Emmanuel Adebayor - Officially gone \o/

[Hootnow]

Why lucky? He got a red anyway.

Sorry, my brain fell asleep as I was typing. I meant Cazorla was lucky.

 

[Fuego]

:lol: If someone had put in that challenge on Bale, we'd still be burning effigies of the player right now. Adebayor is lucky that Cazorla wasn't standing on that leg.

That type of challenge happens often, someone tries to block a clearance near the corner flag.... Usually it's a running standing "block" that ends up with the clearing player kicking the other guy's foot. So we wouldn't be going crazy over that type of challenge, we hate the Charlie Adam type of challenge which are tackles that bend the guy's leg.


Your point about Cazorla not standing on that leg is important. I think that's where the difference in opinion is.

The tackle is at the height of the ball, Cazorla's foot is off the ground at the height of the ball. Ade's foot makes contact with Cazorla's foot way off the ground. Ade can't break Cazorla's leg, the actual damage the tackle can cause is limited to the impact Ade can make sliding studs up with the inside of Cazorla's foot (which is in the air).

Compare that with the type of challenge I mentioned at the top of my post. Two people competing for a ball near the corner flag someone makes a block/tackle that hits someone else's foot... That type of challenge is a yellow card (because the guy doesn't slide), even though it can be laces vs inside of the foot or studs vs inside of the foot and the force is significantly higher than Ade's challenge.


So looking at it from the point of view that Cazorla's foot was off the ground (height of the ball) and Ade's tackle hit Cazorla's foot, this is not Roy Keane career ender, this isn't anywhere near the type of tackle that players are hated for. The danger to Cazorla is not anywhere near the damage a vast amount of tackles are. (Tackles against us that go unpunished or only yellows are given for.)


Howard Webb has missed two clear red cards in two games lately, he missed a two footed off the ground stamp on a Emirates Marketing Project player a couple of weeks ago. He did say he saw it though, so no retrospective ban for the player involved.... That tackle was far more dangerous than Ade's.


If the ball was on the ground, Cazorla's foot would have been on the ground, Ade's tackle would have been on the ground.... That'd have been more dangerous, but he would probably have only got a yellow for it then... But in that situation, with Cazorla's leg planted, that is when a high tackle like this would have been extremely dangerous. But given where the ball was and where Cazorla's foot was, this was not nearly as dangerous as some people seem to think.


As for whether it's a red card, Ade's problem is this is not a block, if it was a block he'd probably have been ok because he wouldn't have been anywhere near the player... Ade's problem is that it was a tackle. Ade leaves the ground and puts his entire body weight into the tackle, he is not in control of his body throughout... By the letter of the law, it probably is a red card, because the law does not take into account the rest of the scenario. Ade doesn't go over the ball, the ball is heigher than Ade's foot was, if Ade's foot was any lower, he'd have been too low to make contact with the ball.

This is just one of those tackles you're not allowed to make. There is no safe way to make a challenge from Ade's original distance when you take into account the ball's height. The rule-book would like players to accept there are certain scenarios in which they cannot make a tackle, especially a sliding tackle and this is one.

I think Ade was unlucky, contact like that happens all the time. The two images that counted against him were, before the contact when he leaves the ground and the contact itself when his foot is off the floor (he is so late the ball is gone, so the ref isn't left with the image of the ball above his foot)....

Slightly clarification, "Ade was unlucky"... I mean he was unlucky to be sent off despite the letter of the law suggesting it was the correct decision. In the 10 PL games per week, there are about 5 lucky people who did something that probably should have got them sent off, but they remain on the pitch, this is all I mean.

But I think that's where the divide is. I can see why opinion is split on this.

(Other factors such as pro Spurs bias and pro/anti Ade bias may also factor into it.)

 

[Rossi22]

Look at Mertesacker, he doesn't think it's anything bad. The worst that could've happened to Cazorla was a bruised foot.

 

[Rorschach]

That type of challenge happens often, someone tries to block a clearance near the corner flag.... Usually it's a running standing "block" that ends up with the clearing player kicking the other guy's foot. So we wouldn't be going crazy over that type of challenge, we hate the Charlie Adam type of challenge which are tackles that bend the guy's leg.


Your point about Cazorla not standing on that leg is important. I think that's where the difference in opinion is.

