Still moaning

Redandwhiteoxford said:
I think Huth was sent off and rightly so.....

The reason he was sent off was it was 'reckless'. Not for the contact but because he was not in control of the situation. This was the correct decision by the ref and if Pulis doesn't like it, he should learn the rules and educated his players better. Huth was never in control of himself in that so called tackle.
Click to expand...

He pulled his leg in, so I'd say he had some control.

He didn't stop, but honestly, how many players in sliding challenges are capable of stopping before reaching the player once they go in? There's never, ever full control once you commit to the tackle.

It was like any other sliding tackle where a player fails to get the ball, but he didn't lead with his boot. However, it was a very fast challenge with a lot of momentum. Would that be enough for it to be deemed dangerous? I'm not sure. I've seen some ****ers fly in FAST before, win the ball and then everyone claim it was a fantastic tackle.
 
Chappaz said:
It isn't about injury, it's about intent, or more specifically, malicious intent.

Grabbing someone's face or throat has malicious intent whether it injures the player or not.

Did Huth have malicious intent in his tackle? Well he drew his leg in and simply couldn't stop the slide, so I don't think he did. Perhaps he could be charged with a dangerous tackle, but if that was the case then virtually any sliding challenge would be deemed dangerous.
Click to expand...

Mate he grabbed him because one pro could have quite easily seriously hurt another pro with a dangerous challenge, luckily he rode it, but if some idiot had done something which could damage my career or injured me id be angry too especially after the serious leg breaks he has had. Johnson was not injured by Cisse's 'intent' neither did Cisse want to hurt him, but he did want him to understand how dangerous it was!
 
Just cause he pulled his leg in doesn't mean he was in control. He was never in control of the flight of himself which means he was reckless. It's clear to see. It was wet as well and after the tackle, if that's what we are call it he slid for about 15 foot. If he was in control why didn't he stop himself? He couldn't stop himself and surely this means he's not in control. I hear what you are saying but we all think we know better and it's just our opinion.

Huth's tackle was out of control and reckless in my eyes... and I can assure you others will have different views of it which I will respect but sadly, not agree with.
 
Bexinio said:
Mate he grabbed him because one pro could have quite easily seriously hurt another pro with a dangerous challenge, luckily he rode it, but if some idiot had done something which could damage my career or injured me id be angry too especially after the serious leg breaks he has had. Johnson was not injured by Cisse's 'intent' neither did Cisse want to hurt him, but he did want him to understand how dangerous it was!
Click to expand...

I don't blame Cisse for it at all, and I don't blame him for getting angry. Rules are rules though, and if there's malicious or violent intent he will go. We can't expect refs to bend rules in regards to stuff like that just because we can understand why someone blew his temper. Just look at what Barton got sent off for with the 'headbutt'.

Redandwhiteoxford said:
Just cause he pulled his leg in doesn't mean he was in control. He was never in control of the flight of himself which means he was reckless. It's clear to see. It was wet as well and after the tackle, if that's what we are call it he slid for about 15 foot. If he was in control why didn't he stop himself? He couldn't stop himself and surely this means he's not in control. I hear what you are saying but we all think we know better and it's just our opinion.

Huth's tackle was out of control and reckless in my eyes... and I can assure you others will have different views of it which I will respect but sadly, not agree with.
Click to expand...

It was a very hard and fast tackle, but if it was reckless/dangerous, then so are most other sliding tackles, as Huth's tackle was just as capable of breaking a leg or ankle as any ordinary sliding challenge.

Watch Huth's challenge:

[video=youtube;YU73UtMvF34]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU73UtMvF34[/video]

Then watch some of these and tell me how they are any less dangerous, or reckless, or 'in control'.

[video=youtube;7cMg8pPWOrs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cMg8pPWOrs[/video]

Mind you, while I was looking at videos, I've just spotted one tackle where the player should have been sent off:

[video=youtube;g7Rnt5C2qaQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7Rnt5C2qaQ[/video]

However amusing his neverending slide is, it was a two-footed challenge, and far more dangerous than anything Huth did.
 
Chappaz said:
I think it's funny that Huth is being punished for actually drawing his leg in to avoid going in with his boot when he knew he wasn't going to get the ball. He probably wonders why he didn't just bother keeping his leg out or even going in with both feet, as the punishment would have been exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Going in the way he did in those conditions was in my opinion 'absolute lunacy', and he deserved everything he got..
 
Personally think it was a yellow, even before I saw the tackle I saw how Pulis was going on and was embarrassed for the guy. Also think that the way Pulis went on after the game cost Stoke and if this is the chairman's reaction is him moaning at the decision then expect more decision to go against Stoke.
 
