Paul's still-frames Plus! Proof Friedel commited no foul!

[Karl]

Paul's still-frames (click following link or scroll down)



1st frame:
1st - Note Friedel is in perfect line behind the ball and is stationary.

2nd - Note Torres' right foot making contact with the ball in 1st frame. Within 3' - 6' or less from Friedel?

3rd - The ball is in playing distance of both players!
You be the judge?!

4rd - The ref has no decision to make!

2nd frame:
1st - Kindly note Torres' right foot planted and he is into his left-footed stride. Kindly note no contact has yet been made!

2nd - Kindly also note Friedel has already started his curl into protective position. Note his face and upper body is now out of the line of Torres' left foot.

3rd - The ball is considered to be in playing distance of both players!
Mi yeye dem a tell lie?

4rd - The ref has no decision to make!

3rd frame:

1st - Next kindly note in Paul's still-frame Torres' left-footed stride is about to be planted beyond Friedel still no contact made.

2nd - Friedel has curled even further away to his left and has hunched into even tighter protective ball!

3th - Ball "under Friedel's armpit"!

Another angle of this phase in the action -


4th - We are all agreed that contact has still not been made,
therefore at this stage the ref has no decision to make!

4th frame:

1st - Note in Paul's still-frame Torres' trailing right leg now makes contact with a Friedel who has curled farthest away and into an even tighter protective ball.


Another angle
2nd - Torres is away clear of Friedel save and except his trailing leg.

Ref now has decision to make!

My Conclusion:
No foul!

No penalty!

No expulsion!

[Gamma]

ya! basta! nicht mehr!! enough!!!!

[Bricktop]

Friedel mussi a spend a bag a money pon deodarant for his now 6' armpit

[Karl]

Friedels muss spend a bag a money pon deodarant for his now 6' armpit

Mark 6' using your feet? (approximately 6 and a half to 7 end to end feet marks)

OK! Kneel with your toes at the beginning or end of the place from which you started that marking of 6'?

Arm-pit range...eh?

...and what about the actual numbers I used - 3' to 6' feet?

Arm-pit range...eh?

[Bricktop]

Mark 6' using your feet? (approximately 6 and a half to 7 end to end feet marks)

OK! Kneel with your toes at the beginning or end of the place from which you started that marking of 6'?

Arm-pit range...eh?

...and what about the actual numbers I used - 3' to 6' feet?

Arm-pit range...eh?

Could someone decipher this drivel for me please? Thanks.

[Paul Marin]

Okay Karl, let's get serious...

1st frame:
1st - Note Friedel is in perfect line behind the ball and is stationary.

2nd - Note Torres' right foot making contact with the ball in 1st frame. Within 3' - 6' or less from Friedel?

3rd - The ball is in playing distance of both players!
You be the judge?!

4rd - The ref has no decision to make!

Okay - let's take this one frame by frame. I think you get confused when too much comes at you. So just answer each question as I post it. I appreciate your indulgence. So let's analyse your position on Frame #1 per your 4 points above.

=======================================
Assertion #1: 1st - Note Friedel is in perfect line behind the ball and is stationary.
RESPONSE: Disagree.

PROOF #1: Friedel was NOT stationary: If you look at the pictures I posted, Friedel is BLURRED. The lines on the field are stationary - they are NOT BLURRED. If the blurring was due to camera movement, the lines on the field would have been blurred as well. Simple science, not obeah. Your photos are STILL PHOTOS, in those pictures, TORRES is also "stationary". See the new attachment. On Frame #3 (Exhibit B), he has clearly rotated into the striker's path - that is NOT the definition of stationary.

PROOF #2: Friedel was NOT "in perfect line behind the ball" Maybe he was after Torres' first touch, but not the second touch. This is where Friedel made his error because he couldn't adjust to the new trajectory of the ball. So the question to you is:

QUESTION(s): Did Torres change the direction of the ball in his second touch? Simple YES or NO question.

=======================================
Assertion #2: Note Torres' right foot making contact with the ball in 1st frame. Within 3' - 6' or less from Friedel?
RESPONSE: Agreed. No argument that the ball was within 6' of Friedel.
QUESTION(s): Was the ball under Torres' control?

=======================================
Assertion #3 - The ball is in playing distance of both players!
RESPONSE: Agreed.
QUESTION(s): As we both agree that the ball was in playing distance of Friedel, did Friedel in your opinion make an attempt to play the ball? A simple YES or NO will do.

=======================================
Assertion #4 - The ref has no decision to make
RESPONSE: Agreed.
QUESTION(s): No further questions on this Frame your honour.

=======================================

Mr. Karl, please answer these questions. I remind you that you are under oath. If we can't get past Frame #1, then there's no reason to go on.

Respec'

PM

Friedel-Torres-3.jpg

[Paul Marin]

One other simple question - at what point did Friedel attempt to play the ball?

