Re: The Chicken-Egg Conundrum

by the xcx Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:20 pm

free_cat wrote:
The xcx wrote:
free_cat wrote:
The xcx wrote:
Get real son, that was no tackle, it was just an slight contact, Messi was just trying to make it like a big deal.

Read the rules, "son". That was an intent of agression, and a straight red. You just can stomp your studs when you are jumping to someone without trying to touch the ball. If you think that's allowed by the rules, I suggest you change to another sport.
A selective memory I see? So if Marcelo deserved a card after touching messi in the air, same thing applies for Pedros tackle to Ramos.
Difference? Marcelo was trying to get the ball in air, while Pedro didint go for a ball. Every tackle isint worth a card to begin with.

I don't know which play you mean involving Pedro and Ramos, but the point here, is that Marcelo wasn't doing a tackle, a tackle is to gain the posession of the ball, he jumped, and while at the air completely sold because he didn't reach the ball, he kicked messi with his studs. Straight red for intent of agression. Last time I try to explain you the rules. And I embed the video so you see it clearly:

Was Marcelo trying to touch the ball kicking Messi? Really?

Lol the last thing I need is an Cule giving me lecture about football rules Very Happy

You got to take the "tackle" from the referees perspective. I think he was a far away to judge the contact, so he just gave an warning to Marcelo...Oh that tackle Pedro made to Ramos is here:

5:20.

by BarrileteCosmico Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:27 pm

Edit: nevermind, you were talking about the ref

by the xcx Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:29 pm

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Edit: nevermind, you were talking about the ref

Cant even have a friendly argument without being insulted? I need a brain and glasses, what else? Very Happy

by BarrileteCosmico Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:31 pm

My bad, I thought you were claiming that the tackle didn't make contact and Messi was faking it, but I misread. My apologies.

by ChollaVille Sun Aug 21, 2011 12:10 am

Inista makes foul on Dive Maria's right leg, after that Dive Maria simulating injury of lef leg LOLOLOLOLOL

by Omniscient Sun Aug 21, 2011 12:20 am

Something I found exceedingly ironic, I was playing Fifa 11 yesterday, and one of the commentary lines made me literally laugh out loud.

Ray Hudson (Real vs Barca): "The thing that I like about this derby is, usually you hear about fouls and people thumping at each other, but not in this one. These teams tend to try and outplay each other."

Yet there have been 0 threads discussing the tactical aspects of Barcelona vs Real Madrid, instead it's a gigantic shitfest about which team dived and fouled more.

I wonder what the commentary about El Clasico in Fifa 12 is going to be like?

by The Franchise Sun Aug 21, 2011 12:31 am

There is no chicken and egg here.

2nd leg, I didnt see any Barca dives at all. I saw Iniesta milk Pepe hitting him in the face, but Pepe accidently hit him none the less.

But there was no dives from us, yet we still saw the over physical play and of course Marcelo's sham of a tackle.

In fact, I saw Pepe do a terrible dive, Cristiano and Di Maria both fall under no pressure.

This aggresion being attributed to us diving is a load of rubish, made up to justify the actions of 3 or 4 animals ating as footballers out there.

by Senor Penguin Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:37 am

free_cat wrote:
The xcx wrote:
free_cat wrote:
The xcx wrote:
Get real son, that was no tackle, it was just an slight contact, Messi was just trying to make it like a big deal.

Read the rules, "son". That was an intent of agression, and a straight red. You just can stomp your studs when you are jumping to someone without trying to touch the ball. If you think that's allowed by the rules, I suggest you change to another sport.
A selective memory I see? So if Marcelo deserved a card after touching messi in the air, same thing applies for Pedros tackle to Ramos.
Difference? Marcelo was trying to get the ball in air, while Pedro didint go for a ball. Every tackle isint worth a card to begin with.

I don't know which play you mean involving Pedro and Ramos, but the point here, is that Marcelo wasn't doing a tackle, a tackle is to gain the posession of the ball, he jumped, and while at the air completely sold because he didn't reach the ball, he kicked messi with his studs. Straight red for intent of agression. Last time I try to explain you the rules. And I embed the video so you see it clearly:

Was Marcelo trying to touch the ball kicking Messi? Really?