Chappaz said:
It isn't about injury, it's about intent, or more specifically, malicious intent.

Grabbing someone's face or throat has malicious intent whether it injures the player or not.

Did Huth have malicious intent in his tackle? Well he drew his leg in and simply couldn't stop the slide, so I don't think he did. Perhaps he could be charged with a dangerous tackle, but if that was the case then virtually any sliding challenge would be deemed dangerous.
Click to expand...

Meyler won the ball (It went forward!)
Huth then "arrived" making contact
It would be impossible for Meyler to sommersault as he did without contact

Pullis today "We`ll have to take it on the chin..." Well done Mr Pullis its a lot better you take it on the chin rather than your opponents take it on the knee!
 
The referee sent him off because he thought the tackle was reckless and dangerous. (Correctly)
The FA panel comprising ex professional footballers agreed with the ref. (Correctly)

MON has said from the start he thought it was red and everyone at the ground thought so too at the time. He also covered the conditions by saying it is up to players to take them into consideration when making reckless challenges. He also quite categorically said there was definite contact between Huth and Meyler.(Correctly)
Every reasonable pundit barring Shearer, has thought Pulis was bang out of order with his cheat comments. (Correctly)

The skunks coming on here whining about it aren't the sharpest tools in the box. (Tools yes!)
That nice moderator I Play with my Tadger, has already spouted his **** patter here on this, yet seems to think he is being funny aggravating Mackems.

Then Chappedarse posts a video showing Huth lifting his knee to make sure he connects with Meyler.

There is no way Huth could have stopped himself careering into Meyler, he ends up well past the point Meylers legs would have been. He had no chance of making the tackle in the first place so intent was there from the start.
Then you get chappedarse saying he should have gone in with studs up, as he would have got the same ban, is beyond belief. The guy is worse than an idiot!
 
Dyavvy said:
Meyler won the ball (It went forward!)
Huth then "arrived" making contact
It would be impossible for Meyler to sommersault as he did without contact

Pullis today "We`ll have to take it on the chin..." Well done Mr Pullis its a lot better you take it on the chin rather than your opponents take it on the knee!
Click to expand...

Whether he won the ball, whether he made contact, it's all irrelevant. Huth clipped Meyler's foot as Meyler jumped up and that sent him into a spin. Watch the video.

It's whether the challenge was deemed to be reckless or dangerous, regardless of outcome. Yes, it could have injured Meyler. However, I've seen plenty of sliding challenges deemed to be fantastic which could have caused a lot more damage (and would have been more likely to cause damage) than what Huth did. If Huth's tackle (with his withdrawn boot) was deemed reckless and dangerous, then I worry for where the line will be drawn when it comes to other sliding tackles. Basically, any player, once he puts his foot forward and commits to a sliding tackle, will provide a risk of danger. Also, once committee, it is virtually impossible to stop yourself.
 
The title of this thread should be changed to.

"Still moaning, Stoke Chairman, Pulis and thick skunks with nothing better to do! <ok>
 
I bet some the mackems on here saying it was a red were saying Cattermole was right to stay on the pitch in our derby game in August.

Huth's challenge was NEVER worthy of a red card. The only people who seem to disagree with that are you lot.
 
5 Goals 1 Hat Trick 11 Heroes-NUFC4LIFE said:
I bet some the mackems on here saying it was a red were saying Cattermole was right to stay on the pitch in our derby game in August.

Huth's challenge was NEVER worthy of a red card. The only people who seem to disagree with that are you lot.
Click to expand...

Nope..The only people who are saying it wasn't a red card are you and Chaps...And not forgetting that angel of an ex-player Shearer of course..<whistle>
 
5 Goals 1 Hat Trick 11 Heroes-NUFC4LIFE said:
I bet some the mackems on here saying it was a red were saying Cattermole was right to stay on the pitch in our derby game in August.

Huth's challenge was NEVER worthy of a red card. The only people who seem to disagree with that are you lot.
Click to expand...

And the people who count.
The Referee.
The ex pros on the appeals panel.

Always glad to help the mentally challenged. <ok>
 
cbra said:
Personally think it was a yellow, even before I saw the tackle I saw how Pulis was going on and was embarrassed for the guy. Also think that the way Pulis went on after the game cost Stoke and if this is the chairman's reaction is him moaning at the decision then expect more decision to go against Stoke.
Click to expand...

What a facking load of sh7t you speak.

Also is that your photo? You look like a facking trainspotter!!!

Bart.

For the record, both feet were off the ground, as Huth tackled at speed on a slippery surface - if that is not a reckless tackle I will happily lick a pigs ar$e.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back