[Mosiah]

This is going to be classic!

[Paul Marin]

This is going to be classic!

Classic? Is that the new word for "madness"?

[Paul Marin]

Third question: Karl, in your opinion, did Friedel rotate TOWARDS Torres or AWAY from him? Which of these directions would one logically assume was the direction one most obviously demonstrate that the goalkeeper was trying to avoid the striker?

[Mosiah]

It don't even matter. Brad realised he was going to get beat to the ball, so he could try and avoid, rotate, pirouette, kin-puppalick, squirm outta di way, it nuh matter!

Brad is a good goalkeeper, maybe even great. One of the things that separates the good ones from the shot stoppers is assessing whether one should leave the goal line and how far out. It's a science without them even knowing it, as they measure the "speed across ground" (puke!) of the opponent, their own acceleration, the distance and the prevailing crosswinds, the football's speed, its deceleration, its acceleration, the friction of the turf, just to name a few.

Brad screwed up these calculations, calculations he normally gets right. He never carried the 1, this time and got frigged! He knew it, and being the perfectionist he is, instead of going for the ball and missing it, he squirmed away as a vampire with a malfunctioning clock.

Result? PENALTY!

[Karl]

Okay - let's take this one frame by frame. I think you get confused when too much comes at you. So just answer each question as I post it. I appreciate your indulgence. So let's analyse your position on Frame #1 per your 4 points above.

=======================================
Assertion #1: 1st - Note Friedel is in perfect line behind the ball and is stationary.
RESPONSE: Disagree.

Yes he was!

PROOF #1: Friedel was NOT stationary: If you look at the pictures I posted, Friedel is BLURRED. The lines on the field are stationary - they are NOT BLURRED. If the blurring was due to camera movement, the lines on the field would have been blurred as well. Simple science, not obeah. Your photos are STILL PHOTOS, in those pictures, TORRES is also "stationary". See the new attachment. On Frame #3 (Exhibit B), he has clearly rotated into the striker's path - that is NOT the definition of stationary.

See - Your "PROOF #2" below!

PROOF #2: Friedel was NOT "in perfect line behind the ball" Maybe he was after Torres' first touch, but not the second touch. This is where Friedel made his error because he couldn't adjust to the new trajectory of the ball. So the question to you is:

QUESTION(s): Did Torres change the direction of the ball in his second touch? Simple YES or NO question.

Yes!
That was my point - the trajectory of the ball from some 20 - 27 yards away from the goal (the Torres' first touch of which we speak...and here you emphasize) had Friedel perfectly inline with the ball. Proving Frediel was "on his spot early...very early"!

...and here you infer - Torres changed the direction of the ball with his second touch...right under Friedel's armpit!
Right?

...and you additionally infer - Torres could not change the direction of his charge and ran headlong into Friedel who was on his knees!

=======================================
Assertion #2: Note Torres' right foot making contact with the ball in 1st frame. Within 3' - 6' or less from Friedel?
RESPONSE: Agreed. No argument that the ball was within 6' of Friedel.
QUESTION(s): Was the ball under Torres' control?

=======================================
Assertion #3 - The ball is in playing distance of both players!
RESPONSE: Agreed.
QUESTION(s): As we both agree that the ball was in playing distance of Friedel, did Friedel in your opinion make an attempt to play the ball? A simple YES or NO will do.

=======================================
Assertion #4 - The ref has no decision to make
RESPONSE: Agreed.
QUESTION(s): No further questions on this Frame your honour.

=======================================

Mr. Karl, please answer these questions. I remind you that you are under oath. If we can't get past Frame #1, then there's no reason to go on.

Respec'

PM

Friedel-Torres-3.jpg[/quote]

Sir Paul: Questions answered..and answers confirmed above by you!
Thank you!
Full Respek!

[Karl]

One other simple question - at what point did Friedel attempt to play the ball?

Please zero in on your question?

...at what point did Friedel attempt to play the ball?

From the moment he got on his knees...until just before impact. That is perfectly illustrated by your freeze-frames!!!!

You are not thinking that he got on his just get a touch of the ground on his knees, do you?

No...you must know it was a part of his effort to play the ball? Yup! It was all a part of his attempting to play the ball!

...besides the red herring of saying Torres was in control of the ball is an attempt to blind yourself to the reality that players...with the ball or without the ball...are not allowed to run into opponents! Any such deliberate act is a foul!

[Karl]

Third question: Karl, in your opinion, did Friedel rotate TOWARDS Torres or AWAY from him? Which of these directions would one logically assume was the direction one most obviously demonstrate that the goalkeeper was trying to avoid the striker?

Turned upper body and face AWAY!
...even as he made self as small as humanly possible!

[Bricktop]

Karl answer the questions. The man asked for a yes or no answer. Also answer all of the questions not just those you want to answer and spin out of control