100% proof that Friedel fouled Torres

[Karl]

Even the commentator agreed "it's a clear penalty"... look at the replay from behind the goal..Friedel fell into Torres...

...and the reason he gave was the worst I have heard!

Sure penalty because the defender was near!

How you grasp at that...

Grasping at straws!

[Paul Marin]

Brickie, the joke is that even in the face of evidence, Karl can't counter with fact, but still holds to a bizarre view. I am sure that he thinks the world is flat.

[Paul Marin]

Karl, I am sorry. You are sounding quite disturbed now. Shocking really. It goes to show that even in the face of facts, you hold to a twisted view point. Now, if you give me a scientific argument instead of conjecture, then we can talk. Till then, enjoy your prune juice.

[Tilla]

So Friedel didn't fall into Torres' path?

I think the rules says that if in the opinion of the referee a challange by a player is considered deliberate and done with intent to hurt the other player, then the referee has the right to consider it a foul, even if the fould were not committed. That is my loose intrepretation of the law.

Putting myself in Freidel's position, if I were on my knees and saw Torres bearing down on me at the speed of a runway freight train, I would take evasive actions to save myself.

Again I say I do not see the deliberateness of that foul which should warrant a penalty and ultimately a red card. But then, that is just my opinion to which I am entitled. . .

[Paul Marin]

I think the rules says that if in the opinion of the referee a challange by a player is considered deliberate and done with intent to hurt the other player, then the referee has the right to consider it a foul, even if the fould were not committed. That is my loose intrepretation of the law.

Putting myself in Freidel's position, if I were on my knees and saw Torres bearing down on me at the speed of a runway freight train, I would take evasive actions to save myself.

Again I say I do not see the deliberateness of that foul which should warrant a penalty and ultimately a red card. But then, that is just my opinion to which I am entitled. . .

Tilla, intent does not have to be at the heart of a foul. You don't have to intend to foul someone for it to be called. I don't think Friedel intended to foul Torres, I think he was trying to avoid the striker, but in doing so, fouled him. Nothing more complicated than that. So no deliberateness, but a foul all the same. The red card is another matter.

[Bricktop]

I think the rules says that if in the opinion of the referee a challange by a player is considered deliberate and done with intent to hurt the other player, then the referee has the right to consider it a foul, even if the fould were not committed. That is my loose intrepretation of the law.

How long you been watching football? Your interpretation of the law is that a foul can only be deliberate and with intent to injure?

[Tilla]

And in the same token, the GK Freidel has no right to go for the 50/50 ball?

[Bricktop]

Karl making up things again. The commentator DID NOT give a reason why it was a penalty, he said that the keeper might have gotten away without a red card because of the position of the defender, meaning Torres may not have had a clear path to goal becaus of the presence of RIO COKER. Karl I am very worried about the amont of blood flowing to your brain and think you should immediately go to the doctor to make sure there are no blockages

[Tilla]

Here are the current FIFA rules for sending off offense. Note, I have not edited it any.

LAW 12 – FOULS AND MISCONDUCT
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
A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off must leave the vicinity of the fi eld of play and the technical area.

I will leave the interpretation to you.

[Bricktop]

He has every right to go for the 50/50 ball BUT he didn't go for the ball he instead waited on it to get to him. If FRIEDEL had attacked the ball he would have gotten it before TORRES who would have either adjusted his run or clattered into FRIEDEL and given up a foul. Secondly and most important TORRES GOT TO THE BALL BEFORE HE DID. Unnuh head tuff mi a tell you

[Bricktop]

• 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

And what does this have to with the foul? These relate to sending off offences while you are claiming there was no foul. How does this back up your claim that no foul was committed? A foul was committed and the player was denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. Penalty. Red card.

[Bricktop]

But it's not only Karl that's the sad part.

[Mosiah]

I know. It look like Tilla gone tuh!

Sad!

[Mosiah]

Unnu really needed this frame by frame?!?

It was clear as day from long time!

[Mosiah]

Putting myself in Freidel's position, if I were on my knees and saw Torres bearing down on me at the speed of a runway freight train, I would take evasive actions to save myself.

If I were Friedel, I would have made an attempt at the ball. It is possible that I would have got it before Torres, which would have nullified all this debate.