From: El Kot on
JohnB wrote:
> On 11 Nov, 05:46, "Diabolik" <Diabo...(a)noemail.com> wrote:
>> "El Kot" <nono.black.e...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:hdbal8$457$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>> 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.
>> controversial? lol. He was no-where near the defending player.
>>
>>> 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.
>> He didn't have to jump because he was no-where near the defending player.
>>
>>> The defender most certainly did not get the ball.
>> Yes he did! He touched the ball.
>
> This just goes to show how several people can watch the same incident
> and all see different things. I saw NGog touch the ball past Carsley's
> leg and then attempt to jump over it. What was in his mind when he
> went to ground I can't say (and only NGog can). However, some players
> would not have attempted the jump, would simply have allowed a
> trailing foot to catch Carsley's leg, and hey presto, penalty.

That's exactly what I saw and how I saw it, too, and that's why I
wrote what I wrote. I did /not/ see the defender touch the ball. If he
had, it would not have been a penalty, of course.


> So, that's what I saw. Others obviously saw something different. I
> don't believe the referee has yet explained what he thought he saw.
> What we know is that someone cried "Dive! Cheat!" and the papers have
> started another witch hunt. One broadsheet claimed it was the worst
> dive he'd ever seen. Well, he can't have watched much football then.
>
> I recall a game several years ago when Robbie Fowler was playing for
> Liverpool. He took the ball past the keeper and jumped over him.
> However he lost his balance in the process and fell to the ground.
> Referee gave a penalty and Fowler himself said "he never touched me".
> Referee said that it was still a foul challenge because Fowler had had
> to take evasive action.

Very good point, exactly what I've been talking about. Thanks for
mentioning it - I, not being a Pool fan, obviously didn't know about
this case.

--
No, no, you can't e-mail me with the nono.
From: El Kot on
Diabolik wrote:
> "El Kot" <nono.black.elko(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hdbal8$457$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>> 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.
>
> controversial? lol. He was no-where near the defending player.

Nowhere near as in right next to him?


>> 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.
>
> He didn't have to jump because he was no-where near the defending player.

If he had not jumped, he would have tripped.


>> The defender most certainly did not get the ball.
>
> Yes he did! He touched the ball.

No, he didn't.

--
No, no, you can't e-mail me with the nono.
From: El Kot on
Benny wrote:
> > Subject : Liverpool - Birmingham [R] 9.11.09
> > From : anthu_001(a)no_-_spam_.hotmail.com
>
> > 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.
>
> Rubbish. When was tackling outlawed? Ngog jumped and dived, he didn't
> jump to get out of the way of the tackle. Who is to say Carsley would
> not have won the ball? He didn't run at velocity, he didn't have his
> studs showing and as I recall correctly he seemed to motion to make a
> tackle then pulled out. Not a tackle, not a penalty.

The only difference between a tackle and a foul is, if the tackler
gets the ball. In this case, the defender didn't. Got ball - tackle;
didn't - foul. Clear and simple.
That's one of the reasons I personally dislike tackles and wish
they were outlawed, but it's a topic for another discussion.

--
No, no, you can't e-mail me with the nono.
From: Diabolik on

"El Kot" <nono.black.elko(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hdfjk5$ce3$2(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> Diabolik wrote:
>> "El Kot" <nono.black.elko(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hdbal8$457$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>> 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.
>>
>> controversial? lol. He was no-where near the defending player.
>
> Nowhere near as in right next to him?

Yeah.

>
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> He didn't have to jump because he was no-where near the defending player.
>
> If he had not jumped, he would have tripped.

Nah...he could have *easily* avoided the defender.
He was in mid air before he even got the the defender.

Very soft penalty.


>
>>> The defender most certainly did not get the ball.
>>
>> Yes he did! He touched the ball.
>
> No, he didn't.

Looking at it again the defender didn't touch the ball.

Doesn't change anything though. It was still a very soft penalty.


From: Benny on
> Subject : Liverpool - Birmingham [R] 9.11.09
> From : nono.black.elko(a)gmail.com

> The only difference between a tackle and a foul is, if the tackler
> gets the ball. In this case, the defender didn't. Got ball - tackle;
> didn't - foul. Clear and simple.

In this case the defender didn't make a tackle or commit a foul.


--
http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml