Re: The Football Chat Thread : Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:40 pm  

Roddy B wrote:

IMO, if he intentionally fouled him, then that would have been classed as a 'professional foul' and he would have walked. IMO, just because it's at the halfway line, doesn't mean the goalscoring opportunity doesn't or won't happen. If you're the last man and the ball is being played towards your goal, then if you bring down the player, you're denying him the chance to run down field alone, which to me, is a goalscoring opportunity.

For me it was a clear red, he denied a goalscoring opportunity and it was cynical. Like with dangerous fouls, I'd send him off for his intent.

The penalty try analogy is a good one - the foul/handball has to prevent a clear goal scoring opportunity.

If Aguero had the ball at his feet and Figueroa had kicked him, because he was last man you could argue he had denied a clear goal scoring opportunity. As it was, there's no guarantee Aguero would have been able to bring the ball under control, run 40 yards outpacing covering defenders and give himself the opportunity to score. Yellow card was about right IMO.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:22 pm  

This Sunday should one way or another make the title race become a little clearer.
City beats Spurs huge pressure on Utd to win at Arsenal who need a response from last Sunday.
Spurs beat City and Utd win at Arsenal and the title race becomes a confirmed 3 way race.
Saying all that probably be 0-0 in both games.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:41 pm  

Andy Gilder wrote:

The penalty try analogy is a good one - the foul/handball has to prevent a clear goal scoring opportunity.

If Aguero had the ball at his feet and Figueroa had kicked him, because he was last man you could argue he had denied a clear goal scoring opportunity. As it was, there's no guarantee Aguero would have been able to bring the ball under control, run 40 yards outpacing covering defenders and give himself the opportunity to score. Yellow card was about right IMO.

Comparing it to Rugby is quite different, as it's a different sport with different possibilities and rules/views to certain things. Could you guarantee that Aguero would be able to run 40 yards and outpace a defence? No, of course not, but the chances are 95%+. We're talking a world class striker with renowned pace and control, so that increases the probability. I actually think the rules are wrong, an intentional handball anywhere on the pitch should be a red card, purely because it is intentional cheating against the laws of the game, but then I'm all for firming up the rules on the 'silly stuff' and becoming a bit more lenient with things like fouling. I'm actually in favour of more penalty tries in RL as well, for me, if we were to put that situation in the context of rugby league, it would be a bit like this (imagine it's a random game with random players): Thurston kicks early in a set, the ball is 40+ yards behind the full back, Uate is chasing after it and the full back is Brett Hodgson, Hodgson won't get to the ball before him, they're both next to each other as the defence turns around, Hodgson legs up Uate and Uate falls; a clear foul off the ball denying Uate the chance to go clean through. Nobody will have caught Uate, it's highly unlikely Uate will have fumbled the ball when picking it up off the floor, can you guarantee he will have scored? No, but the chances are so high that you'd have to rule in favour of Uate. So, it's either a penalty try, or you send Hodgson. Considering penalty goals aren't allowed in football, for me, because the chances were so high in favour of Aguero and there's huge intent on Figueroa's part, you send off Figueroa.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:16 pm  

Roddy B wrote:

Comparing it to Rugby is quite different, as it's a different sport with different possibilities and rules/views to certain things. Could you guarantee that Aguero would be able to run 40 yards and outpace a defence? No, of course not, but the chances are 95%+. We're talking a world class striker with renowned pace and control, so that increases the probability. I actually think the rules are wrong, an intentional handball anywhere on the pitch should be a red card, purely because it is intentional cheating against the laws of the game, but then I'm all for firming up the rules on the 'silly stuff' and becoming a bit more lenient with things like fouling.

The two defenders were at full pace running back to cover, Aguero was virtually stationary because he was just watching the Wigan defender make a balls up of the header. I'd say that the defenders were 75% sure to get back to make a challenge.

Becoming more lenient of fouling, but wanting intentional handball to be a red because that's cheating? What about a deliberate foul, or isn't that cheating in your reality?

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:25 pm  

Paddy Barclay on Dalglish etc

Paddy Barclay on Dalglish etc

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:41 pm  

flipper wrote: Paddy Barclay on Dalglish etc Liverpool have made it clear that they don't accept that Suarez did anything wrong. So how can they apologise? And what use is an apology after all this time and the comments that have come out of LFC? If Fergie is thinking of dropping Evra for the Liverpool game then it's MU's problem, Liverpool shouldn't give a false apology just because Evra or Fergie don't have a backbone.

flipper wrote: Paddy Barclay on Dalglish etc Liverpool have made it clear that they don't accept that Suarez did anything wrong. So how can they apologise? And what use is an apology after all this time and the comments that have come out of LFC? If Fergie is thinking of dropping Evra for the Liverpool game then it's MU's problem, Liverpool shouldn't give a false apology just because Evra or Fergie don't have a backbone.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:44 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote: Liverpool have made it clear that they don't accept that Suarez did anything wrong. So how can they apologise? And what use is an apology after all this time and the comments that have come out of LFC? If Fergie is thinking of dropping Evra for the Liverpool game then it's MU's problem, Liverpool shouldn't give a false apology just because Evra or Fergie don't have a backbone. Bearing in mind he admitted to saying something, if you caused a similar offence in another country (even if it was unwittingly) you wouldn't apologise? In other news, adidas decline to renew Liverpool kit deal

