Greenlizard0 Weekend Football Thread ** spoilers ** [27 - 28th October 2012]
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
Clear dive - you can see Torres still has his balance long after Evans touched him!!!
Players have a right to let themselves go down if they're being fouled, but they don't have the right to actively throw themselves down just because they feel contact.
Since when has being kicked in the shin not been a foul?
By the laws of the game what happened there isn't a foul.
He's not been tripped and Evans hasn't gone in with excessive force.
Might have to try and follow Norte Dame a bit being from Ireland and all.
Waiting on my flight to Orlando atm, really need to get over to California to see 49ers though, won't get to see then in candlestick though. Would love to go to Orlando at Xmas
The written laws on what is a foul are incredibly vague and officials are given guidelines on how to interpret them. I'd bet anything that being kicked in the shin is covered under being tripped.
Soldato
Exactly.
Just checked the exact wording of the laws:
So it was a foul whether you use common sense or the laws of the game.
You've misunderstood.
It was a foul, but it wasn't enough to bring the player down. The player has thrown himself to the ground.
No the passage you have quoted is exactly what I've just told you, the tackle wasn't careless, reckless, or undertaken with excessive force.
So its not a foul.
Associate
Yep, Geoff Shreeves said he was told that it was in a "racist" context, but Chelsea confirm it is just "Inappropriate".
Just in case any Chelsea fans are still struggling with what happened:
What it a foul? YES
Did Torres then throw himself to the ground? YES
...in an attempt to get Evans sent off? YES
...after realising he'd over hit the ball? YES
Thus getting a 2nd yellow for a diving offense? YES
...despite being lucky to even be on the pitch after his kungfu kick? YES
The only bad decision was from the linesman who didn't see the offside - but it was a very hard one for him to have seen.
What it a foul? YES
Did Torres then throw himself to the ground? YES
...in an attempt to get Evans sent off? YES
...after realising he'd over hit the ball? YES
Thus getting a 2nd yellow for a diving offense? YES
...despite being lucky to even be on the pitch after his kungfu kick? YES
The only bad decision was from the linesman who didn't see the offside - but it was a very hard one for him to have seen.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
The tackle was careless, and reckless, if Torres's right foot was planted rather than the left, his studs in tackle would have GONE THROUGH his shin, or if lucky pushed Torres's studs out of the ground. The only thing that saved him was he was lifting that leg, which meant Evan's studs went down his shin AND caught the toe.
As for going down, you simply can't decide if he would have gone down or not. Run at full speed and have someone kick any part of your leg, if you feel your leg off balance, you will often fall rather than stumble around like an idiot and then go down, because we're designed to do this.
The ref sent him off because he believed there was no contact, there was, acting high and mighty and deciding if a player would or wouldn't have gone down is something that is simply impossible, it was a foul, it wasn't a dive.
Could he have stayed up, maybe, maybe he would have brought his right leg forward and fallen ackwardly instead. I hate Torres, but 99% of players would have gone down, most players would have gone down even if they tried harder to stay up, the contact WAS a foul, at that point it really doesn't matter what happens afterwards. He could run on go to the corner flag and dry hump it, Evan's still fouled him and it wasn't a dive.
Should he have been off the pitch for the high tackle, I really want to see a good replay of it, I said at the time it looked pretty awful from a replay but, it wasn't De Jong, the ball was there to be won, it was stupid, my feeling for both that and the Ivanovic one were, if I could control the rules, intent would be crucial in both, if either intended what they did, red card, if they didn't yellow card. From memory both De Jongs and Larrsons were foot high with their body weight behind so their full force went into the contact, Torres's was more of a side on kick(I think, again need a replay), it wasn't nice, I don't like Torres, he generally loves to give people little kicks when the ref isn't looking and is a bit of a ****, but I'm not sure that one was intended.
I wouldn't have been surprised if he got sent off, I'm not surprised he didn't. A yellow card for that is far closer to the right decision than Larrsons not being a card last week. Even so, I don't love playing the "two bad decisions evened themselves out" game, a decision is bad, or not, another bad one doesn't make another less bad. However the worst decision was the offside, a draw seemed pretty fair on the general play, even if Utd, or Chelsea deserved it, that goal didn't deserve to be a goal.
Last edited:
You only mentioned excessive force. Of course the challenge was careless - he missed the ball and kicked Torres.
I didn't misunderstand. You said you didn't mind players going to ground if they were fouled and are now accepting Torres was fouled therefore you don't mind if he went to ground.
Last edited:
Caporegime
So I went away and we won again 
So I went away and we won again
So we have a dilemma - put up with Shami and Utd don't win or have the pleasure of his absence and Utd win.
It's an easy decision for Utd fans, not so for the rest of us
Torres dive was a dive. Just because there was contact doesn't mean he didn't dive. He was actually continuing to run after the foul, then decided to drop to the floor when he saw he wasn't going to get it. If he'd gone down for the actual foul he wouldn't have been sent off. Harsh but I can see why it went that way.