The Best of Karl - The Friedel Top 10 edition

[Karl]

Suh yuh innah mi face?
What a bitch big face mi ave?
OK, Paul!

[Paul Marin]

I am glad you are seeing how ridiculous it is. This is progress

[Paul Marin]

Suh yuh innah mi face?
What a bitch big face mi ave?
OK, Paul!

You would tink that a "big face" means you have a "big head" and a "big head" mean "big brain"...no such luck wid you my idrin...lawd me no know a wey yu get fi yu logic from...you mus' come from country - don't it?

[Gamma]

"suggests"? "it would seem so"? what th.....it is quite possible that he could have committed a foul and a penalty awarded without giving a red card...yuh now trying to play fast and loose!

a lack of intent does not mean it was not a foul, it just means that it was not a professional foul or even an intentional one.

question karl, has a keeper ever committed a foul in the area and a pk was awarded but no red card?

[Paul Marin]

question karl, has a keeper ever committed a foul in the area and a pk was awarded but no red card?

Oh boy, this should be good so good it boun' to mek me cry

[Karl]

"suggests"? "it would seem so"? what th.....it is quite possible that he could have committed a foul and a penalty awarded without giving a red card...

In the circumstances - No!
He was the last defender!

Mi nuh hask yuh fi guh read di rule dem?

yuh now trying to play fast and loose!

See - above!
...again kindly refer to "The Laws"!

a lack of intent does not mean necessarily mean a foul cannot be committed fit was not a foul, it just means that it was not a professional foul or even an intentional one.

Let me re-word the above in light of the Friedel incident only -

a lack of intent to interfere with an opponent does not necessarily mean a foul cannot be committed it just means that it was not a professional foul or even an intentional one!

Agreed!

question karl, has a keeper ever committed a foul in the area and a pk was awarded but no red card?

Often!
..and let us for argument sake claim; in the incident referenced Friedel had charged Torres and there were other defenders between Friedel and his goal i.e. behind Friedel - It could either be in the opinion of the ref,
- just hard foul and only a penalty awarded
- hard enough to warrant a caution and then penalty
- reckless or dangerous thus explusion, then penalty.

NB: Important to note there were no defenders behind Friedel...Friedel was his team's last defender!

[Karl]

Oh boy, this should be good so good it boun' to mek me cry

Sorry...to disappoint!

[Mosiah]

NB: Important to note there were no defenders behind Friedel...Friedel was his team's last defender!

Isn't it great to wake up some morning lucid, having taken our prescribed dosages?

[Paul Marin]

Karl - none of us know why the FA overturned the red card. They could very well have done so because they could have claimed that it was not an obvious goal scoring opportunity, not that it wasn't a foul. Of course, I disagree, but the proximity of Reo Coker to the play could introduce doubt as to whether Torres would have had a clear opportunity to score.

Note also - that there is nowhere in the rules about a "last defender" meaning anything. Find it if I am wrong. Again, Reo-Coker's proximity to the play is the only plausible explanation as not even Villa is claiming that it wasn't a foul.

[Gamma]

a lack of intent to interfere with an opponent does not necessarily mean a foul cannot be committed it just means that it was not a professional foul or even an intentional one!

Agreed

in such a circumstance (using your insertions), is that offence red cardable where it is NOT a second bookable offence?

[Karl]

Karl - none of us know why the FA overturned the red card. They could very well have done so because they could have claimed that it was not an obvious goal scoring opportunity, not that it wasn't a foul. Of course, I disagree, but the proximity of Reo Coker to the play could introduce doubt as to whether Torres would have had a clear opportunity to score.

Note also - that there is nowhere in the rules about a "last defender" meaning anything. Find it if I am wrong. Again, Reo-Coker's proximity to the play is the only plausible explanation as not even Villa is claiming that it wasn't a foul.

You are correct!
...and I disagree with your reasons for disagreeing!

[Karl]

a lack of intent to interfere with an opponent does not necessarily mean a foul cannot be committed it just means that it was not a professional foul or even an intentional one!

Agreed

in such a circumstance (using your insertions), is that offence red cardable where it is NOT a second bookable offence?

Depends on which one of my three possible scenarios you are addressing?

Note in one instance there would be in the opinion of the referee no reason to issue a caution?

...and in another a caution?

...in third suggested situation - straight expulsion!

Cho mi learned fren a wah yuh a-tri duh?
mi his jus han har-di-nary citizen!

[Karl]

You would tink that a "big face" means you have a "big head" and a "big head" mean "big brain"...no such luck wid you my idrin...lawd me no know a wey yu get fi yu logic from...you mus' come from country - don't it?

Yuh "You would tnk..." is all wrong
...but yuh rite bout country!
han-ova!

[Paul Marin]

You are correct!
...and I disagree with your reasons for disagreeing!

I know you disagree with my reasons which are FACT based, to this DAY you haven't answered the questions I have asked you directly...bwoy oh bwoy.

[Gamma]

i inserted only ONE scenario.....if you read it you would have seen that it is underlined and in red.