100% proof that Friedel fouled Torres

[Mosiah]

Would seem like, because he didn't!

[Assasin]

there is a Jamaican word for what happen there and only that can truly describe it and that is "buckup".

There was no bad intention on either part and the judgement was totally up to the ref. It could easily have been waived off and a red card is absurb. Most of who were saying it is a red card now back off from that since it has been repealed but you wouldn't know that today.

[Peter R]

Karl, Karl, Karl... "twisting AWAY?!?"

First, I will take that as a concession that Friedel WAS NOT motionless ...and

Second, if he twisted AWAY how in heavens name did he fall to his right rather than to his left???

Don't you see in falling over he impeded Torres' path to goal?

The ref did the correct thing by calling a foul and as such a red card was also correct, however much symapthy you want for Friedel... having said that if the ref has discretion in this situation as to issuing a red then he could have been more lenient...as ruled the FA.

BTW is this an issue anywhere else but on this board??

[Mosiah]

BTW is this an issue anywhere else but on this board??

Does Karl participate on another board?

[Paul Marin]

Even wid the frame by frame, they STILL DON'T GET IT!! Unbelievable!!

[Paul Marin]

Tilla, the rule clearly states that a Sending Off offence includes:

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

The question is therefore, was it a foul? If you say no, on what basis are you saying no? The only argument advanced is that Torres ran into Friedel "who was motionless" (so goes the argument). The video and the frame by frame refute this UNEQUIVOCALLY as had Friedel been motionless then he would never have crossed the red line in the frame by frame. AND had he been motionless (i.e. not moved beyond picture #1), Torres would have EASILY walked the ball around him.

Come on man, don't drink Karl's Krazy Koolaid...it wi mad unu...(if it don't do that already).

NOW WAKE UP

[Karl]

Tilla, the rule clearly states that a Sending Off offence includes:

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

The question is therefore, was it a foul? If you say no, on what basis are you saying no? The only argument advanced is that Torres ran into Friedel "who was motionless" (so goes the argument). The video and the frame by frame refute this UNEQUIVOCALLY as had Friedel been motionless then he would never have crossed the red line in the frame by frame. AND had he been motionless (i.e. not moved beyond picture #1), Torres would have EASILY walked the ball around him.

Come on man, don't drink Karl's Krazy Koolaid...it wi mad unu...(if it don't do that already).

NOW WAKE UP

I am not yielding...but keep the facts pure.

Based on the video you supplied Torres could not have walked the ball around Brad as he caught up with the ball whe it was "under Brad's arm"/within playing distance of Brad.

I had my doubts on whether or not you looked at 'your' video...now I know you did not

[Karl]

Karl, Karl, Karl... "twisting AWAY?!?"

First, I will take that as a concession that Friedel WAS NOT motionless ...and

Second, if he twisted AWAY how in heavens name did he fall to his right rather than to his left???

Don't you see in falling over he impeded Torres' path to goal?

The ref did the correct thing by calling a foul and as such a red card was also correct, however much symapthy you want for Friedel... having said that if the ref has discretion in this situation as to issuing a red then he could have been more lenient...as ruled the FA.

BTW is this an issue anywhere else but on this board??

You have never been hit on one side or the other often! Often you are spun around and fall towards the side on which you were hit.

Ever played football?

[Paul Marin]

I am not yielding...but keep the facts pure.

Based on the video you supplied Torres could not have walked the ball around Brad as he caught up with the ball whe it was "under Brad's arm"/within playing distance of Brad.

I had my doubts on whether or not you looked at 'your' video...now I know you did not

Karl - facts? What pray tell are those in your alternate reality? FACTS!? Karl my friend, please don't pretend you believe in facts.

YOU SAID: "Torres could not have walked the ball around Brad as he caught up with the ball whe it was "under Brad's arm"/within playing distance of Brad"

ANS: Really? Under Brad's arm?? PLEASE look at frame #1 again. Torres was at least 3 yards away from Friedel when he got control of the ball.

To help you again, here is the sequence, frame by frame:
Friedel-Torres-2.jpg

[Mosiah]

ever reffed football?

[Karl]

So Torres has no right to attack a 50/50 ball? Don't tell me you in on the chardae too?

So the goalkeeper has no right to line up in the direct path of the ball?

[Bricktop]

So the goalkeeper has no right to line up in the direct path of the ball?

He can line up in the path of the ball all he wants. Next time he should focus on moving towards and winning the ball instead of lining up in it's path

[Karl]

Karl - facts? What pray tell are those in your alternate reality? FACTS!? Karl my friend, please don't pretend you believe in facts.

YOU SAID: "Torres could not have walked the ball around Brad as he caught up with the ball whe it was "under Brad's arm"/within playing distance of Brad"

ANS: Really? Under Brad's arm?? PLEASE look at frame #1 again. Torres was at least 3 yards away from Friedel when he got control of the ball.

To help you again, here is the sequence, frame by frame:
[ATTACH]93[/ATTACH]

http://www.reggaeboyzsc.com/forum1/s...805#post157805

[Karl]

Does Karl participate on another board?

From time to time yes...but on the "the" board I have stopped as someone has stolen my name and posts using it!

[Gamma]

got milk?