The tackle is at the height of the ball, Cazorla's foot is off the ground at the height of the ball. Ade's foot makes contact with Cazorla's foot way off the ground. Ade can't break Cazorla's leg, the actual damage the tackle can cause is limited to the impact Ade can make sliding studs up with the inside of Cazorla's foot (which is in the air).

Compare that with the type of challenge I mentioned at the top of my post. Two people competing for a ball near the corner flag someone makes a block/tackle that hits someone else's foot... That type of challenge is a yellow card (because the guy doesn't slide), even though it can be laces vs inside of the foot or studs vs inside of the foot and the force is significantly higher than Ade's challenge.


So looking at it from the point of view that Cazorla's foot was off the ground (height of the ball) and Ade's tackle hit Cazorla's foot, this is not Roy Keane career ender, this isn't anywhere near the type of tackle that players are hated for. The danger to Cazorla is not anywhere near the damage a vast amount of tackles are. (Tackles against us that go unpunished or only yellows are given for.)


Howard Webb has missed two clear red cards in two games lately, he missed a two footed off the ground stamp on a Emirates Marketing Project player a couple of weeks ago. He did say he saw it though, so no retrospective ban for the player involved.... That tackle was far more dangerous than Ade's.


If the ball was on the ground, Cazorla's foot would have been on the ground, Ade's tackle would have been on the ground.... That'd have been more dangerous, but he would probably have only got a yellow for it then... But in that situation, with Cazorla's leg planted, that is when a high tackle like this would have been extremely dangerous. But given where the ball was and where Cazorla's foot was, this was not nearly as dangerous as some people seem to think.


As for whether it's a red card, Ade's problem is this is not a block, if it was a block he'd probably have been ok because he wouldn't have been anywhere near the player... Ade's problem is that it was a tackle. Ade leaves the ground and puts his entire body weight into the tackle, he is not in control of his body throughout... By the letter of the law, it probably is a red card, because the law does not take into account the rest of the scenario. Ade doesn't go over the ball, the ball is heigher than Ade's foot was, if Ade's foot was any lower, he'd have been too low to make contact with the ball.

This is just one of those tackles you're not allowed to make. There is no safe way to make a challenge from Ade's original distance when you take into account the ball's height. The rule-book would like players to accept there are certain scenarios in which they cannot make a tackle, especially a sliding tackle and this is one.

I think Ade was unlucky, contact like that happens all the time. The two images that counted against him were, before the contact when he leaves the ground and the contact itself when his foot is off the floor (he is so late the ball is gone, so the ref isn't left with the image of the ball above his foot)....

Slightly clarification, "Ade was unlucky"... I mean he was unlucky to be sent off despite the letter of the law suggesting it was the correct decision. In the 10 PL games per week, there are about 5 lucky people who did something that probably should have got them sent off, but they remain on the pitch, this is all I mean.

But I think that's where the divide is. I can see why opinion is split on this.

(Other factors such as pro Spurs bias and pro/anti Ade bias may also factor into it.)

Nah. It was a red.

 

[Modric THFC]

Look at Mertesacker, he doesn't think it's anything bad. The worst that could've happened to Cazorla was a bruised foot.

Maybe hes looking over at the ref after the challenge.

 

[thfcsteff]

No doubt Wheelchair knew what he was doing, but your comments about Cazorla, we've seen Bale roll around with less contact so a bit unfair to castigate him.

I would say that I genuinely cannot remember Bale rolling around like that, but I would certainly agree that I am doubtless being hard on Cazorla (even though he did what he did)...I suppose it's fair to say that in that situation most would? I don't know anymore mate, I just hope there's consistency. It was not a clever challenge for sure, but I will always feel what I feel about it, however skewed that might seem mate...

I suppose the truth is, Ade should not have given anyone a decision to make!

 

[onlyme]

That type of challenge happens often, someone tries to block a clearance near the corner flag.... Usually it's a running standing "block" that ends up with the clearing player kicking the other guy's foot. So we wouldn't be going crazy over that type of challenge, we hate the Charlie Adam type of challenge which are tackles that bend the guy's leg.


Your point about Cazorla not standing on that leg is important. I think that's where the difference in opinion is.

The tackle is at the height of the ball, Cazorla's foot is off the ground at the height of the ball. Ade's foot makes contact with Cazorla's foot way off the ground. Ade can't break Cazorla's leg, the actual damage the tackle can cause is limited to the impact Ade can make sliding studs up with the inside of Cazorla's foot (which is in the air).