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote: Liverpool have made it clear that they don't accept that Suarez did anything wrong. So how can they apologise? And what use is an apology after all this time and the comments that have come out of LFC? If Fergie is thinking of dropping Evra for the Liverpool game then it's MU's problem, Liverpool shouldn't give a false apology just because Evra or Fergie don't have a backbone. Bearing in mind he admitted to saying something, if you caused a similar offence in another country (even if it was unwittingly) you wouldn't apologise? In other news, adidas decline to renew Liverpool kit deal

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:56 pm  

flipper wrote: Bearing in mind he admitted to saying something, if you caused a similar offence in another country (even if it was unwittingly) you wouldn't apologise? In other news, adidas decline to renew Liverpool kit deal We signed a deal with Warrior Sports from Boston, which was far more than the current Adidas deal. Why Adidas say they declined to renew, when really, they were simply outbid by a smaller company, is baffling. I understand how performance on the field matters, but surely the key for Adidas would be the amount of shirts we sell. Even if we finished 7th, I imagine we'd be in the top 2/3 from England in terms of global shirt sales. I'm not that fussed anyway, the Adidas kits have been average and limited in design, I still can't get over that flimsy red collar we had on the first kit. As for Suarez, he continues to maintain his innocence, I doubt there'll be any apology from anybody at Liverpool, which, as LGJM points out, makes sense if you look at everything that's gone on.

flipper wrote: Bearing in mind he admitted to saying something, if you caused a similar offence in another country (even if it was unwittingly) you wouldn't apologise? In other news, adidas decline to renew Liverpool kit deal We signed a deal with Warrior Sports from Boston, which was far more than the current Adidas deal. Why Adidas say they declined to renew, when really, they were simply outbid by a smaller company, is baffling. I understand how performance on the field matters, but surely the key for Adidas would be the amount of shirts we sell. Even if we finished 7th, I imagine we'd be in the top 2/3 from England in terms of global shirt sales. I'm not that fussed anyway, the Adidas kits have been average and limited in design, I still can't get over that flimsy red collar we had on the first kit. As for Suarez, he continues to maintain his innocence, I doubt there'll be any apology from anybody at Liverpool, which, as LGJM points out, makes sense if you look at everything that's gone on.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:00 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

The two defenders were at full pace running back to cover, Aguero was virtually stationary because he was just watching the Wigan defender make a balls up of the header. I'd say that the defenders were 75% sure to get back to make a challenge.

Becoming more lenient of fouling, but wanting intentional handball to be a red because that's cheating? What about a deliberate foul, or isn't that cheating in your reality?

There was about 10/15 metres between Aguero and the next nearest defender, the chances of the Wigan players catching him when you consider Aguero's acceleration and full speed, were highly unlikely. Especially when you think Aguero only had to run about 30 yards to get a goal scoring opportunity. For me, the other Wigan players are irrelevant, just because of the distance between them and the incident.

By becoming more lenient with fouling, I should have gone into more detail. For me, penalties are given for far too little these days. It seems to be that contact in the box constitutes to a penalty, I'm more in favour for judging sufficient contact and where the player is going. i.e. If a player sprints in, touches a ball ahead of a player, then proceeds to go down knowing the slightest contact is coming, for me that isn't a penalty, but it's regularly given. With regards to fouls, IMO, defenders get far too much from referees. If a cross is put in, the striker basically has to be free of a marker to not commit a foul, if there is the slightest of contact with the defender, it always goes against the striker. Defenders put their hands all over strikers, they pull them over, push them around and hold them down from jumping, but the moment a striker goes shoulder to shoulder, or just so happens to rise above the defender, all the defender has to do is push his body out as though he's received contact and the ref will blow his whistle. Football isn't a non-contact game, but referees/governing bodies seem to be heading it that way. If they are to persist with this, if video evidence isn't brought in, then more referees will be needed to monitor 'contact. Another example could be when a ball is going out of player, if the attacking player tries to get around the defender who's shielding it out, he has to try and get around the player without making contact, even if the defender continually shuts down all angles by moving side to side or spreading his body out. It's bent and it doesn't reward hard work.

With regards to the handball, it's football, so the hands should never be involved unless by accident. An incident last night goes completely against the spirit of the game (if there's any left), for me, blatant cheating like that should be a red regardless of where it happens, but football's rules are all about the 'spectacle', and they let far too much go which results in the broken game we have today.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:02 pm  

flipper wrote:

Bearing in mind he admitted to saying something, if you caused a similar offence in another country (even if it was unwittingly) you wouldn't apologise?

After everything that Liverpool have said I don't think an apology now makes any sense.

LFC's version of events is that Evra lied, the FA stitched them up, the FA's process was wrong. How can they make an apology given that's Liverpool's version of events?