Bad tackles & Diving!!!

SBSP_FIFA wrote:That does make sense. When you tackle, you're only supposed to touch the ball. If you touch it first, then fine. It's different from American football where everyone grabs each other and jumps on top of them ()

just because its a limited contact sport, dosn't make it a non contact sport. and in america, gridiron football is considered a collision sport along with rugby. fuck, even basketball & baseball are defined as contact sports.

bottom line is football is a contact sport. easily identified by shoulder charges and incidental contact which are both perfectly within the laws of the game!

in what possible way is a sport where some contact is permitted, considererd a non-contact sport?

'orrible bastard wrote:

SBSP_FIFA wrote:That does make sense. When you tackle, you're only supposed to touch the ball. If you touch it first, then fine. It's different from American football where everyone grabs each other and jumps on top of them ()

just because its a limited contact sport, dosn't make it a non contact sport. and in america, gridiron football is considered a collision sport along with rugby. fuck, even basketball & baseball are defined as contact sports.

bottom line is football is a contact sport. easily identified by shoulder charges and incidental contact which are both perfectly within the laws of the game!

in what possible way is a sport where some contact is permitted, considererd a non-contact sport?

FOR THE LAST TIME, HE SAID WHEN THE ORIGINAL RULES WERE WRITTEN IN THE EIGHTEEN HUNDREDS, FOOTBALL WAS A NON-CONTACT SPORT.

As I've said, he's ignorant.

Bergkamp wrote:But it is a non contact sport technically, you cant control your shoulders going against someone.

When it comes to winning the ball you have to get the ball not someones legs.

right, so because your definition of a contact sport is different to the actual definition of a contact sport, then you win the argument? i dont think it would go down to well with my employer if i tell him that my interpretation of fulfilling my contractual obligations is different to his.

when winning the ball you do have to win the ball. however it would be within the rules of the game to make contact with the legs also. certainly not unless you have made contact with the ball first though, but contact is permissable!

'orrible bastard wrote:

Bergkamp wrote:But it is a non contact sport technically, you cant control your shoulders going against someone.

When it comes to winning the ball you have to get the ball not someones legs.

right, so because your definition of a contact sport is different to the actual definition of a contact sport, then you win the argument? i dont think it would go down to well with my employer if i tell him that my interpretation of fulfilling my contractual obligations is different to his.

when winning the ball you do have to win the ball. however it would be within the rules of the game to make contact with the legs also. certainly not unless you have made contact with the ball first though, but contact is permissable!

NO I SAID TECHNICALLY!!!!!

Football is a limited contact sport which I've said numerous times.

SBSP_FIFA wrote:

'orrible bastard wrote:

SBSP_FIFA wrote:That does make sense. When you tackle, you're only supposed to touch the ball. If you touch it first, then fine. It's different from American football where everyone grabs each other and jumps on top of them ()

just because its a limited contact sport, dosn't make it a non contact sport. and in america, gridiron football is considered a collision sport along with rugby. fuck, even basketball & baseball are defined as contact sports.

bottom line is football is a contact sport. easily identified by shoulder charges and incidental contact which are both perfectly within the laws of the game!

in what possible way is a sport where some contact is permitted, considererd a non-contact sport?

FOR THE LAST TIME, HE SAID WHEN THE ORIGINAL RULES WERE WRITTEN IN THE EIGHTEEN HUNDREDS, FOOTBALL WAS A NON-CONTACT SPORT.

as i have said on countless occasions

FUCKING PROVE IT!

YOU AREN'T EVEN ACCEPTING THE FACT THAT HE SAID THAT.

This is what I mean about your ignorance, just because you think something and you can get a few links from Wiki answers agreeing with you about now, you think you're right. Three people here have said the same thing so seriously stop thinking you're god and go to bed.

im going to bed. but not because you told me too!

bunch of cunts not knowing stuff.

goodnight.

You're such a 'orrible bastard.

19Jones19v wrote:

Dan wrote:

Bergkamp wrote:

(polskaGOLA) wrote:Bad Tackling, regardless if it was intentional or not, I hate seeing them much more than I hate seeing diving.

Plus refs can penalize both diving and bad tackles, but if a bad tackle injures someone, you can't really reverse that.

Plus diving has became part of the sport really, it's nothing unusual anymore, where as bad tackles leading to snapped legs are horrid either way you look at it.

This.

You're moaning about Guedioura but a lot of people tried saying Eduardo's leg break was just a mis-timed tackle, look where Taylor's foot is on Eduardo. The media just seem to stick up for English players no matter what.

Get over it. Taylor isn't a dirty player and he mis-timed his tackle. We lost two players in one game to broken legs because of mis-timed tackles. Do we moan about it still? No, because unfortunately it happens in football.

That tackle pretty much ended our title hopes, our team just wasn't the same anymore and might I say Eduardo the most. The difference between this leg break was that this challenge litterally chopped half his leg down (from knee to feet), he was in great form banging in goals for fun and he was a key player in our team that season.

Some people don't have a clue what this picture means though. Right at that second the picture is taken you are looking at one of the deadliest strikers in the league, his finishing was immense, beautiful burst of pace and was smashing in goals all over the place.

What is he now... at Shaktar, Because of that one moment.

It's a shame to see that a footballer can not only rule one of the best stirkers in the world out for a year and a bit, but ruin his career at the club and possibly ruin his footballing career.