Benitez .... prick

[blurred]

It's that bit that I disagree with. Ngog certainly toes it first. Carsley then clearly, gets some of the ball with his right foot. How much does of the ball does he need to touch for it to count? I could understand the ref missing Carsley getting a touch without the benefit of 38 replays, but he certainly gets a foot to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbjCe193ENs

40 or so seconds in to this you get a different angle.

He misses it. Clearly.

[seanworth]

It's that bit that I disagree with. Ngog certainly toes it first. Carsley then clearly, gets some of the ball with his right foot. How much does of the ball does he need to touch for it to count? I could understand the ref missing Carsley getting a touch without the benefit of 38 replays, but he certainly gets a foot to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbjCe193ENs

40 or so seconds in to this you get a different angle.

He misses it. Clearly.

Cheers for that. Have to agree Carsley did not touch the ball. Also assume that you will agree that that was clearly not a penalty.

[Lord Kangana]

Maybe its my screen resolution or something, but I'm struggling to even make out which teams are playing, let alone who touched which ball from that clip.

[Worthy4England]

It's that bit that I disagree with. Ngog certainly toes it first. Carsley then clearly, gets some of the ball with his right foot. How much does of the ball does he need to touch for it to count? I could understand the ref missing Carsley getting a touch without the benefit of 38 replays, but he certainly gets a foot to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbjCe193ENs

40 or so seconds in to this you get a different angle.

He misses it. Clearly.

Yeah - look again at the replay at 1:36 and tell me why the fook the ball moves then? Maybe the Kop were all trying to blow it away from the goal?

[blurred]

Because Ngog kicks it (slightly into the ground, hence the bobble - the ball is actually bouncing up slightly before Carsley's boot gets near it). The path of the ball doesn't deviate from when it leaves Ngog's foot, which it would have if Carsley, sliding in from the side, had got any sort of touch on it.

[Zulus Thousand of em]

He's still a cheating get.

[Worthy4England]

Because Ngog kicks it (slightly into the ground, hence the bobble - the ball is actually bouncing up slightly before Carsley's boot gets near it). The path of the ball doesn't deviate from when it leaves Ngog's foot, which it would have if Carsley, sliding in from the side, had got any sort of touch on it.

Bollocks - it quite clearly moves at about 0:35. I'm sure in the finest Liverpudlian traditions, you'll be able to drum up a petition of 45,000 people who'll all sign statements telling us we're wrong and that Carsley wasn't even in the vicinity when the contact occurred...

Guess given we're not going to agree on Carsley clearly getting a touch, we'll just have to settle for the indisputable facts:

That N'Gog is a cheat, diving without any contact whatsoever.
Looks like it's going to be a long slog for Liverpool this season although I take your point that Rafa has once again improved the team beyond all recognition - can't currently recognise it as the same team that blew it last season.
Benitez is a prick.

Think that covers the "clear" facts....

[H. Pedersen]

The whole argument about whether he hit the ball is irrelevant. The question is did he hit the PLAYER; the answer is no. If N'Gog wants the penalty, THEN TAKE THE CONTACT LIKE A MAN. No contact = no foul.

[blurred]

No contact = no foul.

Unless you want to refer to something picky like, y'know, the laws of the game. There can be a foul given for things like 'attempting to trip', which doesn't require contact. Not that we'll let that get in the way of a very cogent piece of idiocy from your good self.

And, for the record, before I'm painted as some Ngog apologist and claiming that it was a legitimate penalty, as I said a couple of days ago:

Oh, and Ngog should be banned for a hefty number of games. There's making the most of contact, there's anticipating contact and going down, and then there's just downright cheating. Not that it'll especially cost us, but he should get a good few games ban for that, no two ways about it.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

No contact = no foul.

Unless you want to refer to something picky like, y'know, the laws of the game. There can be a foul given for things like 'attempting to trip', which doesn't require contact. Not that we'll let that get in the way of a very cogent piece of idiocy from your good self.

And, for the record, before I'm painted as some Ngog apologist and claiming that it was a legitimate penalty, as I said a couple of days ago:

Oh, and Ngog should be banned for a hefty number of games. There's making the most of contact, there's anticipating contact and going down, and then there's just downright cheating. Not that it'll especially cost us, but he should get a good few games ban for that, no two ways about it.

Fair enough. I'd be interested to see if you would say the same if it was say Stevie G and not some useless lump. Not meant as a dig, but I wonder if the statement would be the same?

[H. Pedersen]

Carsley wasn't "attempting to trip" N'Gog though, was he? He was attempting to win the ball, which he either did or nearly did. Christ, next we're going to be giving penalties for THINKING about tackling in the box.

At any rate, arguing about whether it was or wasn't a penalty according to the Laws of the Game is somewhat disingenuous, because we all know there are two sets of Laws: one for the Big 4, one for everyone else. Jerome does that for Birmingham, he gets booked.