Compare that with the type of challenge I mentioned at the top of my post. Two people competing for a ball near the corner flag someone makes a block/tackle that hits someone else's foot... That type of challenge is a yellow card (because the guy doesn't slide), even though it can be laces vs inside of the foot or studs vs inside of the foot and the force is significantly higher than Ade's challenge.


So looking at it from the point of view that Cazorla's foot was off the ground (height of the ball) and Ade's tackle hit Cazorla's foot, this is not Roy Keane career ender, this isn't anywhere near the type of tackle that players are hated for. The danger to Cazorla is not anywhere near the damage a vast amount of tackles are. (Tackles against us that go unpunished or only yellows are given for.)


Howard Webb has missed two clear red cards in two games lately, he missed a two footed off the ground stamp on a Emirates Marketing Project player a couple of weeks ago. He did say he saw it though, so no retrospective ban for the player involved.... That tackle was far more dangerous than Ade's.


If the ball was on the ground, Cazorla's foot would have been on the ground, Ade's tackle would have been on the ground.... That'd have been more dangerous, but he would probably have only got a yellow for it then... But in that situation, with Cazorla's leg planted, that is when a high tackle like this would have been extremely dangerous. But given where the ball was and where Cazorla's foot was, this was not nearly as dangerous as some people seem to think.


As for whether it's a red card, Ade's problem is this is not a block, if it was a block he'd probably have been ok because he wouldn't have been anywhere near the player... Ade's problem is that it was a tackle. Ade leaves the ground and puts his entire body weight into the tackle, he is not in control of his body throughout... By the letter of the law, it probably is a red card, because the law does not take into account the rest of the scenario. Ade doesn't go over the ball, the ball is heigher than Ade's foot was, if Ade's foot was any lower, he'd have been too low to make contact with the ball.

This is just one of those tackles you're not allowed to make. There is no safe way to make a challenge from Ade's original distance when you take into account the ball's height. The rule-book would like players to accept there are certain scenarios in which they cannot make a tackle, especially a sliding tackle and this is one.

I think Ade was unlucky, contact like that happens all the time. The two images that counted against him were, before the contact when he leaves the ground and the contact itself when his foot is off the floor (he is so late the ball is gone, so the ref isn't left with the image of the ball above his foot)....

Slightly clarification, "Ade was unlucky"... I mean he was unlucky to be sent off despite the letter of the law suggesting it was the correct decision. In the 10 PL games per week, there are about 5 lucky people who did something that probably should have got them sent off, but they remain on the pitch, this is all I mean.

But I think that's where the divide is. I can see why opinion is split on this.

(Other factors such as pro Spurs bias and pro/anti Ade bias may also factor into it.)

Superb post. Are you a lawyer or a journalist?

Unfortunately every correct and well constructed point you have made will be wasted because the last point you make is the most accurate.

 

[jimmyb]

Superb post. Are you a lawyer or a journalist?

Unfortunately every correct and well constructed point you have made will be wasted because the last point you make is the most accurate.

What you're effectively saying is that you're the only person on this board who is sufficiently objective and / or intelligent to be able to understand and appreciate Fuego's post.

Nice going!

 

[braineclipse]

If the ball was on the ground, Cazorla's foot would have been on the ground, Ade's tackle would have been on the ground.... That'd have been more dangerous, but he would probably have only got a yellow for it then... But in that situation, with Cazorla's leg planted, that is when a high tackle like this would have been extremely dangerous. But given where the ball was and where Cazorla's foot was, this was not nearly as dangerous as some people seem to think.


As for whether it's a red card, Ade's problem is this is not a block, if it was a block he'd probably have been ok because he wouldn't have been anywhere near the player... Ade's problem is that it was a tackle. Ade leaves the ground and puts his entire body weight into the tackle, he is not in control of his body throughout... By the letter of the law, it probably is a red card, because the law does not take into account the rest of the scenario. Ade doesn't go over the ball, the ball is heigher than Ade's foot was, if Ade's foot was any lower, he'd have been too low to make contact with the ball.

This is just one of those tackles you're not allowed to make. There is no safe way to make a challenge from Ade's original distance when you take into account the ball's height. The rule-book would like players to accept there are certain scenarios in which they cannot make a tackle, especially a sliding tackle and this is one.

I think Ade was unlucky, contact like that happens all the time. The two images that counted against him were, before the contact when he leaves the ground and the contact itself when his foot is off the floor (he is so late the ball is gone, so the ref isn't left with the image of the ball above his foot)....

