Football 2012-2013

[pink_triangle]

Do you not think there is an agenda against English national and club teams in European and World Cup competitions? I have seen too many ropey decisions against English teams, they very rarely get the benefit of the doubt.

Paranoid - probably......

[eFestivals]

Theres no intent.

that's 100% irrelevant in regard to the rules. It's either dangerous, or it's not.

And I like how you've presented the view that makes it look the least worst. It looks much MUCH worse from the other view, where it shows Nani kicking the other guy away (deliberately or not).

[Jaybles]

Arsenal should probably reconsider their new statue in honor of Bergkamp. Its clearly encouraging dangerous play.

[TheGayTent]

Once contact has been made, which clearly there was, dangerous play rule goes out of the window. It then becomes serious foul play, for which the reckless and excessive force laws apply.

[eFestivals]

It's a foul. It's careless possibly, but it's not reckless or using excessive force. Not a red.

So what you're saying, in effect, is that it wouldn't be reckless for me to drive my car down the street with my eyes shut.

[TheGayTent]

then you need to refer to the rule book too.

[eFestivals]

Once contact has been made, which clearly there was, dangerous play rule goes out of the window. It then becomes serious foul play, for which the reckless and excessive force laws apply.

but it's reckless, because he wasn't aware of the consequences.

If you put up a high foot knowing there's no one going to make contact with it, that's not reckless.

If you put up a high foot knowing that someone will make contact with it, that's reckless.

If you put up a high foot not knowing if someone will make contact with it or not, that's also reckless.

'Reckless' is a poorly considered action. The fact that Nani didn't consider the consequences makes it reckless.

[Essex_George]

Right or wrong decision by the ref Jose reacted well to it and made the change that won them the game.

[eFestivals]

No, it very much sounds like you need to, or you have misunderstood.

It cannot be dangerous play. If it was, the decision is wrong.

If Chiles read out the serious foul play rules then we are discussing interpretation.

it was the dangerous play rules he read out. What happened fell perfectly within what those rules said.

I accept that you might be right [i've no idea] with what you say above about the "dangerous play rule goes out of the window" [tho that seems too illogically stupid for it to work like that], but then it would still fall within 'reckless' because Nani didn't know what consequences his actions would have.

[TheGayTent]

but it's reckless, because he wasn't aware of the consequences.

If you put up a high foot knowing there's no one going to make contact with it, that's not reckless.

If you put up a high foot knowing that someone will make contact with it, that's reckless.

If you put up a high foot not knowing if someone will make contact with it or not, that's also reckless.

'Reckless' is a poorly considered action. The fact that Nani didn't consider the consequences makes it reckless.

[Jaybles]

So what you're saying, in effect, is that it wouldn't be reckless for me to drive my car down the street with my eyes shut.

[Essex_George]

Arsenal should probably reconsider their new statue in honor of Bergkamp. Its clearly encouraging dangerous play.

[TheGayTent]

I accept that you might be right [i've no idea]

[Jaybles]

Do you not think there is an agenda against English national and club teams in European and World Cup competitions? I have seen too many ropey decisions against English teams, they very rarely get the benefit of the doubt.

Paranoid - probably......

[eFestivals]

Wrong, if he's not aware of the consequences, that's careless. As he's shown a lack of attention or consideration.

wrong.

reckless [ˈrɛklɪs]

adj

having or showing no regard for danger or consequences;

However, even were we to go with your incorrect opinion that it's reckless, it'd still only be a caution.

so please explain why the 'dangerous play' rule goes out the window at first contact, and which rule says it does.

But whatever, dangerous is dangerous, whether the potential danger is fulfilled or not.

[TheGayTent]

[eFestivals]

You're arguing the case for something despite admitting you have no idea of the rules?

No, I'm working from the *exact* rules as read out of the rulke book last night - and which included nothing of what you said, that dangerous play goes out the window at first contact.

So which rule does say that dangerous play goes out the window at first contact? Cos something certainly doesn't stop being dangerous when contact is made.

Which rule? Is there such a rule? Or is this another of the TGT made-up rules you've offered up a few times in the last decade or so?

[Jaybles]

wrong.

reckless [ˈrɛklɪs]

adj

having or showing no regard for danger or consequences;

[The Nal]

wrong.

reckless [ˈrɛklɪs]

adj

having or showing no regard for danger or consequences;so please explain why the 'dangerous play' rule goes out the window at first contact, and which rule says it does.

But whatever, dangerous is dangerous, whether the potential danger is fulfilled or not.

[Essex_George]

[TheGayTent]

Er instead of consulting the dictionary you'd be better off reading the laws of the game under which last nights match was played. The law regarding playing in a dangerous manner I've already quoted from in this thread.

What I have omitted, I'll add here.

Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players.

Edited March 6, 2013 by TheGayTent

[TheGayTent]

No, I'm working from the *exact* rules as read out of the rulke book last night - and which included nothing of what you said, that dangerous play goes out the window at first contact.

So which rule does say that dangerous play goes out the window at first contact? Cos something certainly doesn't stop being dangerous when contact is made.

Which rule? Is there such a rule? Or is this another of the TGT made-up rules you've offered up a few times in the last decade or so?

[Jaybles]

Vidic got punched in the face last night by the keeper.

[strummer77]

Crouch kicked Matt Taylor in the head at the weekend and didn't get sent off.

Edited March 6, 2013 by strummer77

[the_hedge]

2 reasons in my mind why it wasn't a red.

1) He never takes his eyes off the ball

2) The reaction of the RM players. If they thought it was dangerous they would have surrounded the Ref.