|
On October 05 2014 22:47 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2014 22:46 bObaZ wrote: The problem is that if he showed a yellow to chambers he should of showed a red to Cahill. The difference between the two fouls is immense. They're two entirely different offenses that you cannot compare. Cahill committed a regular foul, Chambers committed a tactical one.
The solution is to send off Gibbs
|
|
|
Austria24422 Posts
Yeah... that's nowhere near intentional.
|
On October 05 2014 22:48 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2014 22:48 lprk wrote:On October 05 2014 22:45 DarkLordOlli wrote:On October 05 2014 22:43 lprk wrote:On October 05 2014 22:43 DarkLordOlli wrote:On October 05 2014 22:42 lprk wrote:On October 05 2014 22:41 NuclearJudas wrote: Very ugly tackle.
Surprised he didn't send any manager off to the stands for that. I'm more surprised that he didn't sent off Cahill Are you serious... it was a yellow, nothing more. It was 2 leg tackle with both leg in the air No it was not, he missed the ball with his challenge (which was a reckless one), slipped and crashed into Alexis, that's why he had both feet in the air. On October 05 2014 22:44 ZeroChrome wrote: If chambers gets a yellow for tripping hazard then Cahill's dirty two footed lunge ought to be a straight red Different offenses. Chambers committed a tactical foul, which is an automatic yellow. If that was only yellow, Koscielny didn't fouled Hazard at all. Alright, let's leave it at that. Show nested quote +On October 05 2014 22:48 bObaZ wrote:On October 05 2014 22:47 DarkLordOlli wrote:On October 05 2014 22:46 bObaZ wrote: The problem is that if he showed a yellow to chambers he should of showed a red to Cahill. The difference between the two fouls is immense. They're two entirely different offenses that you cannot compare. Cahill committed a regular foul, Chambers committed a tactical one. The foul that Cahill Commited had nothing of regular! He went straight for the player! Different meaning of "regular".
Regular meaning regular and then regular meaning career threatening ok i get it
|
On October 05 2014 22:51 DarkLordOlli wrote: Yeah... that's nowhere near intentional.
Nowhere near intentional?? Are you just trolling? You can't even say that he went for the ball but the ball wasn't there anymore. The ball was there but he opted to tackle alexis instead! It's a clear red as it gets...
|
Austria24422 Posts
On October 05 2014 22:53 bObaZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2014 22:51 DarkLordOlli wrote: Yeah... that's nowhere near intentional. Nowhere near intentional?? Are you just trolling? You can't even say that he went for the ball but the ball wasn't there anymore. The ball was there but he opted to tackle alexis instead! It's a clear red as it gets...
LOL, he missed the ball. That's all there is to it. The game isn't played in replay speed and anyone who's played football will tell you the same.
It ended up being a dreadful challenge, but that is not a red card.
|
Hmm I think it doesn't look like there's intent to do harm - it looks like an accident. And since it's only one footed, I think a red is harsh there.
|
On October 05 2014 22:54 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2014 22:53 bObaZ wrote:On October 05 2014 22:51 DarkLordOlli wrote: Yeah... that's nowhere near intentional. Nowhere near intentional?? Are you just trolling? You can't even say that he went for the ball but the ball wasn't there anymore. The ball was there but he opted to tackle alexis instead! It's a clear red as it gets... LOL, he missed the ball. That's all there is to it. The game isn't played in replay speed and anyone who's played football will tell you the same.
Anyone that played football knows that he went straight for the player and didn't even try to get the ball...
But i guess we'll agree to disagree
|
Austria24422 Posts
On October 05 2014 22:54 bObaZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2014 22:54 DarkLordOlli wrote:On October 05 2014 22:53 bObaZ wrote:On October 05 2014 22:51 DarkLordOlli wrote: Yeah... that's nowhere near intentional. Nowhere near intentional?? Are you just trolling? You can't even say that he went for the ball but the ball wasn't there anymore. The ball was there but he opted to tackle alexis instead! It's a clear red as it gets... LOL, he missed the ball. That's all there is to it. The game isn't played in replay speed and anyone who's played football will tell you the same. Anyone that played football knows that he went straight for the player and didn't even try to get the ball...
Alright, let's leave it at that. Stop arguing.
|
you can always say he might have mistimed it and missed the ball. c'mon, we are all bias here. yellow is the right card.
|
Entertaining first half between Spurs and Soton. Bertrand possibly should have been sent off for a bad challenge on Naughton (Naughton had to come off).
|
On October 05 2014 22:54 Larkin wrote:Hmm I think it doesn't look like there's intent to do harm - it looks like an accident. And since it's only one footed, I think a red is harsh there. Saying we should judge everything on intent is just straight up wrong. Obviously Cahill doesn't want to hurt Alexis. But it's a straightened leg with all of Cahill's weight (so 80-90 kg?) behind it. Alexis' ankle would have quite possibly snapped under that. It's a clear red. That said, I can see that being hard for the ref to adjudge and why it's been given a yellow.
|
|
|
|
|
Austria24422 Posts
If anything, we could look into Koscielny denying a clear goal scoring opportunity. THAT is a red.
|
On October 05 2014 22:58 NuclearJudas wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2014 22:54 Larkin wrote:Hmm I think it doesn't look like there's intent to do harm - it looks like an accident. And since it's only one footed, I think a red is harsh there. Saying we should judge everything on intent is just straight up wrong. Obviously Cahill doesn't want to hurt Alexis. But it's a straightened leg with all of Cahill's weight (so 80-90 kg?) behind it. Alexis' ankle would have quite possibly snapped under that. It's a clear red. That said, I can see that being hard for the ref to adjudge and why it's been given a yellow.
I didn't say we SHOULD judge everything on intent.
But maliciousness is a factor - it's in the rules - for determining whether something is a red card or not.
It isn't a clear red because it very obviously looks like a mistimed tackle, missing the ball, rather than a deliberate attempt to do Alexis in. What Cahill meant only he knows - but to the referee, in a split second decision, it doesn't look malicious enough to warrant a red card.
|
Got a slo-mo .gif of Hazard going down? First look at regular speed, it looks like Kosc should be sent off, but it's hard to see if Hazard would have gotten a good shot off.
|
I think Jose would rek Wenger in a fight. I mean they are both old but Mou is 13 years younger.
edit: yeah age wouldn't make a difference if wenger had formal training but idk, he is taller but jose could just poke him in the eye.
|
Austria24422 Posts
Chambers needs to be careful or he'll be off next time
|
Chambers is lucky there, one of those 'if he wasn't already booked, it'd be a yellow'
|
|
|
|
|
|