Stoke
- Thread starter Hansern
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
I am glad BR let the ref be. he was poor, but he didn't cost us the game.... And if anyone but Fergie does a Fergie he looks like a moany wanker to people (press, fa etc)
No they blamed Suarez for having the audacity to lie under Huth was going about minding his own business.
BR defended Stoke rather than kick up fuss and hence all the focus has been on the evil goofy one!
BBC Sport @BBCSport
Very strong words from Stoke City boss Tony Pulis who says Luis Suarez should be punished by FA for 'diving' on Sunday: http://bbc.in/R7V7yy
I dont want top blame the ref for the single point, but not awarding a free kick in this situation, and later giving a free kick when Luis robbed him off the ball inside the box... Well then you just dont understand football and should not ref at any level.
As I said earlier I didnt see the match. Are you telling me he didnt even get a freekick for this assault?
How did Huth get away with those tackles and stamping I heard about? I can only assume the ref is either blind, corrupt, mentally retarded or part of the Man Utd/FA Illuminati
And has Luis learned nought? He has learnt not to say negro. And that the Illuminati exist. Little else.
So there's a new textbook for mid table clubs on how to beat us? Just get the boot in? Or make sure you give the ref a "special" handshake y'know to let them know you're part of the Illuminati circle. I wonder if the Illumuniati and Lizards are connected somehow ?
Rodgers has spoken about 'long passing', pulling the defenders & midfield in then pinging the ball over.
The players obv still haven't got that yet.
The players obv still haven't got that yet.
He should have started at the bottom with basics such as "pass to a red shirt", "stop the Hollywood balls" and "place the ball in the big netty thing, preferably your opponents"
We didnt play as well as we have done recently but still hit the post 4 times. Terrible, laughable bad dive from Suarez knocks us from the moral high ground, another clear peno not given - Huth push in back on Suarez who didn't go down this time. You didn't miss that much
I can't be one hundred percent sure of who did all the pass counting but my money is on Binny.
Hmmm..what other manager does that remind me of ?
Tough one, that.
Take yer pick!
Many, to be fair.
Just a quick question about the rules of the game:
So Mason said in his report that he didn't take action against Huth because he deemed it as being accidental. However, even if he didn't get a good look and thought this to be the case, shouldn't he still have awarded a free kick? I was always under the impression that a foul is still a foul, even if it's accidental. Intent has nothing to do with it.
So Mason said in his report that he didn't take action against Huth because he deemed it as being accidental. However, even if he didn't get a good look and thought this to be the case, shouldn't he still have awarded a free kick? I was always under the impression that a foul is still a foul, even if it's accidental. Intent has nothing to do with it.
Did you expect him to criticise his own players? He was right in what he said about Suarez and by saying it he deflected attention away from his own shower of hooligans.
You're giving the cnut too much of a free ride there. He could just keep his trap shut.
Anyone?
I don't think that can be right. Handball definitely has to be intentional for example, and I can't see any reason why incidents such as the one involving Suarez would be treated differently. There would have to be some recognition in the rules that accidents will happen in a hard, fast, physical game like football.
It is a clear foul even if he didn't stamp on him. However the stamping should have been given even if it was unintentional, which it clearly wasn't. By this mason is opening up to if you knock someone out unintentional with the elbow, it is the knocked out guys bad luck, and game must go on? Bollocks.
It's not "bollocks" at all. Stopping the game for the injury to be treated is obv.necessary but, if - IF - a genuine accident happens, why should a player be penalised for it?
How accidental is accidental though?
Shit I never meant to stamp on him, honest gov
Cheers. That was pretty much my take on it. I only asked because this debate came up at work and I was outnumbered 3 to 1. A manc, a chav and a Spurs fan.
Athough to be fair, the spurs fan has since fully accepted my point. He's still on the fence though.
If you go in for a sliding tackle with the intention of winning the ball, miss, and trip your opponent instead, well, isn't that technically an accident?
Nealmac: yes, and (if the ref's sure that's what happened) by the letter of the law play should restart with a dropped ball, not a free kick. However, I wonder how often things are as simple as that. Players might well go into the tackle with the primary intention of winning the ball but also intending to take the man with it, or at least not caring if they do. *That*'s a foul.
- Status
