TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The authorities have backed up what I and many others have said Matt. You got it wrong as usual, take it like a man, not like a bitch................for once.

I don't know why this is going on and on and on. Kompany is off the ground, both legs forward and studs up. He is not in control when he is in flight. Yes he gets the ball and not Nani but thats because Nani jumps out of the way. If Nani does not jump out of the way and gets decked is it a fould then? Anyone can win balls of a player all day long by taking ball from a player by decking the player.

It's just Matt and his inability to concede he got it wrong

ferrarilover wrote:Nor should he. There are shades of grey for me, and that should be reflected in the punishment meted out. He will get the same ban for the offence as Rene got for his horrific two footed lunge into the Accrington player's upper thigh. Two totally different tackles linked by a technicality in the rules and therefore subject to identical punishment. That can't be right.

Matt.

No there arne't. You have been telling us for ages with both your actions and speech that everthing is orange!! :na:

Personally, I think it was a red every day of the week. Regardless of contact, it was a dangerous tackle which must be punished. The fact that Nani gets out the way is only testament to how little control Kompany had over the tackle.

Many of us spend so much time complaining that the rules aren't clear enough, yet when decisions are made which follow the laws of the game, there are big debates as to whether it was right or wrong.

Put simply, refs can't win!

You miss the point Dave, the bigger picture, that awarding the same treatment to both Kompany for his offence and, say, Rene Howe for his must be fundamentally unfair.
Just because the majority and the authorities have blindly followed the poorly drafted and interpreted rule book, it doesn't make the decision right.
There was a time when the majority and the authorities would have agreed that black people should use different busses to white people...
The game would be much better for more thinking like mine and less, sadly, like yours.

Matt.

No Matt, it's you who is missing the point, as usual. The red card was deserved, the fact that Nani was on his feet and therefore managed to avoid any contact doesn't mean that the tackle wouldn't have resulted in a dangerous situation for him similar to that of the Accrington player.
The decision was right according to the laws of the game of football. What next, Matt? Do you want to change the rules so that only players for the away team can be red-carded? Do you want referees to award a goal instead of a corner?

The game is what it is, the rules are what they are, your idiotic retorts are what they are too.

If he tucks that left leg in behind him, a left leg which gets nowhere near Nani, then it's one footed and, according to the laws of the game, a perfectly decent tackle. His incidental left foot made it 'two footed' but absolutely no more dangerous than any other perfectly ordinary tackle.
Nani is one of the biggest wimps in the game and he didn't even think about going down or making a fuss. It wasn't dangerous, it was a perfectly good tackle which had no more propensity or intent to cause injury than any other tackle in any other football match played that day.

I don't want to change the rules, I want the rules to show the difference between two footed but perfectly innocent and bereft of danger, and two footed and an awful challenge.

As for idiotic retorts, physician, heal thyself.

Matt.

ferrarilover wrote:If he tucks that left leg in behind him, a left leg which gets nowhere near Nani, then it's one footed and,

Newsflash !!!!

He doesn't. How many more times do you want to prove yourself an idiot?

ferrarilover wrote: it was a perfectly good tackle .

It wasn't, it was one worthy of a red card under the current rules..............

No, he doesn't tuck his left leg in behind himself, which is what makes it two footed, but two footed doesn't automatically mean dangerous or with intent and that is for what we must issue red cards.

It's poor interpretation of the rules which makes it a red, not the rules themselves.

Matt.

Matt, you can argue till the cows come home but your stance is futile. Your examples are becoming more and more perverse. The interpretation of the rules in this instance is 100% correct. That kind of tackle is outlawed, the fact that Nani wasn't injured is immaterial. Your perception of the rules is just that, your perception. Red card was issued in accordance with the rules and the instructions given to referees and this was backed up by the FA who threw out the appeal by Abu Dhabi City. Your case is dismissed, irrelevant and full of nonsensical drama. Must do better.

Was it a two footed tackle? Answer: Yes
Do the rules stipulate that you should be sent off for a two footed tackle? Answer: Yes
Have the FA reviewed the decision that Chris Foy made having seen the incident once? Answer: Yes
Did they uphold the decision? Answer: Yes

Legitimate red card - end of story.

Anyone watching City v Liverpool.

Anyone see anything relevant.

Dave, I think it's time to call this quits, you're not going to deviate from your interpretation, nor I from mine. I see why it's been given, but I don't agree.

Scott, just as an admin point, there is absolutely nothing in the rules which stipulates that a two-footer is a red card, that is the absolute crux of my argument.

Matt.

I know you won't deviate from your wrong interpretation of the laws of the game, but you should, because you ARE wrong.

The laws mention only serious foul play, which is a matter for interpretation, so neither of us can actually be wrong. If it had been something like a punch, or a very obvious handball, then no, but for something like this, then yes, there is an argument both ways.

Glen Johnson anyone?

Matt.