Robbo
Member
Registered: 6th Aug 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rob_Quads
Does there need to be contact for it to be a foul? If someone swings an axe at your head and you avoid it does that mean they can't be done for manslaughter?
Normally i hate diving but i think this time he just about gets away with it - why...if he had not have gone down then the player would have taken him down. The problem is if he had jumped the tackle then he would have got nothing for it. Jumping a dodgy tackle should result in the same as a dodgy tackle where there is contact.
Agreed in theory however had he stayed on his feet then Carsley probably wopuld have got the ball etc. Too spurioous to be judging what ifs but I agree with the notion
|
Tom
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: Wirral, Merseyside
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nath
Tis on there, and why did he have to dive? He shoud've genuinely let Carsley make contact, as he wasn't going to win the challenge.
As been mentioned a few times, if he would have let him make contact we might have ANOTHER player on the injury list 
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tom
quote:
Originally posted by Nath
Tis on there, and why did he have to dive? He shoud've genuinely let Carsley make contact, as he wasn't going to win the challenge.
As been mentioned a few times, if he would have let him make contact we might have ANOTHER player on the injury list
No chance that would've injured him. I've ridden tackles like that and I'm as hench as Peter Crouch.
|
Conway563
Member
Registered: 7th Jun 06
Location: Yate, Bristol
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robbo
Agreed in theory however had he stayed on his feet then Carsley probably wopuld have got the ball etc.
I'm not defending him and I'm only basing this on the stills as I've not seen a replay but surely if Carsley was going to get the ball he would have got it either way? I don;t see how Ngog falling over prevented him from doing so. The ball already appears to be past Carsley before he's on the way down
[Edited on 10-11-2009 by Conway563]
|
Cosmo
Member
Registered: 29th Mar 01
Location: Im the real one!
User status: Offline
|
Impossible to say he wouldnt of got injured, and with out luck he would of. Anything could of happened - studs stuck in the turf and he does his knee ligaments, falls funny from the tackle and dislocates a shoulder, etc. all of which have happened to us in recent seasons.
And robbo, he was NEVER getting to the ball if he jumped or not.
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
Carsley was never getting the ball IMO.
|
Tom
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: Wirral, Merseyside
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robbo
quote:
Originally posted by Rob_Quads
Does there need to be contact for it to be a foul? If someone swings an axe at your head and you avoid it does that mean they can't be done for manslaughter?
Normally i hate diving but i think this time he just about gets away with it - why...if he had not have gone down then the player would have taken him down. The problem is if he had jumped the tackle then he would have got nothing for it. Jumping a dodgy tackle should result in the same as a dodgy tackle where there is contact.
Agreed in theory however had he stayed on his feet then Carsley probably wopuld have got the ball etc. Too spurioous to be judging what ifs but I agree with the notion
He would? Can I borrow your crystal ball please bob 
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
Robbo has Wenger-Vision
|
Chrissy
Premium Member
Registered: 28th Jan 06
Location: Sunny Glasgow Drives: Astra J
User status: Offline
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ttlkk4dKM8 
>>>> Chris <<<<
|
Robbo
Member
Registered: 6th Aug 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
sorry i dont necy mean he would or wouldnt have, what i meant is had he stayed on his feet and carsley giot the ball then its not a pen hence why its too spurious to say it was an attempted foul. im talkign theory here rather than that actual example
|
Tom
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: Wirral, Merseyside
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nath
Robbo has Wenger-Vision
 
|
Robbo
Member
Registered: 6th Aug 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
PS watch the slow mo in that vid and carsleys foot is aboitu an inch from the ball so those of you sayign hes never gettign the bal...
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
If you like Tom
|
Robbo
Member
Registered: 6th Aug 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
34s in
|
Cosmo
Member
Registered: 29th Mar 01
Location: Im the real one!
User status: Offline
|
Robbo, in this situation he wouldnt of got to it if he jumped or not. He jumped so he wouldnt get a kick and thus went down. Had he of stayed on his feet the only thing different would of been him getting a kick.
His jump makes no difference IMO, it was a foul.
Outside of the box it would of been given and no one would of complained.
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robbo
PS watch the slow mo in that vid and carsleys foot is aboitu an inch from the ball so those of you sayign hes never gettign the bal...
He wasn't getting the ball. Ngog jumping didn't change this.
|
Robbo
Member
Registered: 6th Aug 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tom
quote:
Originally posted by Nath
Robbo has Wenger-Vision
|
Cosmo
Member
Registered: 29th Mar 01
Location: Im the real one!
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nath
quote:
Originally posted by Robbo
PS watch the slow mo in that vid and carsleys foot is aboitu an inch from the ball so those of you sayign hes never gettign the bal...
He wasn't getting the ball. Ngog jumping didn't change this.
Ngog's jump sped up time yet slowed down carsely, and thus the ball moved faster away from his foot.
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo
Robbo, in this situation he wouldnt of got to it if he jumped or not. He jumped so he wouldnt get a kick and thus went down. Had he of stayed on his feet the only thing different would of been him getting a kick.
His jump makes no difference IMO, it was a foul.
Outside of the box it would of been given and no one would of complained.
It't a tough one. Because can there be a foul without contact? I get the concept, but not sure it can always be applied.
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo
quote:
Originally posted by Nath
quote:
Originally posted by Robbo
PS watch the slow mo in that vid and carsleys foot is aboitu an inch from the ball so those of you sayign hes never gettign the bal...
He wasn't getting the ball. Ngog jumping didn't change this.
Ngog's jump sped up time yet slowed down carsely, and thus the ball moved faster away from his foot.
Ahhhhhhhhh, I get it now.
|
Robbo
Member
Registered: 6th Aug 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo
Robbo, in this situation he wouldnt of got to it if he jumped or not. He jumped so he wouldnt get a kick and thus went down. Had he of stayed on his feet the only thing different would of been him getting a kick.
His jump makes no difference IMO, it was a foul.
Outside of the box it would of been given and no one would of complained.
Cant judge a game on what ifs. If you cant see thats a dive then you need your eyes testing! He coudl have jumped it and lande don his feet and put the ball in the net maybe too, who knows. Cant judge on what ifs
|
Tom
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: Wirral, Merseyside
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robbo
PS watch the slow mo in that vid and carsleys foot is aboitu an inch from the ball so those of you sayign hes never gettign the bal...
.....Are right because he actually missed it!!
You've just agreed with the 'notion' above roberto now you're backpeddling because you know he was never going to win the ball, hence making eduardo's dive much worse ( )
|
Robbo
Member
Registered: 6th Aug 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nath
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo
Robbo, in this situation he wouldnt of got to it if he jumped or not. He jumped so he wouldnt get a kick and thus went down. Had he of stayed on his feet the only thing different would of been him getting a kick.
His jump makes no difference IMO, it was a foul.
Outside of the box it would of been given and no one would of complained.
It't a tough one. Because can there be a foul without contact? I get the concept, but not sure it can always be applied.
Precisely, you cant judge what you cant see. I do agree with the concept but you cant apply it because who knows what woudl ahve happened. And either way, Ngog doesnt have to dive when hes in mid air either way, he can land on his feet if its a genuine "foul" and the decision would be given
|
Cosmo
Member
Registered: 29th Mar 01
Location: Im the real one!
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robbo
Cant judge a game on what ifs. If you cant see thats a dive then you need your eyes testing! He coudl have jumped it and lande don his feet and put the ball in the net maybe too, who knows. Cant judge on what ifs
Its not a what if, its fairly clear he is nowhere near the ball, Ngogs jump does not speed up or slow down the ball or Carsley. It also does not change where Ngog is on the pitch other than his height so therefore its easy to see he would of been taken down should he of not jumped.
|
Cavey
Member
Registered: 11th Nov 02
Location: Derby
User status: Offline
|
You don't have to fall forward to avoid a tackle though, you can just jump upwards, or extend your stride slightly, not go jumping onto the ground
This was the exact arguement for the Educardo incident, that he dived out of the way of the tackle to avoid injury.
They were both dives, and I don't think any neutral person could deny that, obviously I expect fans to argue their point on it tho. But they're wrong
|