[superjohnmcginlay]

Carsley wasn't "attempting to trip" N'Gog though, was he? He was attempting to win the ball, which he either did or nearly did. Christ, next we're going to be giving penalties for THINKING about tackling in the box.

At any rate, arguing about whether it was or wasn't a penalty according to the Laws of the Game is somewhat disingenuous, because we all know there are two sets of Laws: one for the Big 4, one for everyone else. Jerome does that for Birmingham, he gets booked.

I think we're already on the way. Wasnt there some nonsense about a decision being given for "intent" or summat a while back?

[blurred]

Carsley wasn't "attempting to trip" N'Gog though, was he? He was attempting to win the ball, which he either did or nearly did. Christ, next we're going to be giving penalties for THINKING about tackling in the box.

No, you're quite correct, he wasn't attempting to trip Ngog. But then you said that no contact = no foul, which was wrong. You can foul people without touching them. Hell, you can be sent off for not touching someone (attempting to punch or kick them, for instance).

At any rate, arguing about whether it was or wasn't a penalty according to the Laws of the Game is somewhat disingenuous, because we all know there are two sets of Laws: one for the Big 4, one for everyone else. Jerome does that for Birmingham, he gets booked.

Well I think it's always worthwhile referring to the laws of the game, but then perhaps that's just me. I still don't think it was a penalty, but I think if Jerome does that then there's every likelihood of there being a penalty, because of the referee's postition (directly behind Carsley as he makes the tackle, so can't see the lack of contact and sees the striker go flying). It looks for all the world like a penalty at full speed, from that angle.

Fair enough. I'd be interested to see if you would say the same if it was say Stevie G and not some useless lump. Not meant as a dig, but I wonder if the statement would be the same?

As for saying the same, yes, I would, if it were that blatent. If it was one of his 'make the most of the contact' or 'leave the leg in to get tripped' type penalties, then no I wouldn't, and nor would I for any other player. It's regrettable, but it happens (see Darren Bent this weekend, for instance). Players exaggerate contact all the time, and much as it can leave an unpleasant taste in the mouth, I don't waste my time getting all foaming at the mouth about it.

[blurred]

I think we're already on the way. Wasnt there some nonsense about a decision being given for "intent" or summat a while back?

I think that was the rationale behind a penalty given on Gerrard on the opening day of the season a few years back against Sheffield United - their player came flying in, Gerrard hurdled the attempted tackle and went to ground and the ref gave the pen and gave that reasoning.

[superjohnmcginlay]

I think we're already on the way. Wasnt there some nonsense about a decision being given for "intent" or summat a while back?

I think that was the rationale behind a penalty given on Gerrard on the opening day of the season a few years back against Sheffield United - their player came flying in, Gerrard hurdled the attempted tackle and went to ground and the ref gave the pen and gave that reasoning.

Glad I didnt imagine it. Thats not good though is it?

[blurred]

Glad I didnt imagine it. Thats not good though is it?

I can see the argument that if you come flying in, miss the ball but force the attacker to lose possession/fall over/whatever then that's the same as having fouled him. It should just be looked at on a case by case basis, I think. I wouldn't want the rule removed, but then I don't want to see it applied very often (and don't think that that's what the ref was doing in the Ngog case).

[superjohnmcginlay]

Glad I didnt imagine it. Thats not good though is it?

I can see the argument that if you come flying in, miss the ball but force the attacker to lose possession/fall over/whatever then that's the same as having fouled him. It should just be looked at on a case by case basis, I think. I wouldn't want the rule removed, but then I don't want to see it applied very often (and don't think that that's what the ref was doing in the Ngog case).

Thats fine if you're forcing the attacker to fall etc. But thats not "intent" thats doing.
Dodgy ground if you start heading that way.

[boltonboris]

Riding a tackle doesn't make you go to ground. Contact does, there was no contact therefore, he should have stayed on his feet

[H. Pedersen]

Carsley wasn't "attempting to trip" N'Gog though, was he? He was attempting to win the ball, which he either did or nearly did. Christ, next we're going to be giving penalties for THINKING about tackling in the box.

No, you're quite correct, he wasn't attempting to trip Ngog. But then you said that no contact = no foul, which was wrong. You can foul people without touching them. Hell, you can be sent off for not touching someone (attempting to punch or kick them, for instance).

Wouldn't that fall under dangerous play, and an indirect kick then?

[boltonboris]

Carsley wasn't "attempting to trip" N'Gog though, was he? He was attempting to win the ball, which he either did or nearly did. Christ, next we're going to be giving penalties for THINKING about tackling in the box.

No, you're quite correct, he wasn't attempting to trip Ngog. But then you said that no contact = no foul, which was wrong. You can foul people without touching them. Hell, you can be sent off for not touching someone (attempting to punch or kick them, for instance).

Wouldn't that fall under dangerous play, and an indirect kick then?

Dangerous play is a direct kick