Jump to content

The football gifs thread (possible 3G warning!)


The_Rev

Recommended Posts

  • VT Supporter

 

 

Bannage beckons for that one. In those cases the ban should be the same lenght as the injury. Horrible.

I don't know if this post is entirely serious,

 

but I adisagree. That would be a pretty broken policy.

 

I was serious actually.

Why is it a "broken policy?" McManaman was reckless in the tackle and through his actions alone as seriously injuried a fellow professional. This isn't one of those "unlucky/just caught him late" tackles its a full on lunge with both feet off the ground with the leading leg above knee height.

He is solely responsible for the injury and to me at least, it seems grossly unfair that Haidara will be out for longer as a result of McManaman's actions than McManaman himself.

Because, say Haidara's injury transpires to just be a ligament strain and he's back in a month, McManaman by that logic will also be back in a month.

 

But you could have a situation where a player is rightly sent off for a late but totally non malicious challenge, but it just so happens that the player he injured falls funny, snaps his ligaments and is out for 9 months.

 

Does McManaman come back after a month and Player B stay banned for 9 months?

 

You can't judge a ban on the injury a player receives, because a player could survive the worst tackle in the world unscathed, but another player could end his career from the most inoccuous challenge you can imagine.

 

I agree with the sentiment behind the idea. But it wouldn't work if you actually wanted to apply that as a law of the game.

Edited by Stevo985
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Bannage beckons for that one. In those cases the ban should be the same lenght as the injury. Horrible.

I don't know if this post is entirely serious,

 

but I adisagree. That would be a pretty broken policy.

 

I was serious actually.

Why is it a "broken policy?" McManaman was reckless in the tackle and through his actions alone as seriously injuried a fellow professional. This isn't one of those "unlucky/just caught him late" tackles its a full on lunge with both feet off the ground with the leading leg above knee height.

He is solely responsible for the injury and to me at least, it seems grossly unfair that Haidara will be out for longer as a result of McManaman's actions than McManaman himself.

Because, say Haidara's injury transpires to just be a ligament strain and he's back in a month, McManaman by that logic will also be back in a month.

 

But you could have a situation where a player is rightly sent off for a late but totally non malicious challenge, but it just so happens that the player he injured falls funny, snaps his ligaments and is out for 9 months.

 

Does McManaman come back after a month and Player B stay banned for 9 months?

 

You can't judge a ban on the injury a player receives, because a player could survive the worst tackle in the world unscathed, but another player could end his career from the most inoccuous challenge you can imagine.

 

I agree with the sentiment behind the idea. But it wouldn't work if you actually wanted to apply that as a law of the game.

 

I agree with the issues, but in clear cases like the one above - a long ban is the only solution. Another example would be Roy Keane on Inge-Haarland. Obvious instances where the tackle is reckless/out right thuggery and unnecessary.

There will always be problem cases eg. Taylor on Eduardo where there was clearly no intent just ineptitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter

And that's your problem. You'd end up having to decide what was malicious and what wasn't.

Who intended it and who didn't intend it.

 

It wouldn't work.

 

Again, I back the sentiment 100%. But  bad tackles aren't necessarily bad because they cause injury.

Haidara's leg could quite easily have not been planted and he'd have probably gotten away with a bruise. But that doesn't make the tackle any better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have a gif of the Guzan save from the front angle.

I actually think it looks better from the front as it shows you how far he had to push it round he post. Wasn't just a case of getting his hand to it.

 

ibaBwOuFSkt4gL.gif

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

soccer-kick-fail_13215274884.gif

 

If anything today is worthy of the phrase bahahahahahahahahahahaha then this is surely it. Bahahahahahahahahaahahaha!

Edited by MrDuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Goes down as if he's been shot. The Suarez influence rubbing off I see.

 

rubbish, Gerrard hsas been diving since before Suarez became a professional

 

That may be so, but has it ever been that comical?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I'll hate myself but ...

In Steeeevie G's defence, an air shot at full force can be very painful and can pull a lot of muscles that wouldn't have extended that way had they made contact with the ball. So I wouldn't have too much of a problem with how he went down. He wasn't exactly pretending to have been fouled and slow-motions of that stuff always makes it look worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

exclamation-mark-man-user-icon-with-png-and-vector-format-227727.png

Ad Blocker Detected

This site is paid for by ad revenue, please disable your ad blocking software for the site.

Â