EPT2017 - 2018 Football Thread - Page 58
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
Elentos
55550 Posts
| ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8661 Posts
the rules say mane should have been careful about whether there was a risk to putting his foot up, but like i said, anyone whos played football will say that was a 50/50 challenge BECAUSE mane is able to reach it with his foot. ederson could have easily made the same conclusion and he knowingly put his head there at risk. you could call that either bravery or stupidity, but the blame shouldnt only fall on mane. with the way the rules are changing in 10 years time we probably wont even be allowed to shoot volleys without the ref saying the foot was too high | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
On September 10 2017 18:36 evilfatsh1t wrote: it was 50/50 because mane used his foot. if mane tried to head the ball a blind kid could tell you ederson was getting there first. yet people call it a 50/50 challenge (which it is) because you have to assume any player will use whatever body part they can that allows them to reach the ball first. the rules state that mane is in the wrong, and im not saying that he wasnt. im saying i disagree with the direction in which the rules have changed towards. the rules say mane should have been careful about whether there was a risk to putting his foot up, but like i said, anyone whos played football will say that was a 50/50 challenge BECAUSE mane is able to reach it with his foot. ederson could have easily made the same conclusion and he knowingly put his head there at risk. you could call that either bravery or stupidity, but the blame shouldnt only fall on mane. with the way the rules are changing in 10 years time we probably wont even be allowed to shoot volleys without the ref saying the foot was too high Let's pretend this is a new rule... Sorry, but this was already illegal 20 years ago. | ||
|
Dante08
Singapore4128 Posts
On September 10 2017 18:36 evilfatsh1t wrote: it was 50/50 because mane used his foot. if mane tried to head the ball a blind kid could tell you ederson was getting there first. yet people call it a 50/50 challenge (which it is) because you have to assume any player will use whatever body part they can that allows them to reach the ball first. the rules state that mane is in the wrong, and im not saying that he wasnt. im saying i disagree with the direction in which the rules have changed towards. the rules say mane should have been careful about whether there was a risk to putting his foot up, but like i said, anyone whos played football will say that was a 50/50 challenge BECAUSE mane is able to reach it with his foot. ederson could have easily made the same conclusion and he knowingly put his head there at risk. you could call that either bravery or stupidity, but the blame shouldnt only fall on mane. with the way the rules are changing in 10 years time we probably wont even be allowed to shoot volleys without the ref saying the foot was too high Are you saying it's ok to go for 50/50 balls with a high boot? You realize the players are wearing boots with metal studs right? So what should Ederson have done, get out of the way or go in with a high boot as well and see who injures who first? | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On September 10 2017 18:36 evilfatsh1t wrote: it was 50/50 because mane used his foot. if mane tried to head the ball a blind kid could tell you ederson was getting there first. yet people call it a 50/50 challenge (which it is) because you have to assume any player will use whatever body part they can that allows them to reach the ball first. the rules state that mane is in the wrong, and im not saying that he wasnt. im saying i disagree with the direction in which the rules have changed towards. the rules say mane should have been careful about whether there was a risk to putting his foot up, but like i said, anyone whos played football will say that was a 50/50 challenge BECAUSE mane is able to reach it with his foot. ederson could have easily made the same conclusion and he knowingly put his head there at risk. you could call that either bravery or stupidity, but the blame shouldnt only fall on mane. with the way the rules are changing in 10 years time we probably wont even be allowed to shoot volleys without the ref saying the foot was too high No one suggested it was only a 50/50 because he reached with his boot. they are calling it a 50/50 because at the pace they were both going it was hard to say who would reach it first "legally" i.e not with a kick to the face. So your premise is as is common wrong, and even worse you are victim blaming. Holy shit. + Show Spoiler + This is literally on par with the drunk girl's rapist defense. The fact that Mane managed to kick him in the face means that not only was it impossible for him to reach with his head it was impossibly to do so with his foot too. So then where do we take your shitty premise now? What I find hilarious is that even the guy who did it is ok with the punishment he got and apologized because he knew it was a stupid thing to do and everyone is also willing to look past it because he didnt do it on purpose. Yet the "footiez is for hardman, rules make this sport for pussies" crowd seem to be more loyal than the king. There is nothing wrong with common sense safety rules. And if you saw Edersons face afterwards, (and his condition is probably the best possibly outcome in the situation) its a very common sense safety rule to have. I really hope one of ya'll who think this was a yellow gets a fucking JJ kick to the face and then turn around and tell me its ok cuz he didnt mean it. | ||
|
Greg_J
China4409 Posts
| ||
|
Greg_J
China4409 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28674 Posts
 | ||
|
nayumi
Australia6499 Posts
