Benitez .... prick

Bruno · Post by **Bruno** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 12:39 pm

It's bollocks. I hate this Arsenal-ification of the game, we need to scrap the modern 'interpretations' of the rules and get back to the old-fashioned version of what is and what isn't a foul. Too much namby pamby fannying around these days with 'intent' and 'anticipating' the foul. Just helps the cheats like Ngog and Gerrard.

H. Pedersen · Post by **H. Pedersen** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 1:06 pm

boltonboris wrote:
H. Pedersen wrote:
blurred wrote:
H. Pedersen wrote: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

Are you sure? I recall a Juve - Inter game where one of the Juve defenders was penalized for a high kick without actual contact. Adriano scored the free kick . . . which was disallowed because it was indirect.

boltonboris · Post by **boltonboris** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 1:08 pm

H. Pedersen wrote:
boltonboris wrote:
H. Pedersen wrote:
blurred wrote:
H. Pedersen wrote: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
Are you sure? I recall a Juve - Inter game where one of the Juve defenders was penalized for a high kick without actual contact. Adriano scored the free kick . . . which was disallowed because it was indirect.

Well then the Italian ref fecked up

Prufrock · Post by **Prufrock** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:28 pm

boltonboris wrote:
H. Pedersen wrote:
boltonboris wrote:
H. Pedersen wrote:
blurred wrote: 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
Are you sure? I recall a Juve - Inter game where one of the Juve defenders was penalized for a high kick without actual contact. Adriano scored the free kick . . . which was disallowed because it was indirect.
Well then the Italian ref fecked up

Not strictly true. 'Dangerous play' is a direct free kick, 'playing in a dangerous manner', a different offence is an indirect offence. Thinks like high foot, where there is no intent to harm, and often occur because a player is unaware of his opponents presence are playing in a dangerous manner.

RE: N'gog- Blurred is right when talking about there being no need to make contact. In the case of Carsley, there is no question of any form of dangerous play being involved, it is clearly a case of deciding whether or not Carsley is guilty of one of the specific, named offences in the Laws relating to a direct free-kick, in this case 'tripping, or attempting to trip' (there are several specifically named-others including 'pushing, or attempting to push', 'kicking or attempting to kick'). Carsley is not attempting to trip N'Gog, he is attempting to win the ball, and he doesn't actually trip him either. Therefore it is not a foul. Easy to see how the ref would think it was though.

I still think my idea on diving is the best at the top level. Tell referees to ignore it, either give the foul or don't, then check on video afterwards, two match ban if guilty.

enfieldwhite · Post by **enfieldwhite** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:53 pm

Bruno wrote:It's bollocks. I hate this Arsenal-ification of the game, we need to scrap the modern 'interpretations' of the rules and get back to the old-fashioned version of what is and what isn't a foul. Too much namby pamby fannying around these days with 'intent' and 'anticipating' the foul. Just helps the cheats like Ngog and Gerrard.

This. 100%

Tombwfc · Post by **Tombwfc** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:15 pm

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

But what if the inconvienience of riding the tackle forces you to lose the ball/miss the chance? Why should the attacker have to hurdle bad challenges in order to get to goal?

At the end of the day, if you're sliding about in the box and don't win the ball, I think you can have few complaints if you give away a penalty.

BWFC_Insane · Post by **BWFC_Insane** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:19 pm

Bruno wrote:It's bollocks. I hate this Arsenal-ification of the game, we need to scrap the modern 'interpretations' of the rules and get back to the old-fashioned version of what is and what isn't a foul. Too much namby pamby fannying around these days with 'intent' and 'anticipating' the foul. Just helps the cheats like Ngog and Gerrard.

Christ I feel dirty. But I agree entirely with Bruno here.

Zulus Thousand of em · Post by **Zulus Thousand of em** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:39 am

Cheating scouse c*nts. Just my opinion like.

Hoboh · Post by **Hoboh** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:04 am

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Bruno wrote:It's bollocks. I hate this Arsenal-ification of the game, we need to scrap the modern 'interpretations' of the rules and get back to the old-fashioned version of what is and what isn't a foul. Too much namby pamby fannying around these days with 'intent' and 'anticipating' the foul. Just helps the cheats like Ngog and Gerrard.
Christ I feel dirty. But I agree entirely with Bruno here.

Whoo oooh lets all jump on the Bruno train

100% AGREE

Worthy4England · Post by **Worthy4England** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:26 am

Zulus Thousand of em wrote:Cheating scouse c*nts. Just my opinion like.

But what of their non-Scousers, such as Benitez? Do you have a view on him?

H. Pedersen · Post by **H. Pedersen** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:37 am

In other Benitez/Prick news:

Liverpool have placed a £14m price tag on midfielder Lucas Leiva after a couple of top European sides inquired about his availability. (Daily Mirror)

Is he on drugs?

Zulus Thousand of em · Post by **Zulus Thousand of em** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:59 am

Worthy4England wrote:
Zulus Thousand of em wrote:Cheating scouse c*nts. Just my opinion like.
But what of their non-Scousers, such as Benitez? Do you have a view on him?

I perceive him to be a prick. (I'm not sure if that's ever been mentioned on here.)

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:59 am

Who, Benitez or the "couple of top european sides"?

H. Pedersen · Post by **H. Pedersen** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 9:11 am

Verbal wrote:Who, Benitez or the other top european sides?

I reject the question, as it implies Liverpool is a "top European side."

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 9:13 am

H. Pedersen wrote:
Verbal wrote:Who, Benitez or the other top european sides?
I reject the question, as it implies Liverpool is a "top European side."

got to have a fish now and then

edited.

blurred · Post by **blurred** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:09 pm

H. Pedersen wrote:In other Benitez/Prick news:

Liverpool have placed a £14m price tag on midfielder Lucas Leiva after a couple of top European sides inquired about his availability. (Daily Mirror)
Is he on drugs?

No, but you clearly are for believing everything you read in the tabloid press.

Seriously, just for a while try thinking that not everything you read is true. You'll feel enlightened.

boltonboris · Post by **boltonboris** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 3:31 pm

blurred wrote:
H. Pedersen wrote:In other Benitez/Prick news:

Liverpool have placed a £14m price tag on midfielder Lucas Leiva after a couple of top European sides inquired about his availability. (Daily Mirror)
Is he on drugs?
No, but you clearly are for believing everything you read in the tabloid press.

Seriously, just for a while try thinking that not everything you read is true. You'll feel enlightened.

It's only untre when it's about us Blurred.. Please leave us to laugh at your expense. You'll feel enlightened.

James B · Post by **James B** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:44 pm

season going from strength to strength....

Lord Kangana · Post by **Lord Kangana** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:49 pm

Manager swap?Perfect match if you ask me, after all, our manager has a proven track record of simply trying to maintain the status quo, which is their raison d'etre these days.

BWFC_Insane · Post by **BWFC_Insane** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:56 pm

Watching Gerrard in the tunnel, watching Fiorentina hold on....

Priceless.

Connect with your social network account

Benitez .... prick

Who is online