Sing along: 'we know who you are...we know who you arrrrrr

[Paul Marin]

take a punch at a player and miss? You are comparing apples and oranges here Paul. Sure they are both fruits, but not one and the same.

Anyway, I am in the salt mine now, so I have got to go.

I clearly said that I was being hyperbolic only to give you an example. If it helps, use Rafael's challenge. CONTACT is NOT NECESSARY to invoke a foul. PERIOD! END OF STORY!

[Rockman]

So if a player makes contact first with the ball and in the follow through makes contact with the opponent is that routinely a foul?
If not then by not making contact with the ball first determines...
Football governing body is trying to stem out potentially career ending injuries,that apparently takes precedent but in Rafeal case,the opponent was not fouled and Rafael actions did not influence the play,a stern warning would suffice.

Seems recently there have been an alarming increase of our players being overly aggressive(Fabio,Rafael and Vidic),Moyes has to be lacking.

[Paul Marin]

So if a player makes contact first with the ball and in the follow through makes contact with the opponent is that routinely a foul?

Routinely? No. But you need to understand the law.

FIRST: 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

SECOND: A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the following seven offences:

• unsporting behaviour
• dissent by word or action
• persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game
• delaying the restart of play
• failure to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a corner kick, free kick or throw-in
• entering or re-entering the field of play without the referee's permission
• deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee's permission

THIRD: Unsporting behaviour includes recklessness and carelessness. “Reckless” means that the player has made the move with complete disregard for danger to, or consequences for, his opponent.

The bottomline: there is nothing in the laws that speak to contact being a requirement when referring to a foul. END OF STORY!

[Paul Marin]

Based on the above - it is clear that the referee thought that Guzan was gulity of UNSPORTING BEHAVIOR as none of the other offences are applicable. The same goes for Rafael's tackle. A list of unsporting behaviours are:

1. Recklessness or Carelessness
2. Reckless tackle (professional foul)
3. Holding
4. Handball to score a goal or thwarting a promising attack
5. Simulation
6. Anything that the ref believes is unsporting not covered here.

So please y'all, stop rewriting the laws of the game just because you don't like Suarez...and he has been so well behaved too. Cho.

[Paul Marin]

This one offered by you and PR is pushing it though. Suarez had to take evasive action for wharra?! Or something to that effect. That's pushing it.

For me, if there was no contact on this play, there was no foul. I'm just not sure if there was from the angle I've seen.

I'm wondering now, can Suarez do any wrong fi di two a unnu?

Next thing somebody going to run straight into his knuckles and Suarez will be punished, just like the bite.

Mo - read this: http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/s...922#post463922

FIRST OF ALL: CONTACT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR A FOUL! IT IS INCUMBENT UPON US A LOVER'S OF THE GAME TO UNDERSTAND THE LAWS. You may not like Suraez, but don't make up laws to suit yourself. See the link. It is clearly explained - again: CONTACT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR A FOUL.

SECOND OF ALL: It is amusing that you ask "Can Suarez do any wrong fi di two a unnu?" because both Peter and I have castigated him for the bite and for the dive against Stoke last year. Now, I'm asking YOU: "Can Suarez do any right fi unnu?" Even when the man not guilty, unu want fi heng him. Dat no right.

[Paul Marin]

Tilla....leave it PLEASE. PR is beyond reasoning. I could see if it was another player...

Liverpool fans are all scousers. They dress in shell suit and eat pies and drink bovril on match days. Cant miss 'em.

excuse me - this is a fellaini (MANU**) promotoin, nothing to do with the proud Scouse Army!! Get it right ffs.

[Peter R]

I do not mean to belabour the point. But as I pointed out to HL, it's not only the LFC supporters who sided with the ref on this but some well-respected pundits. There among them those who also disagreed with the ref.

My reason for being adamant about this is that there is an ongoing witch-hunt against Suarez which is TOTALLY baseless and uncalled for. When he screws up "legitimately" if I can use that word in this context, I will berate him as the next man will.

