This is my final comment on the Brad Friedel issue

[Paul Marin]

By the time Torres reached the ball the odds of reaching the ball were in Friedel's favour? Is this what they call "new math"?

Brickie - do you know a good doctor? Dem man mussi surely mad!! It is UNBELIEVABLE that these statements are made seriously. But Jangle, as man...now do you understand how ridiculous the "no foul" argument is? WAKE UP MAN!!!

[Bricktop]

Brickie - do you know a good doctor? Dem man mussi surely mad!! It is UNBELIEVABLE that these statements are made seriously. But Jangle, as man...now do you understand how ridiculous the "no foul" argument is? WAKE UP MAN!!!

My only thought is that they don't like Liverpool and their hatred for the team is blinding them? I mean this is absolutely ridiculous.

[Paul Marin]

IMO it was Torres who ran the red light because he wasn't in control of the ball before it went into the 18. He should have pulled out before he reached Brad. By the time he reached the ball (2 seconds before impact), the odds were 60/40 in Brad's favour.

1. It was Torres who ran the red light -
No. If Torres had run the red, he would have drawn brakes. Friedel ran the red and realised he was going to commit a foul. To his credit, he tried to minimise injury to the striker by hitting the brakes, but he was too late...the damage had been done.

2. By the time he reached the ball, the odds were 60/40 in Brad's favour? - Really? Wow. Think that one over again.

Come on Jangle. Let me help you out. You are a decent person, it shows in your sentiment. You are really conflicted between the good intentions of Brad Friedel and the unfortunate results of his failure to execute in this situation. You want to be nice to Friedel because you think Friedel was being "a good guy". I agree with that. But the rules of the road are that if you run the red, cause an "accident", then you are at fault and you pay the price, even if you are a good guy who goes to church every sunday and don't covet the next door neighbour wife.

Very, very simple if you think about it.

Paul "Sigmund Freud" Marin

[Jangle]

Ok, I was trying to refrain from making this statement, but unuh draw me tongue ( ). Torres should have gotten a RED CARD for that play. It was dangerous play, and he could have cause Brad some serious injury ...ala.. Peter Czech. Both you and Brickie are basing your arguments on the premise that Torres was in control of the ball and Brad blocked his progress. I don't agree with you guys because I saw the entire play. Paul, using your stoplight analogy, Brad stopped at the intersection which was 5 meters inside the 18 yard line. Torres broke the stop light when he crossed over the line. I have presented my argument using the same YouTube video posted by Brickie. You guys are yet to go back and follow my instructions about pausing said video which categorically proves my point.

Missah bias judge (Gamma), please run dem man yah outa yuh court room.

[Karl]

Jangle, Bricktop is right. An accident is no defense against a foul. So if you believe he impeded Torres, (accidentally or not) then it was a foul.

How does a player impede another without moving?

The person being impeded must be going somewhere...and seeing the field is so huge, has many ways to get to where he wants to go. Now if another player stands unmoving at some spot on the field...it is the player wanting to get somewhere who must attempt to get by without fouling.

The unmoving player can only impede if he now moves to prevent the other player...after that player had diverted course to get around the position the previously unmoving held.

I hope you understand where I am coming from... In fact, that reasoning was the reason why in my time during the observation of "four step rule'" where if an attacker stod unmoving in front of the goalkeeper and the goalkeeper held on to the ball without attempting to get by/free and held it too long, he (the goalkeeper) was penalised.

...however, if the goalkeeper moved either right or left or backwards and the attacked moved to block/obstruct/cut off the goalkeeper's path on that having deliberately attempted to block and or succeeding to block the goalkeeper it was the attacker who was then penalised.

Brad Friedel did nto block Torres...rather Torres did not try to get ahead fairly...but ran through Friedel. Torres made no effort go around the unmoving Friedel...who had gotten to his little spot on the field ample time beofre Torres arrived for Torres to take evasive action. Certainly if Friedel on the ground could take evasive action a charging Torres could take evasive action...and if Torres had the ball under control he then could have taken the ball along with him?!

[Mosiah]

Karl, Friedel must have moved into that position. He is not like a goalpost just standing there minding his own business for days. He moved into that position thinking he could collect that ball and was beaten to it. Matters not if he made himself motionless by the time the attacker reaches him.

The example you gave about the player standing in front of a goalie about to punt is the worst analogy you could think of! For one, the goalie is able to move out of the way. Torres could not and indeed had no business trying to as he won the ball! That is key, Karl. He won the ball! I see this foul as different from the one Park won a week earlier when it appears that Park moved his right leg into the direction of the goalie. Torres did not move any part of his body into anyone!

Torres is moving at lightning speed. How is he going to go around Brad. Yet, he did look like he was trying to evade the clumsy goalie.

And what is this nonsense? Friedel could take evasive action because 1) he knew he was late and was trying not to foul the player, and 2) he was hardly moving, unlike Torres, whose momentum prevented him from cowering like a scared child, a la Brad.

Why am I still discussing this with you? There never was a clearer penalty in history, Karl!

[Paul Marin]

How does a play impede another without moving?

Friedel must have moved into that position. He is not like a goalpost just standing there minding his own business for days. He moved into that position thinking he could collect that ball and was beaten to it. Matters not if he made himself motionless by the time the attacker reaches him. (Okay - I tief this response from Mo, but I couldn't say it better myself)

Certainly if Friedel on the ground could take evasive action a charging Torres could take evasive action...and if Torres had the ball under control he then could have taken the ball along with him?!

Actually, Torres did take evasive action and he did have the ball with him. Had Friedel not impeded his progress, he would have tucked the ball in the net.

========

The problem you are wrestling with Karl is that you keep thinking that Torres (by "running into Friedel") was at fault. This not the case. Go back to the cars in the intersection analogy. If a car breaks the red light and screeches to a stop in the middle of the intersection, the driver is at fault if he impedes the progress of another car with the green light. You couldn't claim that the driver was not at fault in that situation because the other car crashed into him.

Again, in this situation, the reason Torres had the green light is because he got to the ball before Friedel tried to round the keeper and was brought down by Friedel.

Even Andy Gray (no fan of Liverpool) said in the commentary - "penalty, end of story". Even Brad Friedel said it was a penalty. And the entire refereeing body said it was a penalty. Is just you and Jangle who need glasses

[Mosiah]

Even Brad Friedel said it was a penalty. And the entire refereeing body said it was a penalty. Is just you and Jangle who need glasses

So, I ended up in the padded room for nutten?!!?