First of all, there are no studs used in that challenge. Studs are located on the soles of a football boot - not where the laces are.

These are studs. They are located underneath the boot:
The Chicken-Egg Conundrum - Page 2 F50_2009_in_yellow_black

The Chicken-Egg Conundrum - Page 2 F50_2009_in_yellow_black

Secondly, he slightly kicks Messi while in mid-air because he realizes he won't catch the ball and probably won't catch up with Messi once he gets down on his feet again. There is no "intent of aggression" as you claim - there's only an intention to stop Messi by fouling him.

If you want to see an example of studs being used with the "intent of aggression" then I've got the perfect example for you:
The Chicken-Egg Conundrum - Page 2 Pepe---Alves---1

The Chicken-Egg Conundrum - Page 2 Pepe---Alves---1

Hope that helps!

by I-no Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:57 pm

enjoy

by free_cat Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:30 pm

@ Senorpenguin: I know what studs are, that was unncessary. You seriously don't see Marcelo hitting Messi with the sole of his feet? Get glasses, son. Second, trying to hit someone without intention of playing the ball, is always considered an agreession. NIce that you agree that Pepe was a red card though.

@xxcx: That Pedro tackle on Ramos is completely different than the Marcelo one, in the sense that Pedro has a minimal option to get to the ball. Plus, it wasn't a violent challenge. It was a yellow card, no doubt though.

by Senor Penguin Mon Aug 22, 2011 10:48 am

free_cat wrote:@ Senorpenguin: I know what studs are, that was unncessary. You seriously don't see Marcelo hitting Messi with the sole of his feet? Get glasses, son. Second, trying to hit someone without intention of playing the ball, is always considered an agreession. NIce that you agree that Pepe was a red card though.

I just reviewed the incident with VLC player in full-screen and slow motion. I still don't see any studs being used. If there is any contact with the studs then it's only with the very tip of the boot that slightly manages to brush Messi's leg when Marcelo is on his way down.

If he had the intention to use his studs I'm sure the situation would've been much more dramatic and Messi would've been in much more pain.

by free_cat Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:32 am

Ok Senor penguin, one question: was Marcelo trying to get the ball with that option or deliberately to kick Messi (studs or no studs)?

by Senor Penguin Mon Aug 22, 2011 12:53 pm

free_cat wrote:Ok Senor penguin, one question: was Marcelo trying to get the ball with that option or deliberately to kick Messi (studs or no studs)?

I thought I spoke about that in one of my earlier posts?

Secondly, he slightly kicks Messi while in mid-air because he realizes he won't catch the ball and probably won't catch up with Messi once he gets down on his feet again. There is no "intent of aggression" as you claim - there's only an intention to stop Messi by fouling him.

by BarrileteCosmico Mon Aug 22, 2011 12:55 pm

...how is kicking someone with the express wish to bring him down, thus stopping him, not intent of aggression? Is it only intent of aggression if he wants to injure Messi?

by Senor Penguin Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:09 pm

BarrileteCosmico wrote:...how is kicking someone with the express wish to bring him down, thus stopping him, not intent of aggression? Is it only intent of aggression if he wants to injure Messi?

Because aggression usually means you wish to harm your opponent. I don't see that to be the case in this situation.

by kiranr Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:15 pm

Senor Penguin wrote:
BarrileteCosmico wrote:...how is kicking someone with the express wish to bring him down, thus stopping him, not intent of aggression? Is it only intent of aggression if he wants to injure Messi?
Because aggression usually means you wish to harm your opponent. I don't see that to be the case in this situation.

He does not wish to harm, but he does not care about Messi being injured either.

by Senor Penguin Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:17 pm

kiranr wrote:
Senor Penguin wrote:
BarrileteCosmico wrote:...how is kicking someone with the express wish to bring him down, thus stopping him, not intent of aggression? Is it only intent of aggression if he wants to injure Messi?
Because aggression usually means you wish to harm your opponent. I don't see that to be the case in this situation.

He does not wish to harm, but he does not care about Messi being injured either.

Considering the way he chopped Fabregas in half I'd say that's not far from the truth either.

by free_cat Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:37 pm

Senorpenguin, you don't know a sh¡t about football rules.

