The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This is ridiculous, you could see he was watching the ball the whole way, and was intent o shelding the ball, not injuring Cahll in anyway. The ref obviously noticed this, as the card was simply a yellow, but to take it further, stupid FA.
As many said, Jamie isn't that kinda player ad had no intention to injure the player.
He publically apologised too - STUPID!
[URL]http://www.soccer365.com/EUROPEAN_NEWS/Premiership/page_99_81984.shtml[/URL]
As many said, Jamie isn't that kinda player ad had no intention to injure the player.
He publically apologised too - STUPID!
[URL]http://www.soccer365.com/EUROPEAN_NEWS/Premiership/page_99_81984.shtml[/URL]
Page:
Good, redknapp deserved to be charged as that was a horrific "tackle" (or, boot on the opponents leg). I know he is not melicious, but that was shocking.
He got the whole ball, shurrup
And that should be taken into consideration, but I still think they've made the right decision.
I think Defoe is lucky too.
Two-footed tackles are not allowed. Yes he looked at nothing but the ball, and he won the ball, but it was still a two-footed lunge and potentially dangerous. What made his worse is that he did it out of frustration.
I think Defoe is lucky too.
Two-footed tackles are not allowed. Yes he looked at nothing but the ball, and he won the ball, but it was still a two-footed lunge and potentially dangerous. What made his worse is that he did it out of frustration.
Nah Ii wouldn't, not if it wasn't intended. If I could see intention on the tackle, I would be the first to admit action should be taken. Yes it as a shocking challenge, but Jamie looked nowhere but at the ball.
It wasn't intentional, but that doesn't change the fact it was an awful tackle. It was right on the other players knee, a potentially career threatening tackle.
It doesn't matter if it was on purpose or not. If that tackle had been round the other way you would be screaming for action to be taken.
It doesn't matter if it was on purpose or not. If that tackle had been round the other way you would be screaming for action to be taken.
I wasn't saying that should get him off. Only that it showed he didn't mean it.
He didn't, therefore he shouldn't be charged, stupd FA.
He didn't, therefore he shouldn't be charged, stupd FA.
Lil Bro wrote:
> He publically apologised too - STUPID!
That's completely irrelevant.
If any player makes a stupid challenge and gets sent off, an apology doesn't make the tackle ok. Say Vieira got sent off for a two footed lunge which broke Redknapp's leg, and then he apologised, does that mean he shouldn't be banned?
No, is the answer you're looking for.
> He publically apologised too - STUPID!
That's completely irrelevant.
If any player makes a stupid challenge and gets sent off, an apology doesn't make the tackle ok. Say Vieira got sent off for a two footed lunge which broke Redknapp's leg, and then he apologised, does that mean he shouldn't be banned?
No, is the answer you're looking for.
This is ridiculous, you could see he was watching the ball the whole way, and was intent o shelding the ball, not injuring Cahll in anyway. The ref obviously noticed this, as the card was simply a yellow, but to take it further, stupid FA.
As many said, Jamie isn't that kinda player ad had no intention to injure the player.
He publically apologised too - STUPID!
[URL]http://www.soccer365.com/EUROPEAN_NEWS/Premiership/page_99_81984.shtml[/URL]
As many said, Jamie isn't that kinda player ad had no intention to injure the player.
He publically apologised too - STUPID!
[URL]http://www.soccer365.com/EUROPEAN_NEWS/Premiership/page_99_81984.shtml[/URL]
Page: