From: Jussi Uosukainen on
Manx Gunner <goal(a)4thegunners!com> wrote:
> On 09 Nov 2009 22:01:48 GMT, Jussi Uosukainen wrote...
>
>> 2 - 2 Gerrard (pen)
>
> No comment on Ngog's dive?

Ngog dived to win a penalty.

--
/jussi
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point
out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a
half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.
* The Sandman
From: Jussi Uosukainen on
Binder Dundat <dundat(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 5:58�pm, Benny <Be...(a)soccer-europe.com> wrote:
>> �> Subject : Liverpool - Birmingham [R] 9.11.09
>> �> From : ju...(a)zulu-30.nebula.fi
>>
>> �> FT 2 - 2
>> �>
>> �> 1 - 0 Ngog
>> �> 1 - 1 Benitez
>> �> 1 - 2 Jerome
>> �> 2 - 2 Gerrard (pen)
>> �>
>> �> Pathetic. Sure, Torres was out, Riera was injured before half time and
>> �> Benitez put on the half fit Gerrard, who was pretty anonymous. At least
>> �> Kyrgiakos and Voronin were not on the pitch at any time.
>> �>
>> �> The second Brum goal was Reinas fault, he came off the line at the wrong
>> �> time. Agger also backed away for no good reason, and Mascherano was
>> �> behind the player. Without that fluke, the result could have been very
>> �> different
>>
>> It would have been very different without Ngog doing a Gerrard to win a
>> penalty.
>>
>> --http://soccer-europe.com
>> Rss feed :http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
>
> I watched this game and it was not very good. Liverpool should have
> had this game wrapped up in the first 10 minutes. It is not Benitez's
> fault they could only get a draw. Ngog scored a nice goal and won a
> debatable penalty so he did his job. Nobody else for Liverpool looked
> good. A coaching change might help the lethargic attitude of the
> players, but that is about it. And I am not sure it would even do
> that? The crowd was kind of quiet as well? It would also be nice if
> ESPN found an english speaking commentator instead of Chris Waddle? I
> can barely understand him when i am drunk!

I thought Johnson also played very well, very good runs into the box at
times. Just what a fullback needs to do when playing against weaker
opposition at home.

--
/jussi
Highly intelligent and well-informed people disagree on every political
issue. Therefore, intelligence and knowledge are useless for
making decisions, because if any of that stuff helped, then all the
smart people would have the same opinions. So use your "gut instinct"
to make voting choices. That is exactly like being clueless, but with
the added advantage that you'll feel as if your random vote preserved
democracy.
*Scott Adams
From: El Kot on
Jussi Uosukainen wrote:
> Manx Gunner <goal(a)4thegunners!com> wrote:
>> On 09 Nov 2009 22:01:48 GMT, Jussi Uosukainen wrote...
>>
>>> 2 - 2 Gerrard (pen)
>> No comment on Ngog's dive?
>
> Ngog dived to win a penalty.

I think this is one of these strange controversial cases. True,
Ngog was not tripped, he fell on his own accord. But the reason he was
not tripped is because he jumped to avoid being tripped. The defender
most certainly did not get the ball. If Ngog had not jumped, he would
have been tripped, and it would have been a stonewall penalty. But then
he might have been injured by the tackle.
On balance, I think the penalty was fair, if not exactly to the
letter of the rules. Maybe another rule needs to be added - if a player
has to jump to avoid being fouled, then it's a foul. :)

--
No, no, you can't e-mail me with the nono.
From: Jussi Uosukainen on
El Kot <nono.black.elko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Jussi Uosukainen wrote:
>> Manx Gunner <goal(a)4thegunners!com> wrote:
>>> On 09 Nov 2009 22:01:48 GMT, Jussi Uosukainen wrote...
>>>
>>>> 2 - 2 Gerrard (pen)
>>> No comment on Ngog's dive?
>>
>> Ngog dived to win a penalty.
>
> I think this is one of these strange controversial cases. True,
> Ngog was not tripped, he fell on his own accord. But the reason he was
> not tripped is because he jumped to avoid being tripped. The defender
> most certainly did not get the ball. If Ngog had not jumped, he would
> have been tripped, and it would have been a stonewall penalty. But then
> he might have been injured by the tackle.
> On balance, I think the penalty was fair, if not exactly to the
> letter of the rules. Maybe another rule needs to be added - if a player
> has to jump to avoid being fouled, then it's a foul. :)
>
TBH, he dived. He could have jumped the tackle and kept his footing,
just decided to go down to earn a point.

--
/jussi
Science flies you to the moon.
Religion flies you into buildings.
* Victor Stenger
From: El Kot on
Jussi Uosukainen wrote:
> El Kot <nono.black.elko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jussi Uosukainen wrote:
>>> Manx Gunner <goal(a)4thegunners!com> wrote:
>>>> On 09 Nov 2009 22:01:48 GMT, Jussi Uosukainen wrote...
>>>>
>>>>> 2 - 2 Gerrard (pen)
>>>> No comment on Ngog's dive?
>>> Ngog dived to win a penalty.
>> I think this is one of these strange controversial cases. True,
>> Ngog was not tripped, he fell on his own accord. But the reason he was
>> not tripped is because he jumped to avoid being tripped. The defender
>> most certainly did not get the ball. If Ngog had not jumped, he would
>> have been tripped, and it would have been a stonewall penalty. But then
>> he might have been injured by the tackle.
>> On balance, I think the penalty was fair, if not exactly to the
>> letter of the rules. Maybe another rule needs to be added - if a player
>> has to jump to avoid being fouled, then it's a foul. :)
>>
> TBH, he dived. He could have jumped the tackle and kept his footing,
> just decided to go down to earn a point.

Yes, he dived. That's not the point. The point is, if he had to
jump to avoid the tackle, then that tackle was illegal to begin with,
and should have been penalized in some way.
To extend an analogy - should the sentence be the same for murder
as for attempted murder? And moreover, should it make a difference, if
the victim dodged the bullet, but fell to the ground and pretended he
was dead? The attempt to kill him took place regardless. :)

--
No, no, you can't e-mail me with the nono.