The Friedel/Torres incident - What the ref had to consider!

[Karl]

Boy Karl, with you being a former referee I am kinda disappointed in your interpretation of the Friedel incident. The three relevant and pertinent facts to what formed the correct opinion and action of the referee are:

(1) Friedel impeded the progress of Torres by moving into Torres after arriving too late in his challenge for the ball, which is a foul. Torres just beat Friedel to the ball, but Friedel had momentum and saw that he could not stop himself;
(2) Friedel obstructed Torres in the penalty area (that means a penalty kick);
(3) Friedel's foul also denied Torres an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (with no other defender within playing distance of the ball, and that means a straight red card for USP).

This incident does not even come close to a dubious decision. Both the facts and the way the Laws of the Game require the referee to act are very clear. I would even opine that if the referee had not acted the way he did he would have probably been sanctioned in some way by the governing body for premiership referees.

Dermot Gallagher, a former Premier League referee, believes that the law needs to be changed. Replays clearly showed that, although Friedel was committed to claiming the ball from Torres, he did try to get out of the Spanish hitman's way when he saw that he could not win possession.

Alan Dawson, Goal.com

"1" did not happen!
The conclusions you draw following on in "2" and "3" are based on the false premise of "1"!

My point is simple - Friedel as the replays showed, contrary to to the belief of some, including the 'jax player - ref, never brought Torres down. He tried to get out of Torres' way. He could not remove himself from the line of Torres' high speed approach, try as he did. Torres' forward motion at high speed resulted in Torres barged into him!

You do not give a red card to someone who has been run into. You should not even give that victim or his team any punishment!

End of story!

[Paul Marin]

My point is simple - Friedel as the replays showed, contrary to to the belief of some, including the 'jax player - ref, never brought Torres down. He tried to get out of Torres' way. He could not remove himself from the line of Torres' high speed approach, try as he did. Torres' forward motion at high speed resulted in Torres barged into him!

Karl, you are losing it my friend. Go drink a beer. Don't you see the obvious contradiction in logic in your above statement? You say "he tried to get out of Torres' way" and "Torres' forward motion at high speed resulted in Torres barging into him". Now tell me, why would he "try to get out of Torres way?"

The only reason he would have done that is because he realised that he was about to commit a foul. As I said in the other post, and as Bricktop also explained, he ran the red light and tried to correct it too late.

Drink up!! On second thought...drink several shots of white rum!! Wait a minute...have you been drinking?????????????? That explains it!!! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........

[Karl]

Karl, you are losing it my friend. Go drink a beer. Don't you see the obvious contradiction in logic in your above statement? You say "he tried to get out of Torres' way" and "Torres' forward motion at high speed resulted in Torres barging into him". Now tell me, why would he "try to get out of Torres way?"

The only reason he would have done that is because he realised that he was about to commit a foul. As I said in the other post, and as Bricktop also explained, he ran the red light and tried to correct it too late.

Drink up!! On second thought...drink several shots of white rum!! Wait a minute...have you been drinking?????????????? That explains it!!! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........

...I think the consideration was self-preservation!
You actually do not think that?

I think it is a natural tendency we have...getting out of the way of 200lbs motoring towards us at high speed. ...wah yuh seh?

...and thanks! At least you are agreeing Brad Friedel was moving out of Torres' way! ...and thus did not initiate contact!

....please keep going!
I ahve a drink here in Shady Pines for you.
Cheers!

[Paul Marin]

...I think the consideration was self-preservation!
You actually do not think that? I think it is a natural tendency we have...getting out of the way of 200lbs motoring towards us at high speed. ...wah yuh seh? ...and thanks! At least you are agreeing Brad Friedel was moving out of Torres' way! ...and thus did not initiate contact!...please keep going! I ahve a drink here in Shady Pines for you.
Cheers!

Karl - here is an article where the refs are demanding an explanation from the FA about rescinding the red card. Were you one of them? Tell us what you think about the refs position. And thanks for the Shady Pines Rum Punch!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...ay-United.html

[Karl]

Karl - here is an article where the refs are demanding an explanation from the FA about rescinding the red card. Were you one of them? Tell us what you think about the refs position. And thanks for the Shady Pines Rum Punch!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...ay-United.html

Re: Post
Nice post!

Re: Rum Punch
You're welcome!

Re: Poll's stance

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...k-Friedel.html

Take away number three - and insert "no foul" and his argument collapses.

I like this picture.

Was the 'jax player' Referee Martin Atkinson saying, "No foul Brad but I think The Laws say you must go?"

[Karl]

Peter some comments and another article -

Torres the diver
- finns, MAL, 25/3/2009 08:35


I think villa should sue as surely one player makes a team and Friedal being sent off stopped them making a fantastic comeback and cost them a place in the Champions League, guess who I support
- Mark, Spain, 25/3/2009 08:19

The referee dismissed him on what he saw, not what the public saw courtesy of tv from about 6 angles. Had the referee been as we were, a red card would not have been shown.
- Pip Waller, North Yorkshire, 24/3/2009 19:07

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo....html#comments

...and more comments!

I guess the points of view reflect this board's

[DweetSweet]

Karl, I have not seen or heard of the referee's report, but I assume that the red card was for denying a goal scoring opportunity, not the obstruction/foul in the penalty area. If was going away from goal when he was fouled then Friedel would not have been given a red card unless the foul was one of the serious foul play actions that call for immediate ejection.

[Karl]

Karl, I have not seen or heard of the referee's report, but I assume that the red card was for denying a goal scoring opportunity, not the obstruction/foul in the penalty area. If was going away from goal when he was fouled then Friedel would not have been given a red card unless the foul was one of the serious foul play actions that call for immediate ejection.

I hear you, boss!
...but - no red card for me!
...and

[Karl]

Karl, I have not seen or heard of the referee's report, but I assume that the red card was for denying a goal scoring opportunity, not the obstruction/foul in the penalty area. If was going away from goal when he was fouled then Friedel would not have been given a red card unless the foul was one of the serious foul play actions that call for immediate ejection.

I hear you, boss!
...but - no red card for me!
...and I

[Karl]

Karl, I have not seen or heard of the referee's report, but I assume that the red card was for denying a goal scoring opportunity, not the obstruction/foul in the penalty area. If was going away from goal when he was fouled then Friedel would not have been given a red card unless the foul was one of the serious foul play actions that call for immediate ejection.

I hear you, boss!
...but - no red card for me!
...and I would

[Karl]

Karl, I have not seen or heard of the referee's report, but I assume that the red card was for denying a goal scoring opportunity, not the obstruction/foul in the penalty area. If was going away from goal when he was fouled then Friedel would not have been given a red card unless the foul was one of the serious foul play actions that call for immediate ejection.

I hear you, boss!
...but - no red card for me!
...and I would not

[Karl]

Karl, I have not seen or heard of the referee's report, but I assume that the red card was for denying a goal scoring opportunity, not the obstruction/foul in the penalty area. If was going away from goal when he was fouled then Friedel would not have been given a red card unless the foul was one of the serious foul play actions that call for immediate ejection.

I hear you, boss!
...but - no red card for me!
...and I would not have awarded a free-kick (in this case penalty).