BTW, the video footage they use is still not perfectly clear to me whether there was contact; during the match there was a replay from behind Suarez, i.e. looking at Guzan's goal which IMO suggested that there was contact.
Next point, I think Guzan's appraoach to the ball which he totally missed denied Suarez of any chance at the goal.
My conclusion, the ref was bang on.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The discussion about whether Liverpool should have been awarded a penalty against Aston Villa on Saturday has nothing to do with whether Luis Suarez dived or not, but that’s not what mainstream media want to hear. What the focus should be on is whether referee Jon Moss made a correct decision.
With the aid of TV video replays, a luxury that Moss and his match official colleagues did not have, we can see that the referee made the correct call. Contact was made, albeit minimal. And Suarez played within the rules of the game to earn Liverpool a penalty decision.
But even with the benefit of video replays, there was disagreement among the pundits whether Moss made the correct decision or not. talkSPORT’s Stan Collymore and Sam Matterface were flabbergasted that Moss pointed to the spot, and were adamant that Suarez dived (even after watching several TV replays of the incident). NBC’s Robbie Mustoe and Robbie Earle disagreed with each other. Meanwhile former referee Dermot Gallagher and Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers, as well as the Match Of The Day pundits on BBC, agreed it was a definite penalty.
The debate would have continued endlessly if it wasn’t for the footage where we were able to see the incident between Suarez and goalkeeper Brad Guzan magnified to prove that there was the slightest of contact (see video below), which was enough for the striker to go down in the box.
The important thing to consider is that TV video technology is a dangerous tool when placed in the hands of people who aren’t referees. Earle, Gallagher and Rodgers were proven correct in their analysis, but more importantly, the match officials should be given credit for making the correct decision without replays, under pressure and in real time. That’s one topic we’re unlikely to hear in the next 24-48 hours.

Read more at http://worldsoccertalk.com/2014/01/1...7H3Vs6DuKZf.99

[HL]

.............

[Paul Marin]

.............

LOL!!! Me tell u seh u ah heng roun' the crack house too much. Now, even with facts in u face, u ago gwaan bad. But still, even if there was ZERO contact, the ref was right as contact is not a prerequisite for a foul (read law 12). Okay, got it now?

[Mosiah]

Settle down, son, no need for the shouting. I never disputed the "no contact required" rule.

I just find it strange that I have never EVER heard such a defence for such a foul. These "collisions" (whether contact or not!) occur almost every day and yet unnu come wid - "...his diving at the ball in the manner he did CLEARLY disrupts Suarez's forward momentum..."

WHAT!?!?

That's what defenders (goalies) do! They try to disrupt forward momenta of forwards, while operating within the law. I won't even call what the goalie did as an intentional disruption of Suarez' momentum. He was beaten to the ball, tried to pull back, may or may not have touched the striker. Maybe if the ball wasn't going into touch Suarez would have made an effort to stay on his feet, no?

Oh! I was a highly rated referee back in the day, thank you very much. I think I still remember a few of the rules.

[Rockman]

Well back to making contact with the ball first and the subsequent follow through,why isn't that routinely a foul, unsporting,reckless?
A stern warning in Rafael case.....

[Mosiah]

So what exactly was the foul in this case?!??

[Paul Marin]

Well back to making contact with the ball first and the subsequent follow through,why isn't that routinely a foul, unsporting,reckless?
A stern warning in Rafael case.....

Contact by itself is not reckless...it comes down to the referee's judgement. Secondly, the reason why "contact" is not a prerequisite for a foul in the laws is BECAUSE the sport is a CONTACT SPORT. Football is not badminton...contact is routine.

[Paul Marin]

So what exactly was the foul in this case?!??

Here's a quick test that will help you determine the answer for yourself:

Q1 - According to the laws of the game, a direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any one of seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force (Law 12). The referee awarded a penalty when Guzan attempted to stop Luis Suarez. As such, which of the following is the most likely offence commited by Guzan (in the referee's opinion)?

1. kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
2. trips or attempts to trip an opponent
3. jumps at an opponent
4. charges an opponent
5. strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
6. pushes an opponent
7. tackles an opponent

Q2 - Law 12 also states that a player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any one of the seven offences below. Which is the most likely offence for the referee showing Guzan a yellow card?

1. unsporting behaviour
2. dissent by word or action
3. persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game
4. delaying the restart of play
5. failure to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a corner kick, free kick or throw-in
6. entering or re-entering the field of play without the referee's permission
7. deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee's permission

Q3: Guzan was issued a yellow card. According to the laws, unsporting behaviour includes recklessness and carelessness. “Reckless” means that the player has made the move with complete disregard for danger to, or consequences for, his opponent. TRUE OR FALSE: It is fair to conclude that in the opinion of the referee, Guzan's attempt to get the ball from Suarez was reckless or careless.

1. TRUE
2. FALSE

Q4: Which of the following is a true statement?

1. Luis Suarez is a SAINT
2. Luis Suarez is a CHEAT
3. Luis Suarez is a RACIST
4. Luis Suarez is a SCAPEGOAT
5. Luis Suarez has scored 20 goals faster than any other player in English football history.

Good luck!!!!

[Mosiah]

No, Paul Marin. Yuh either answering the question or yuh not.

I guess you won't answer it.

My final answer - if Suarez was not tripped by the goalkeeper, then it is simulation, a dive, and he, Suarez, should have been yellow carded for unsporting behaviour.

I will take on this one:
Q4: 6 (all of the above!)