Football 2012-2013

[eFestivals]

So now you're disputing the actual laws of the game?!

You couldn't make it up!

I'm disputing only your bollocks made-up version of the rules of the game. And I was right to, as your change in what you were saying got to prove.

Chiles read out something - I'm guessing from the full rulebook, but perhaps it wasn't. I've no doubt he's as convinced that he was reading something out that was correct as you are. You both can't be right.

Not only that, three very experienced ex-pros didn't pull him up on it. They agreed with him 100%.

I made posts earlier today on the basis of what Chiles had said and those ex-pros went along with. Perhaps I'm wrong in doing that.

But it's also quite possible that we're all - cos I've accessed the same fifa pdf as you today - also taking something wrongly from that brief and simple version of the rules, which isn't actually the full rule-book or anything which is used to run footie to the rules.

[pink_triangle]

If man utd had won would there have been all this analysis about the (wrongly in my opinions) disallowed real madrid goal. i think this had just as much potential to influence the game as the Nani sending off which I could be sold either way about.

[eFestivals]

he collides with the player with a straight leg. The collision causes the leg to bend at the knee (as it would). Post collision, the leg returns to its natural position (ie straight)....

yep, as I've said, it could be that.

but as i've also said, it might be something else.

You don't know which it is, and not do I. Only Nani knows for sure.

But the ref had to make a judgement on it, and perhaps that ref's judgement was right.

[eFestivals]

If man utd had won would there have been all this analysis about the (wrongly in my opinions) disallowed real madrid goal. i think this had just as much potential to influence the game as the Nani sending off which I could be sold either way about.

if that red card hadn't happened but Utd had lost, I'd have expected this forum to have lots of "da silva* should have had a penalty" posts.

(*I've forgotten which of the two it is)

It was never a penalty, but I've no doubt that fergie would have used it as a face-saver.

Edited March 6, 2013 by eFestivals

[abdoujaparov]

But it's also quite possible that we're all - cos I've accessed the same fifa pdf as you today - also taking something wrongly from that brief and simple version of the rules, which isn't actually the full rule-book or anything which is used to run footie to the rules.

[TheGayTent]

I'm disputing only your bollocks made-up version of the rules of the game. And I was right to, as your change in what you were saying got to prove.

I made posts earlier today on the basis of what Chiles had said and those ex-pros went along with. Perhaps I'm wrong in doing that.

[eFestivals]

The Laws of the Game PDF on the FIFA website is described as the complete laws of the game...I'm not sure that there is anything else

yeah, there's a numbered rule book, but that might be the FA version, I'm not entirely sure.

[Jaybles]

what vids are you watching?

There's at least 4 Utd players round the ref and at least 3 RM players - all before the card is shown.

Those Utd players are pleading for nani to not be sent off (after all, would you really suggest that they're trying to tell him it wasn't a foul? )

And presumably, you think those RM players are asking the time?

[eFestivals]

Nothing was changed.

yes it was. You said that the dangerous play rule had no place in this incident because there was contact afterwards.

You've not realised your error and said that the dangerous play offence still stands, but with the potential for added offences.

But hey, keep pretending otherwise to yourself. at least you're convincing one person.

A law of the game that I quoted that you suggested was made up. An opinion proven to be bollocks.

as you stated it, it was - which you now know, because that's why you've changed what you're saying.

It's pretty stupid to parade opinion as fact. It's even more stupid to parade opinion as fact when the real facts (the laws of the game) are presented to you.

the only wrong fact I've gone with - or in fact only *might* have gone with - is what Chiles said on TV last night.

I take nothing of what you present as fact, because it very often is not. You are a constant proof of that.

(No doubt you think the same of me. That only makes us as bad as each other, it doesn't give you the higher moral ground).

Still I guess as your opinion of the Carlton Cole sending off against Liverpool proves, at least you're consistently wrong.

as are refs, pros, ex-pros, commentators and ... YOU!!!

The difference? I'm not wrongly claiming perfection.

[zahidf]

From football 365 media watch

Just a reminder, for when Sir Alex Ferguson emerges from his cave of despair, that here's what he said in March last year, after Fulham were denied a more or less clear penalty in their game at Old Trafford:

"From the referee's position, I can see why he didn't give a penalty when Danny Murphy was brought down.