Cazorla's foot not being on the ground isn't an excuse. Part of the problem with a tackle like that is, like you say, that he loses control of his body. So if Cazorla puts his foot down at some point when Ade is flying through the air he won't be able to stop himself. People can get sent off for tackles like this without even touching the player. It's the way the tackle happens that's the problem, you can go on forever about how much contact was made and how much damage that contact is likely to make, but the point remains that the you're quite simply not allowed to tackle like that. Like you also point out.

Comparisons with a block makes no sense as he wasn't making a block. He made a tackle.

Contacts like this might happen all the time, but does tackles like this happen all the time? I don't see tackles like this all the time, at least not unpunished.

 

[Roy1983]

What you're effectively saying is that you're the only person on this board who is sufficiently objective and / or intelligent to be able to understand and appreciate Fuego's post.

Nice going!

There are too many idiots on here who think they are.

 

[awesome dawson]

Can we stop bickering about a red card that happened months ago.

The guys form is shocking and without his goals we simply will not come in the top four.

The run of games of we've got coming is similar to the same time last year. Scum, City, Chelsea and Liverpool without an effective striker in our squad.

 

[Denmark Spur]

Can we stop bickering about a red card that happened months ago.

The guys form is shocking and without his goals we simply will not come in the top four.

The run of games of we've got coming is similar to the same time last year. Scum, City, Chelsea and Liverpool without an effective striker in our squad.

Agree

Thats my biggest fear too - we wont get top 4, because we need a striker in form to do that

And dont even get me started on Dempsey

I remember a while back that we had a thread named "The our strikers are all brick thread" or something like that.

We really should reinvent that thread

 

[Pirate55]

Can we stop bickering about a red card that happened months ago.

The guys form is shocking and without his goals we simply will not come in the top four.

The run of games of we've got coming is similar to the same time last year. Scum, City, Chelsea and Liverpool without an effective striker in our squad.

=D>

 

[glorygloryeze]

People can complain all they like about Ade. From tonight's game it seems like he's truly feeding on scraps.

I thought he worked his socks off today. Hopefully he'll get a break soon; it's not for lack of effort that's for sure

 

[Roy1983]

Have to disagree and add that he looks half hearted. Bale whipped in a cross tonight as did Walker and Lennon and he didn't look like getting on the end of any.

 

[Jurgen the German]

The fans need to get behind him. Getting on his back is counter productive to the team. But sadly I just don't see him magically finding some form from nowhere. He needs the ball to fly off his arse and into the net to kick start his season. This thread is exactly the same as the Defoe thread from two years ago, just talking about a different player. Fans split down the middle, half of whom don't see him think he will come good, the other half seem to think he will. I'd like to know what the faith is based on tbh. Is it just blind faith?

 

[lurker of old]

The guys form is shocking and without his goals we simply will not come in the top four.

Too much negativity methinks. Ade isn't scoring but football is unpredictable. He could yet become a hero this season, let's think positive and see Ade's glass as half full - why be defeatist?

 

[Hootnow]

The fans were really getting on his back today, even sarcastically cheering him a couple of times when he won headers. Will not help us in the slightest and we really need him and/or Defoe to wake up soon because Bale isn't going to continue like this till May and we need someone else scoring.

Our fans really are huge tacos.

 

[Jurgen the German]

The guys form is shocking and without his goals we simply will not come in the top four.

Too much negativity methinks. Ade isn't scoring but football is unpredictable. He could yet become a hero this season, let's think positive and see Ade's glass as half full - why be defeatist?

Fans are just being realistic. We've seen our strikers go into slumps and not come out of it in previous seasons. If you were a betting man, you wouldn't back him to turn it around given his current form. I think it would be burying your head in the sand to think that he hasn't played poorly this season.

But I don't condone fans booing him/cheering him sarcastically. It doesn't do anybody any good.

 

[glorygloryeze]

The fans were really getting on his back today, even sarcastically cheering him a couple of times when he won headers. Will not help us in the slightest and we really need him and/or Defoe to wake up soon because Bale isn't going to continue like this till May and we need someone else scoring.

Our fans really are huge tacos.

Some people really don't realise how reliant we are on him right now. He's likely gong to be our main threat against the the Spmamers, Gooners and against Liverpool. We'll need him motivated and feeling wanted, not lacking more confidence than he does evn now..sigh...