made the decision that he did. In the heat of a match with only the as-it-happens view to go on, a tackle might be mistaken as bad (as happened with the Rodwell one as well for example).

That's a different thing to a review on appeal.

That Kompany challange was less dangerous than the Rodwell one (cos Nani was out of range, which Suarez wasn't with Rodwell), and less dangerous than the Lumpard one against Alonso (because Nani was not in line with the challenge).

[Jaybles]

Still can't see it your way.

Every time I look at it, I see Nani jumping over Kompany who dives in with two feet off the ground.

If Nani had not jumped then Kompany would have hit him. It may well not have broken his legs but on the other hand it is those sort of challenges we are trying to take out of the game. It the FA rescinded that card then they would be sending out the wrong message. That it is ok to dive in two footed off the ground as long as you win the ball.

In my opinion Kompany's challenge was much worse than Rodwell's. Kompany is coming in at speed and in the air, had Nani not jumped out of the way then he would have gone through Nani. Rodwell goes in a bit high but he is on the ground and largely in control, with nowhere near as much speed.

[eFestivals]

Still can't see it your way.

Every time I look at it, I see Nani jumping over Kompany who dives in with two feet off the ground.

Then look again (perhaps with other camera angles) .... because what's there to be seen is actually Kompany diving in and then Nani jumping over him, and not the way you've said it.

Kompany has done his "dive in" before Nani is anywhere near. Nani arrives afterwards.

If Nani had not jumped then Kompany would have hit him.

it's the other way around - Nani ran into Kompany.

It may well not have broken his legs but on the other hand it is those sort of challenges we are trying to take out of the game.

I agree that from some angles it looks like one of those - but when viewed from the right angle in slow-mo you can see that it's not.

It the FA rescinded that card then they would be sending out the wrong message. That it is ok to dive in two footed off the ground as long as you win the ball.

exactly as they've done very recently with Rodwell you mean, and a while ago with Lumpard (and I'm sure many more in-between)?

My presumption with why the FA revoked those reds is that those challenges - although two-footed lunges that could be considered dangerous from some angles - weren't actually dangerous, either because there was more control in the lunge than it looked like at first glance (Rodwell) or because there wasn't the chance of hard contact with ther player (Lumpard)... and both of those things apply just as much with Kompany's card as they did individually with those incidents.

In my opinion Kompany's challenge was much worse than Rodwell's. Kompany is coming in at speed and in the air, had Nani not jumped out of the way then he would have gone through Nani. Rodwell goes in a bit high but he is on the ground and largely in control, with nowhere near as much speed.

It's beyond all doubt whatsoever that at the moment that Kompany jumped there was zero chance of hitting Nani, because Nani was off to the side.

Of course, because Nani was moving towards the ball there's still the possibility from that that Nani and Kompany could have arrived at the ball at the same time and so they'd have been impact .... but the reality is that Kompany arrived at the ball long before Nani got close or jumped. He'd moved the ball on before Nani jumped to miss Kompany's legs (legs, not feet) that by then were laying across his path and caused him to need to jump.

Edited January 11, 2012 by eFestivals

[The Nal]

The bits on the right are genius.

Edited January 11, 2012 by The Nal

[The Nal]

"Carroll scores in training"

"Pictures of Suarez with black people"

[eFestivals]

"Carroll scores in training"

talking of which, there's stories in the papers today that he could be on his way back to Newc. The suggestion is that they might pay £15M, but that Liverpool are looking for £25M.

Can't say I'd be hugely surprised if something happened around that. I wonder who gets the blame at Liverpool for the shit buy if it does?

[eFestivals]

Surely not King Kenny...

If he's responsible for the buy then the blame is his, but there's a pretty decent chance it had naff-all to do with him ... perhaps I'm wrong with this, but Carroll doesn't seem to me to be the type of player he'd normally buy.

But the main reasons it might not be his buy is because he'd only just rejoined as manager, and given the changed ownership at the club since the previous window and the money that gave for spending, it's likely that they already had targets lined up (particularly if the club knew Torres was off long before it was made public). So there's quite a large possibility - probibility, perhaps - that it was Comolli's doing.

[The Nal]

talking of which, there's stories in the papers today that he could be on his way back to Newc. The suggestion is that they might pay £15M, but that Liverpool are looking for £25M.

Can't say I'd be hugely surprised if something happened around that. I wonder who gets the blame at Liverpool for the shit buy if it does?

[kaosmark2]

talking of which, there's stories in the papers today that he could be on his way back to Newc. The suggestion is that they might pay £15M, but that Liverpool are looking for £25M.

Can't say I'd be hugely surprised if something happened around that. I wonder who gets the blame at Liverpool for the shit buy if it does?

[kaosmark2]

His agent has said its nonsense. That would leave Liverpool with no strikers, literally none, for the duration of Suarez's ban. Cant see it.

Oh God no. Beyond criticism Baz. Himself and Kim Jong-il being the only two people in history who are.

[eFestivals]

His agent has said its nonsense. That would leave Liverpool with no strikers, literally none, for the duration of Suarez's ban. Cant see it.

it depends if they get another striker in or not - something that I think is quite a strong possibility this window anyway, dependent on who might be available. I can't see them paying silly money to prise someone away from a club, partly because that's not Henry's normal way of funding buys and partly because that's what they did with Carroll (which of course hasn't worked out).

But anyway, while Suarez is serving his ban they've got no strikers anyway. They've only got Carroll.

Oh God no. Beyond criticism Baz. Himself and Kim Jong-il being the only two people in history who are.

If it's not his buy he's beyond criticism for it - it's that simple.

One day I guess the details of who was behind it will come out.

=====================

Tonight's match against City will be interesting I think - they stand a better chance when City can't play Kompany. I don't think it'll be enough to turn the tie around, but it should make things closer.