On September 11 2017 08:48 Greg_J wrote: Jose Mourinho acting like a child saying Stoke didn't try to win the game (they scored 2 goals), making a big deal of shaking everyone but Mark Hughes' hand and then calling a journilst who quite reasonably asked why that his question was bad. Some times you just want to tell him to grow up. But I guess it's something to talk about. He's a character. He's always been like that ever since he started at Chelsea after Porto. He's not even pleasant when he won, let alone losing. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On September 11 2017 08:09 Greg_J wrote: You can disagree with people’s opinions without implying they are an idiot for even daring to write something you don’t agree with. I do that all the time aswell. Let me point you to the exchange with Pande and Chelsea racists.+ Show Spoiler + I didnt push the issue even though I feel strongly about it because its nuanced there's been plenty of action with the international break, people had lots of thoughts both interesting and some a bit silly. I dont see me hammering everyone I thought was wrong. When there is little or no nuance to a situation and people are being idiots they should be made to feel like idiots. That having been you are right, I could be less caustic and it would be better. But to be perfectly honest what does it matter? When people are thick skinned enough to be ok with kicks to the face, Im sure a little aggressive verbiage will just slide past their feelings. + Show Spoiler + If you are paying more attention to what im saying because its sounds "aggressive" regardless of your opinion on it, its working init? | ||
|
Greg_J
China4409 Posts
Klopp said Manne definitely didn’t see thee keeper at all which is pretty hard to believe. There would be no need to reach for the ball like that if the keeper wasn’t there he could just let it bounce. His foot was obviously razed because he knew the keeper was there and if he could just beat him to it and glance it past him he’d have a free path to goal. I’m not buying the he didn’t see him at all argument. Peripheral vision and situational awareness, he knew pretty much where Edison was. | ||
|
WillyWanker
France1915 Posts
| ||
|
aseq
Netherlands3978 Posts
| ||
|
nayumi
Australia6499 Posts
| ||
|
Greg_J
China4409 Posts
I guess it has to be about itming to some extent. If Manne clearly got there first Edison might have been sent off for taking him out. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8661 Posts
On September 11 2017 14:36 Greg_J wrote: If Manne had managed to flick the ball past Edison without kicking him in the face. Do you think the goal would have stood? Are we ruling it a foul just for having his feet up high in a dangerous place. Or is it more like a badly timed challange? It would have been fine if it was timed better? I guess it has to be about itming to some extent. If Manne clearly got there first Edison might have been sent off for taking him out. well thats kind of my point. if ederson was 1 second late to that mane would have gotten the ball and assuming he controls the ball well enough; 1. he takes the ball past ederson and scores and people would applaud mane's skill 2. ederson obstructs mane after the ball has already passed him and its a red card for ederson. the only reason mane was booked and is considered to be in the wrong is because the timing of the incident just wasnt in his favour. the action itself shouldnt be an automatic bookable offense. theres a goal rooney scored against swansea in 2016 where he does an overhead kick like 2m from the goal line with 2 defenders right next to him. luckily no one put their head near the ball and rooney got there first but if you booked that simply because you are presenting a risk or danger to players around you then thatd be ridiculous. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18005 Posts
Dangerous play obviously depends on other things than just having your foot up in the air. And in this case it was very obviously very dangerous, and Mane not intending to kick Ederson in the face is somewhat irrelevant: he did kick him in the face. | ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51490 Posts
On September 11 2017 08:48 Greg_J wrote: Jose Mourinho acting like a child saying Stoke didn't try to win the game (they scored 2 goals), making a big deal of shaking everyone but Mark Hughes' hand and then calling a journilst who quite reasonably asked why that his question was bad. Some times you just want to tell him to grow up. But I guess it's something to talk about. He's a character. As an experienced member of the Mourinho way xD i can tell you he does it on purpose. His team of £500million plus played like shite and drew 2-2 with Stoke, which causes alarm bells to go off in Mourinho's head. Time to protect my players he thinks, so he does silly things to make all the attention about him, no handshake, into walking out of the post match interviews with silly remarks. Thus the whole world discusses mourinho and not the fact his yanited team, with 2x 100million players in it, drew 2-2 with Stokelona. His players don't get ridiculed in the press or whatever and they move on scott free into the next game  You can say it's silly or genius but he does it alot! | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8661 Posts
seems ludicrous to me; that having your foot in the air for trying to control a ball should warrant a red card should there be any contact at all with an opponent regardless of whether it was intentional or not. i think mane's case was harsh but ill accept that a red could be given because he was watching the ball all the way and had every right to attempt to control it but its hard to believe that he had no idea ederson was running in his direction. nani's case however was arbeloa running at him from slightly behind and nani had no idea until the ball was pretty much inches from his foot. arbeloa however had full vision of nani and decided to run at him, get hit by nanis foot (yes. allow nani's foot to make contact) and then cry for a foul. by everyones logic even in this scenario, nani is definitely the one to take the red, as was the case, despite arbeloa being the player who had more control of the situation and could have avoided collision (which is the other point i was making about how it still takes 2 players to collide) | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51490 Posts
On September 11 2017 16:01 Acrofales wrote: Plenty of things depend on timing. A sliding tackle from behind is applauded if it's on the ball and an instant red and a few matches suspension if it's a split second later and hits the player's ankles. Dangerous play obviously depends on other things than just having your foot up in the air. And in this case it was very obviously very dangerous, and Mane not intending to kick Ederson in the face is somewhat irrelevant: he did kick him in the face. Or in France if you tackle a PSG player = insta red card This is what happened to a Metz player score was 1-1 at this time. https://streamable.com/q1583 | ||
| ||
