Torres/Friedel - Why refs disagree?

[Bricktop]

Peter there no way Torres could have ripped off any shot based on what he did 22 - 28 yards out from goal. At that distance Torres took a touch of the ball and caught up with it when it was about to disappear in Friedel's arms! The photo shows he was touching the ball for the 2nd time as he preparing to do that fake hanging of trailing leg and following contrived fall!

!

I thought TORRES last touched the ball OUTSIDE of the penalty area? Yuh story change again? How many times has your story changed now?

[Karl]

Can you imagine if players now start to run to certain positions on the field to block the clear path of the player with the ball, but because the defender (if he still can be called that since he is not defending a striking thing) suddenly becomes "motionless", then he cannot be called for a foul!?!?

This is not basketaball where you can move into the intended path of the player with the ball but because you have become "motionless" you can draw a charge.

Madness!!!

If you move into such a position, you better make an attempt at the ball, or give up a foul against your "motionless" self! Unless of course, you have been standing/sitting /crouching there long before the player decided to move into that position. Not moments before or milliseconds before! And if that's the case, you need to get the hell off people football field!

Nonsense!
It all depends on when the player took up that positon. Your theory is also stating the unsaid,
i) a player on the ball can pass the ball through an opponent's legs, then run into the opponent and correctly receive a free-kick for his team;

ii) a player could pick up the ball in his goal-area and run half the length of the field and run into an opponent who was for whatever reason standing (just to show you how ridiculous that idea is) near the touch-line near one of the corner flags near his own goal-line and would be considered to have been blocked or obstructed?

The #i is often rewarded with a free-kick, but it is referee error.

The #ii is ridiculous as the motionless player never ran into the path of the man with the ball. It was the man with the ball who ran into him.

...I also hope you realise that the referee should call the game in a fair and consistent manner applying "The Laws" as written....so no nonsense about but the defender was not in front of goal.

Again - http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/s...467#post157467

[Karl]

What does this have to do with the play in question?

One man jumped straight up to attempt gathering the ball...one man kneeled to attempt gathering the ball.

Ooooh I hope you will not add to the mis-application of the law by claiming Friedel was not in playing distance of the ball?

[Bricktop]

One man jumped straight up to attempt gathering the ball...one man kneeled to attempt gathering the ball.

Ooooh I hope you will not add to the mis-application of the law by claiming Friedel was not in playing distance of the ball?

No where in that scenario did you mention the attacker getting to the ball before the goalkeeper and then having a clear path to goal

[Bricktop]

Oh Karl stop running.

[Karl]

No where in that scenario did you mention the attacker getting to the ball before the goalkeeper and then having a clear path to goal

What clear path to goal did Torres have?
Through Friedel is not a clear path!

A clear path means what it says. Must I tell you again that you must not change the wording of "The Laws" to fit what you think?
Clear path means just that, clear path!

...and for your information the goalkeeper and the attacker were right in front of goal! No goal keeper clear path at goal!

[Karl]

I thought TORRES last touched the ball OUTSIDE of the penalty area? Yuh story change again? How many times has your story changed now?

...last before he was under Friedel's arms...occured 22 - 27 yards out!!!

[Bricktop]

...last before he was under Friedel's arms...occured 22 - 27 yards out!!!

Karl you said that Torres did not make contact with the ball in the penalty area. Are you now changing your story?

[Bricktop]

What clear path to goal did Torres have?
Through Friedel is not a clear path!

A clear path means what it says. Must I tell you again that you must not change the wording of "The Laws" to fit what you think?
Clear path means just that, clear path!

...and for your information the goalkeeper and the attacker were right in front of goal! No goal keeper clear path at goal!

You should be a politician. The truth is not your strong point

[Paul Marin]

Bricktop - don't you see Karl is holding to his argument even despite the facts? His alternate reality is scary - you should stop now before you go mad yourself - RUN!!

[Bricktop]

I am actually worried about Karl. His story changes by the second and then he denies making his previous claims. Karl needs an intervention

[Karl]

Karl you said that Torres did not make contact with the ball in the penalty area. Are you now changing your story?

I just said Torres touched the ball under Friedel's arm. I think we are all agreed Friedel was in the penalty-area when Torres ran into him!

[Karl]

I am actually worried about Karl. His story changes by the second and then he denies making his previous claims. Karl needs an intervention

Where has my story changed every second from - Torres ran into Friedel...Friedel was at his position long before Torres ran into him...Friedel never obstructed Torres...No foul!...No red card?!

Fiedel was stationary in his position on the field before Torres arrived! Friedel was on his knees behind the ball. Friedel turned away his face and upper body just before impact!!

You see a change...or change every second...or any change whatsoever?

[Bricktop]

You claim Torres last touch of the ball was outside of the penalty area then you conveniently switched that story.

You claim the goalkeeper could always move along his line then when provided with information that refuted your position then claim that you meant the goalkeeper could move his arms.

You claimed the commentator on the video said that it was a foul because a defender was in the vicinity when the commentator clearly said no such thing.

You want more?

[Karl]

You claim Torres last touch of the ball was outside of the penalty area then you conveniently switched that story.

You claim the goalkeeper could always move along his line then when provided with information that refuted your position then claim that you meant the goalkeeper could move his arms.

You claimed the commentator on the video said that it was a foul because a defender was in the vicinity when the commentator clearly said no such thing.

You want more?

Sure he touched the ball 22 = 28 yards from goal...and again when the ball was "under Friedel's arms".

2 had nothing to do with the Torres/Friedel incident. That was a completely different matter. ...and if you want to revisit this #2 you can do so in a different thread. That has no bearing on the Torres/Friedel incident. So there was no switching relative to my stance on - No foul! No penalty! No expulsion!

3. Torres' touches - The touch outside the penalty-area and Torres not touching the ball again was used to reference two things -The ball ran away from Torres and he was in a chase to get it. It was within playing distance of both himself and Friedel when he slammed into Friedel.

Why don't you reference Peter's videos?
Did h touch the ball again? Did Peter's video post show exactly when that 2nd touch was made?

5 seconds previously? 1 second? ...and it really does not matter...if he had touched the ball 5 seconds before...1 second before.. a nanosecond before...or 5 minutes before and then ran over Brad...the fact still stands Brad never fouled Torres!