"The ball moved to the angle as Michael Carrick challenged him. From that position, it wasn't clear.

"It was a good claim but City could have had a penalty against them at Stoke for a foul by Gareth Barry. Every club gets breaks here and there, you get good ones and bad ones. It evens itself out over the season, that will never change."

[TheGayTent]

yes it was. You said that the dangerous play rule had no place in this incident because there was contact afterwards.

You've not realised your error and said that the dangerous play offence still stands, but with the potential for added offences.

But hey, keep pretending otherwise to yourself. at least you're convincing one person. :lol:as you stated it, it was - which you now know, because that's why you've changed what you're saying.the only wrong fact I've gone with - or in fact only *might* have gone with - is what Chiles said on TV last night.

I take nothing of what you present as fact, because it very often is not. You are a constant proof of that.

(No doubt you think the same of me. That only makes us as bad as each other, it doesn't give you the higher moral ground).as are refs, pros, ex-pros, commentators and ... YOU!!!

The difference? I'm not wrongly claiming perfection.

Edited March 6, 2013 by TheGayTent

[eFestivals]

No of course not. Point to where I said thatof course notNonsenseNonsense.

Juries and magistrates consider something called evidence.

yep, which often proves nothing at all and a guess is made.

And it is nothing more than a guess. it's not even an informed guess, it's merely a guess made around what the person in judgement has chosen to believe over other things.

Did I do the thing alleged? did I have access to information which would give rise, in a reasonable person, to the belief that harm could be caused? Was I in full control of my actions?

all questions that could be asked of Nani last night, and a;ll of which can cause a very reasonable conclusion - better known as a guess - at 'reckless'.

It is, of course, impossible to get inside the head of the accused, but courts every day are asked to reach conclusions on whether a defendant has mens rea - and they do this by considering all of the evidence.

and the very many proven fuck ups from that process, plus all the many others that never get proven as fuck ups - get to show just how imperfect it is.

I was once (rightly) found not guilty in court, and the cheeker fucker of a magistrate said "I think you're guilty, we all think you're guilty, but I have no choice in law but to find you not guiilty". Why did he think I was guilty? On the laughable basis that he didn't believe that a copper could ever lie to a court.

Our justice system is a joke, it's not something to present as backing anything sensible up.

Even if that were true - and it is pushing it just a little bit to suggest that there is a potential for danger every time the ball is touched - it doesnt imply recklessness.

I've done no such thing except in jest at the ridiculous comments of others.

To repeat - for an action to be reckless, the person acting needs to consciously disregard the substantial risk his actions pose.

and not considering your actions on a football field when you know that others will be going for the same ball as you is r3eckless.

Nani knows that other players are on the field.

He knows they'll be going to the ball.

He knows there's a big likelihood someone will beat him to the ball if he has to run a long way for it.

Etc, etc, etc.

Reckless.

So, Nani would have had to know the other player was there

which he did by the fact of other players on the pitch.

and have carried on with his actions despite the the risk of harm.

which he did by not looking to see if another player was coming.

[abdoujaparov]

not considering your actions on a football field when you know that others will be going for the same ball as you is r3eckless.

Nani knows that other players are on the field.

He knows they'll be going to the ball.

He knows there's a big likelihood someone will beat him to the ball if he has to run a long way for it.

Etc, etc, etc.

Reckless

Edited March 6, 2013 by abdoujaparov

[eFestivals]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsM861obMow

I see players gathering around the spot where the free kick is going to be taken. I see RVP having a quick word with the ref (who knows about what but he is not pleading with the ref)

I do not see any players apart from RVP even approach the ref to speak. No one brandishes a fake card to get their point across. Everyone on the pitch seemed surprised.

yeah, cos there's always three+ players from each team running to be around the ref for all free-kicks in inconsequential positions on the pitch, eh?

FFS!

His leg was straight to collect the ball. Arbeloa came in and the leg bent indicating he was not kicking him. After contact with Arbeloa his leg straightened again (in mid air whilst spinning and falling) back to its original position

Yep, all of that is true.

What it doesn't cover is why his leg went from bent to straight with such force as to move the other player thru the air. That's more than just a leg returning to position.