Here a link that reviews the refereeing of the Supercopa second leg:
http://laligauk.com/laligauk_yii_blog/index.php/BlogPosts/view/id/61/title/Referee%27s+View+-+Super+Cup+2nd+Leg

What says about Marcelo's tackle:

Marcelo should have been dismissed Under Law 12 which states “Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play” Mr Borbalan failed in his duty to protect the players safety, and in awarding a yellow card his authority was undermined.

Btw, Ronaldo's goal was offside. A trashing.

by Senor Penguin Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:55 pm

free_cat wrote:Senorpenguin, you don't know a sh¡t about football rules.

Here a link that reviews the refereeing of the Supercopa second leg:
http://laligauk.com/laligauk_yii_blog/index.php/BlogPosts/view/id/61/title/Referee%27s+View+-+Super+Cup+2nd+Leg

What says about Marcelo's tackle:

Marcelo should have been dismissed Under Law 12 which states “Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play” Mr Borbalan failed in his duty to protect the players safety, and in awarding a yellow card his authority was undermined.

And this supposed referee (who only referees on Internet blogs Rolling Eyes

) deems there was excessive force in that challenge which would endanger the safety of Messi?

Whatever floats your sinking boat.

Btw, Ronaldo's goal was offside. A trashing.

Thanks for the heads-up.

by free_cat Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:57 pm

Bah, I give up. Live in your fantasy world.

An article related on the topic that I fully agree:

http://www.barcelonafootballblog.com/10452/cheating-straw-men-el-clasico/

by BarrileteCosmico Mon Aug 22, 2011 4:14 pm

free_cat wrote:Bah, I give up. Live in your fantasy world.

An article related on the topic that I fully agree:

http://www.barcelonafootballblog.com/10452/cheating-straw-men-el-clasico/

Fantastic article. Thanks for the read.

by Senor Penguin Mon Aug 22, 2011 4:20 pm

free_cat wrote:Bah, I give up. Live in your fantasy world.

I'm not the one linking to an Internet blog using the appeal to a faux-authority. I'm not the one who sees studs in a challenge where no studs were used. I'm not the one who believes that the team I support are holier-than-thou. And I'm certainly not the one claiming "Xavi is humble and respectful".

An article related on the topic that I fully agree:

http://www.barcelonafootballblog.com/10452/cheating-straw-men-el-clasico/

What am I supposed to gather from this? That you have a sharp eye for 'impartial' articles dissecting the lunacy surrounding El Clasico matches?

by harhar11 Mon Aug 22, 2011 4:59 pm

free_cat wrote:Bah, I give up. Live in your fantasy world.

An article related on the topic that I fully agree:

http://www.barcelonafootballblog.com/10452/cheating-straw-men-el-clasico/

great read. I especially loved this

adopted cule: Madrid took an absurdly high number of hard, professional fouls in the first game. Any time that a Barcelona player threatened to break containment and get the ball into gaping spaces between the Madrid lines, a Madrid player would hack him down from behind with no potential play on the ball.

Euler: You bring up a very good point that I didn’t want to get into to much because it starts overlapping into areas where Madrid played in a very vile fashion. But your specific point is very correct. It’s very clear that in this set up Mourinho is using tactical fouling as a defensive technique.

Basically the Madrid players are left 1 vs. 1 across many parts of the pitch. If one gets beat the rest of the team behind them is at numerical disadvantage.

So what they are doing is this: tackle the ball and if you don’t get it – wipe out the attacker. Make sure that the attacker cannot progress. If you have to take the foul (or even the card) so be it.

[...] Madrid is using their pace to defend. They have good to outstanding pace all over the pitch now except in two spots – Carvalho and Xabi Alonso.

The reason why Xabi keeps making all of these awful tackles is that he is a poor athlete. He cannot close down the ball to defend. In turn he constantly has to wipe out the player to stop the play. He is constantly tactical fouling because he doesn’t have the foot speed to defend.

Tactical fouling is always a high risk strategy as you are always at risk for picking up cards. When mixed with reckless anger it’s a recipe for disaster. The tackles stop being tactical at some point and just become violent.

But [Mourinho] knows this – which is why he has been constantly complaining about referees since he came into La Liga. He knows he needs to pressure the refs to play this style of football – otherwise he’ll constantly have players sent off.

by Sponsored content