Kenny Dalglish Won't Be Delivering the Module: English Premiership 2011-12

Also Suarez is a diving cunt more every time I see it.

― Young Swell (Le Bateau Ivre), Tuesday, 4 October 2011 15:02 (29 minutes ago)

ikr? you can literally see his little cunty brain working out every calculation

he is a panto-level cheat though so i still quite like him

the only thing i'm certain about is that if you seriously don't think it's a foul then you don't understand the rules of football.

ref had a pretty good view. the more i watch it in non-ultra-slow-mo gif, the more i think that meets the criteria for a red. maybe not the criteria as they are consistently enforced in the premiership, but as they seek to do it elsewhere in the game, and as they should be enforced imo. "Serious foul play" is usu. shorthand for reckless + could have caused serious injury. good enough for me. it's borderline though tbf.

"criteria as they are consistently enforced" is obv the issue always and forever

yeah i don't think it's a foul. Ref has retracted the red card, whether this means he doesn't think it's a foul or doesn't think it's a red i don't know.

It means he got shook

xxp otm

retracted the red? can they even do that? thought it had to be formally appealed (via cricket owzat)?

oh actually the fa panel overturned it, don't know how much input the ref has in that tbh

i assume the ref can not contest the decision.

shook, badly shook imo. He's been 'got at'

i believe the referee is asked and can admit they think it was a mistake. Don't quote me on that though

was that tackle bad because it was faster than usual? or that it was at a funny angle?

It was so fast that Suarez wasn't there until it was all over. He only just had time to kick Rodwell's knee and fall over.

That red card stat's wrong actually, took it from somewhere I presumed would be reliable. Just checked and it's 12 in the last 16. Carry on.

surely all that really matters is that, after the fiasco of saturday, darragh has been vindicated? (until next time)

rah

I know Suarez's rep is probably deserved but I think his awkward dive was a product of anticipating Rodwell's leading-leg lunge just in time to get out of its way. You can say that the leading leg was nowhere near the opponent, and that makes the tackle less dangerous, but I think all it shows is good self-preservation skills. Would it be Suarez's own fault if he'd left his leg in and had it broken?

He couldn't really "leave his leg in" if it wasn't there in the first place. Rodwell's first to it by miles, Suarez is so late he barely manages to get himself fouled. The only way he gets injured is if he thinks "I'm getting nowhere near that ball but I can maybe just about break my leg if I can get it into the path of those studs!"

Rodwell's lunge would imo have counted as reckless and dangerous if it was at anything other than a ball and the air surrounding it - as it is it's a bit of a showy bit of exuberance that was never going to hurt anyone.

That all said, Everton should still have been reduced to nine men - all this moaning about the red card changing the result conveniently overlooks some frankly shocking behaviour that went unpunished. Very nasty team when it isn't going well, and sometimes when it is.

i dunno is it good enough to say 'after the guy's jumped headlong through the air legfirst, the other guy was a full five inches away from a legbreak! How can that be reckless?'

How far away does an opponent have to be in order for it to be acceptable for someone to maliciously tackle a football without endangering another player? No matter how many times I watch it I can't see Suarez in any danger whatsoever, except for maybe earning himself a boot in the baws for the theatrics.

yeah it's bollocks. he was already stationary by the time suarez got there.

that's not even remotely accurate!

if rodwell's intention was to go for suarez's leg then yeah you can say that

'intention' is not quite irrelevant, but there's a good reason that the wording used is 'reckless' and not 'clearly malicious'

oh i was just trying to work "not remotely accurate" into the retort somehow.

it would be harsh to judge that as being reckless though.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/kenjuggle3/nowherenear.jpg

apart from reckless disregard to suarez's ability to dive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdX3FTKuSzw

As is explained in the excerpt from the rules i posted, "Reckless" behaviour only merits a yellow card.

this gives quite a balanced view (but then it's the us soccer federation so what do they know.

http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?p=147

FIFA emphasized in the past the great danger in slide tackles from behind because, if this tackle is not done perfectly, the potential for injury is so much greater. Nowadays, if the referee decides that the foul while tackling from any direction–from the front, the side, or the rear–was done in such a way as to endanger the safety of the opponent, the proper action is to send the violator off the field with a red card.