Once you've been impacted by another person, the one thing guaranteed to make that impact worse is to apply extra force to the impact - which Nani did. Any concious decision that was made with the other player's welfare in mind would not have him re-straighten his leg.

I'm not saying it definitely was a deliberate kick. I'm saying it could have been, and if Suarez is to be judged as nasty and dirty on the basis of incidents like that where there's limited control due to reasons of balance &/or speed then Nani should be too.

I'm also saying that any view the ref or linesman might have had that saw that leg action could lead them - rightly or wrong, and on their one view of the incident - to conclude that Nani had kicked him (at which point all arguments about why Nani was carded and whether the ref acted within the rules gets to end).

[fred quimby]

The Gay Tent

Playing in a dangerous Manner Involves no Physical Contact Between players

/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=findpost&pid=3943001">

Efestivals - complete bull.

Then a few post on Efestivals quotes the same as Gospel

Classic

Thanks for the entertaining read at Lunch Love the pictures of bent leg straight leg even if the last picture shows straight leg after the player has passed. Anyone can freeze frame something and then make it out to be something else.

be interested in Neils take on whether the goalie should have been sent of for the Punch

My take was it was Harsh decission.

Shame as well as it was shaping up to be a cracking last 30mins+

Modrics sub was Genius

[TheGayTent]

Some big games in the championship last night. Langdale Wolf and Dean Saunders will be breathing a bit easier this morning.

[eFestivals]

[eFestivals]

The Gay Tent

Playing in a dangerous Manner Involves no Physical Contact Between players

/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=findpost&pid=3943001">

Efestivals - complete bull.

Then a few post on Efestivals quotes the same as Gospel

Classic

I see you've a pea-sized brain to match TGT's.

The bull I was referring to was his claims that there's no dangerous play offence once contact has been made.

Once contact has been made, which clearly there was, dangerous play rule goes out of the window.

That's bull. Complete bull.

As I correctly said and have been saying since.

Peas all round for lunch then. Except here. I'm having horse as TGT and you have all the bull.

[Essex_George]

Think this is taking it a little too far

http://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/newsandevents/news/2013/march/06/police_tackle_time_wasters_after_football_999_call/

[TheGayTent]

It's not bull. It's completely correct. Completely correct when discussing a red card and dangerous play. Which I had already said at that point. As dangerous play cannot be a red card offence unless it occurs when stopping a goal opportunity. Which it wasn't.

You are wrong. Again.

[TheGayTent]

It would be interesting to find out what rule the referee sent him off for...

If a player plays in a dangerous manner in a normal challenge, the referee should not take any disciplinary action.

If the action is made with obvious risk of injury the referee should caution the player.

If a player denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity playing in a dangerous manner the referee should send off the player.

It's quite clear to me, if the referee has sent him off for dangerous play the decision is an incorrect one.

If he's been sent off for violent conduct or serious foul play that opens up a new can of worms...

[TheGayTent]

It's also quite clear that you're now lying.

Your first mention of it being a red card due to serious foul play is now. Some 4 hours after your first post on the subject.

During which time you have attempted to incorrectly argue the rules back up a red card for dangerous play, based on what a TV presenter read out on air last night. An opinion formed without the knowledge of the rules. Something you have admitted to.

So wrong, and a liar.

Nice work, even for you.

[Jaybles]

yeah, cos there's always three+ players from each team running to be around the ref for all free-kicks in inconsequential positions on the pitch, eh?

FFS! :lol:Yep, all of that is true.

[eFestivals]

It's not bull. It's completely correct. Completely correct when discussing a red card and dangerous play. Which I had already said at that point. As dangerous play cannot be a red card offence unless it occurs when stopping a goal opportunity. Which it wasn't.

You are wrong. Again.

My first post on the subject today.

Quite clear what I said.

Quite clear what the rules states.

You're wrong. Again.

you said that. I didn't dispute that.

You then said this:-

Once contact has been made, which clearly there was, dangerous play rule goes out of the window.

and I disputed it - because it's wrong.

You can't accept you got it wrong.

[TheGayTent]

You then said this:-and I disputed it - because it's wrong.

You can't accept you got it wrong.

Edited March 6, 2013 by TheGayTent