Friedel's red card rescinded

[Bricktop]

What rile me up about the call?

RED CARD. That was as soft as they came. The Reo cocker one was soft but he game it. The ref gave 2 soft penalty that could have easily gone the other way in the game and to add insult to injury a red card when the man was plainly trying to avoid the colision?

That was a clear penalty. Why was FRIEDEL then trying to get out of the way and "avoid contact" in his own words if he thought he wasn't impeding the player?

[Assasin]

so wait every time a player try to avoid contact is fowl?

That is a VERY SOFT penalty and certainly NO RED CARD.

[Bricktop]

so wait every time a player try to avoid contact is fowl?

That is a VERY SOFT penalty and certainly NO RED CARD.

No. Everytime you impede a players progress without attempting to get the ball it is a foul. Soft? He upended the player as he tried to "get out of the way and avoid contact" although he was standing still

[Assasin]

Are you saying Frediel orginal intention wasn't to get the ball?
He went after the ball but saw that he was not going to get it and then try avoid impacting the forward.

[Bricktop]

Are you saying Frediel orginal intention wasn't to get the ball?
He went after the ball but saw that he was not going to get it and then try avoid impacting the forward.

And failed, impeding the forward in the process. Therefore clear penalty.

[Paul Marin]

ok so it did not impact too greatly on the results...

The impact was the suspension of Friedel for the Manure game, not the result of the Liverpool match.

[Bricktop]

The impact was the suspension of Friedel for the Manure game, not the result of the Liverpool match.

Man U haters should have been rooting for Friedel to be suspended. He was downright awful between the posts.

[Assasin]

As mi say from day one that was no red card, a better ref would have used better judgement and nothing called. We wouldn't even be talking about it.

[Karl]

He went for the ball and didn't get it, in the process impeding the forward. Penalty. Easy as that. Torres ran into Friedel? Even Friedel doesn't agree with you on that. Hahahaahahahahaah!!!

You saw Friedel moving forward when Torres ran into him?
You need to take another look! Friedel was on knees awaiting the ball. Just before Torres ran into him Friedel turned away to escape a direct frontal assault.

mmmm?
Wonder why you would think a player holding his ground should move out of the way of an opponent running into him? Apparently you think a player moving forward with the ball should have all and sundry move away and allow clear passage? Wonder what they would call that game? Dandy, shandy?

Consider this; a defender stands on the edge of his penalty-area and a high ball comes at him and would fall on his head while an attacker runs towards him hoping to win the ball. If the attacker barges into the defender, who commits the infringement?

-----------------!

Well?


Consider this; a defender, who happens to be the goalkeeper (Friedel) kneels within his penalty-area in the path of the ball coming at him along the ground while an attacker runs towards him hoping to win the ball. If the attacker (Torres) barges into the defender (Friedel), who commits the infringement?


-------------------!

Well?

What are you saying because the ball arrived on the ground rather than in the air what would not have been an infringement in the first instance suddenly becomes one in the later?

[Bricktop]

You saw Friedel moving forward when Torres ran into him?
You need to take another look! Friedel was on knees awaiting the ball. Just before Torres ran into him Friedel turned away to escape a direct frontal assault.

Awaiting the ball? Is Friedel even attempting to play the ball? Torres has the ball at his feet and is rounding Friedel.

[Karl]

That was a clear penalty. Why was FRIEDEL then trying to get out of the way and "avoid contact" in his own words if he thought he wasn't impeding the player?

Because knees were coming at his face and upper body!
You think face would win in collision with knees arriving at pace?

[Bricktop]

Because knees were coming at his face and upper body!
You think face would win in collision with knees arriving at pace?

If I push a ball past you, start running and you stand up (do not attempt to play the ball) and I run into you that is a foul. End of story.

[Bricktop]

But it was a penalty.

[Karl]

If I push a ball past you, start running and you stand up (do not attempt to play the ball) and I run into you that is a foul. End of story.

Have you taken leave of your senses?

You push the ball past me and start running... Where?

You start running at me and into me that is a foul because I was crouched or whatever but stood up?

Massa that cannot be a foul unless I moved into your path. If I remained standing...made no move to block you...but rather you ran into me...you it is, who have coimmitted the infrngement.

Perhaps you have been watching too many 'silly refs' at work? Why do you think it is that players have a right to run into opponents?

That game you are describing...a mussi name 'lick dun' or 'buck-up'?

[Paul Marin]

What rile me up about the call?
RED CARD. That was as soft as they came. The Reo cocker one was soft but he game it. The ref gave 2 soft penalty that could have easily gone the other way in the game and to add insult to injury a red card when the man was plainly trying to avoid the colision?

Assassin, I think that he shouldn't have gotten a RED, but to be honest, I can see how the laws of the game are contradictory. From the FIFA LAWS OF THE GAME:

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits
any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the
referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player
commits any of the following three offences:

• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his
own penalty area)

A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed
by a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of
the ball, provided it is in play.

It goes on to say:

Sending-off Offences
A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any
of the following seven offences:
• serious foul play
• violent conduct
• spitting at an opponent or any other person
• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring
opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply
to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
• denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent
moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a
free kick or a penalty kick
• using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
• receiving a second caution in the same match

You tell me. Based on this, I would think it would have been a red card IF you think it was an OBVIOUS goal scoring attempt. Debatable for sure.