How can tackles become illegal? Two of the most common ways are by making contact with the opponent first (before contacting the ball) and by striking the opponent with a raised upper leg before, during, or after contacting the ball with the lower leg. Referees must be vigilant and firm in assessing any tackle, because the likely point of contact is the lower legs of the opponent and this is a particularly vulnerable area.

The referee must judge each situation of a tackle from any direction individually, weighing the guidelines published by FIFA and the U. S. Soccer Federation, the positions of the players, the way the tackler uses his/her foot or feet, the “temperature” of the game, the age/skill of the players, and the attitude of the players. Only then can the referee make a sensible decision.

While one may (and should) sympathize with the injured player, soccer is a tough, competitive sport, and injuries can happen with no associated infringement of the Law. Players who act on the basis of the opposite presumption, abetted by like-minded spectators, do the sport no good.

For the sake of those who would punish any tackle, we ask that players and referees alike remember that it is not a foul if a sliding tackle is successful and the player whose ball was tackled away then falls over the tackler’s foot. It has to be in the opinion of the referee, but if the tackler accomplishes the objective of taking the ball safely and within the meaning of the Law, then it makes no difference if the player who was tackled then falls down. With a big “UNLESS”: if, in the referee’s opinion, the tackler has used excessive force, then the tackler should be sent off for serious foul play. Or, if the tackler makes the tackle and then lifts either the tackling foot or the other foot and trips the opponent, that is a foul. Simply because a player falls over the foot of the tackler is not a dangerous thing. It’s one of the breaks of the game.

i should be furious at vdv's latest comments but really i'm more in <3 than ever

"i don't wish to play regularly on the wing, i don't enjoy tracking back. I was amazed to have been substituted in the last game i scored and put teammates through three times"

Paraphrased

For the sake of those who would punish any tackle, we ask that players and referees alike remember that it is not a foul if a sliding tackle is successful and the player whose ball was tackled away then falls over the tackler’s foot. It has to be in the opinion of the referee, but if the tackler accomplishes the objective of taking the ball safely and within the meaning of the Law, then it makes no difference if the player who was tackled then falls down.

^ not true, even with their "big unless".

if the tackler accomplishes the objective of taking the ball safely and within the meaning of the Law, then it makes no difference if the player who was tackled then falls down

hold on how can this bit at least not be correct?

Argh why did it have to be international week this week?!

it misses out so many ifs/buts that the only way it could be true is if you interpret it as the tautology "if the tackle is fair then it is fair"

it's just a muddleder way of saying 'I GOT THE BALL FUCK OFF REF I GOT THE BALL'

I think getting the ball and nothing else without recklessly endangering anyone counts as fair. Even if someone does kick your knee and fall over some time later.

'and nothing else' before or after?

Rodwell hit suarez after, i dunno is that even in dispute onimo.

suarez was late on rodwell surely. i mean it wasn't so much a tackle as an interception.

That Rooney, eh? Isn't he great/awful?

lol

btw vdv controlled with his shoulder

Rodwell's knee makes contact with Suarez after the ball has gone and after he has landed - I think Suarez is so late to the party he can hardly he classed as fouled. At an absolute push I'd give him a free kick and tell him to stfu moaning and rolling around when he wasn't hurt. Then I'd bite him.

i'd not disagree with a yellow, tbh, but i can see a red.

i should be furious at vdv's latest comments but really i'm more in <3 than ever

"i don't wish to play regularly on the wing, i don't enjoy tracking back. I was amazed to have been substituted in the last game i scored and put teammates through three times"

Paraphrased

― always remember, there's no 'i zing' team (darraghmac), Wednesday, 5 October 2011 11:15 (1 hour ago) Bookmark

tbh his comments were way more nuanced in Dutch than the English press is making them out to be now. But I already knew yesterday that that would happen.

darraghphrased

heh

Rafael Van der Vaart is probably the only person in the world who was surprised to see Rafael Van Der Vaart subsituted after 60mins.

wen dee datch dey shpeak in english it alwaysh sounds dee mower forshful yesssh

vdv otm about creating all those chances and scoring

Arry otm for subbing him when trying to shut out the game.

Le Bateau Ivre always otm