Jozy and the Footycats: Altidore at Sunderland

The penalty against Chelsea is obviously a perfect storm of fail on all those parts. Poyet's inability to manage led to him playing Jozy. Who's laziness caused him to fall over a defender who had every right to take to the ground to stop this lazy player from making a move towards goal. If Jozy's first touch was better he wouldn't have been anywhere near the defender and making a near post run. He only makes far post runs and he needs to be more aggressive in the air.

 

Jozy also needs to take his yoga much more seriously.

 

Nah. He just lacks confidence to put a shot on goal when he first took it.

 

Ok so now that we have reached an agreement to disagree on the slide tackle/ block/trip/stumble stomping on the players leg while it is on the ground debate, what about the shirt tug on the run in?

I actually think the linesman flagged for the peno on the shirt pull before the defender went to ground, but the video has been confiscated by the NSA. I gotta go now black helicopters are circling overhead.

 

No, you're just getting a delivery from Amazon.

 

Why not simply unsubscribe? That is what reasonable people do rather than try and force everybody to their will.

 

You are right they were delivering a brand new shiny copy of FIFA LOTG but I am disappointed since there is not much in the way of four color pics, and words are hard to read.

 

United is going through a bit of turmoil, because Moyes is well liked by some people up high in the club (not just SAF). So the Scottish contingent is not taking kindly the idea that their man is getting sacked. I don't think they'll come out solid in the remaining games, that sort of mess tends to affect players.

 

Or they'll want to play hard for Giggs since he is one of them...

 

http://rokerreport.sbnation.com/2014/4/21/5635166/sunderland-chelsea-2014-altidore-mannone-reaction

 

Well obviously that is Jozy's fault for not having his shirt tucked in tight enough. Azpilibergers was simply trying to tuck it back in for him.

 

Thank You Statistics

 

Now this, gentlemen, is how you win an argument.

 

When you trip somebody do you not extend your leg/foot into the path of the advancing person to be tripped?

Was it not Jozy who extended his leg into the anticipated path of Azpilicueta which was, in fact , the opposite direction of where the ball was?

I.o.w, who tripped whom?

 

How do you trip a guy who is on the ground? That's a funny concept.

Jozy is in playing distance of a ball he has control of. Az is attempting to tackle the ball.

Az leaves his feet. Jozy is standing. Az and Jozy contact. Does it have to be a foul on Az? No?

Can Jozy have tripped Az? I don't see how.

Can Jozy have stomped Az - violent conduct? I suppose, but to me that is much greater stretch.

But it is impossible that Jozy tripped a guy that is on the ground. That makes no sense.

 

Is Jozy within playing distance at the instant that he plants his foot away from the ball in Az's path and makes contact that causes the fall? It is close. Look at the vids closely. Some make it look obvious that he is; others raise the question of whether he has extended his foot to the left and planted it to make a turn in order to turn and get within playing distance again to control the ball.

I am pretty sure that is the gist of the matter.

I'm sure you have seen players a thousand times who are in on goal, take a slightly bad touch, or see that the gk has him pegged,and immediately move into the path of the defender to initiate contact in the hope of getting a foul. It would be a lousy game if those fouls were awarded.

Some might say that Az purposely slid at a distance exactly so far from the ball that Jozy could only step into his path if Jozy were not within playing distance of the ball. In fact, I am pretty sure that is what Az would say.

 

It doesn't matter what Az would say. Intent is explicitly immaterial.

Jozy can't have tripped Az. That is physically impossible.

I don't think there are many refs who would make a case that Jozy was not in "playing distance" of the ball when he went to plant his foot. Simply watch players shield the ball and you will see the distance most refs consider "playing distance."

It is obvious Az does not have control of the ball or is in playing distance.

There is contact.

Is this contact that is sometimes not called a foul? Of course.

Is this contact that can and is sometimes called a foul? Of course.

Did Jozy "dive?" No. There was contact.

Did Jozy step wide in hopes of a trip? Perhaps. But that is not even illegal. You are allowed to dribble into the path of a slide tackle, or put your foot between a tackling foot and the ball and if you are tripped it can be a foul.

That is just the way the Laws are written. I don't understand the unwillingness of some folks to accept that.

There is no doubt the ref did not have to award a foul, but there is no doubt that he could if he deemed it, in his opinion, a foul.

 

You want to discuss everything except the actual distance of the ball from Jozy at the time there was contact. Was he close enough to the ball to control it at that moment? Yes or no? Was he close enough to touch it?

 

Just when we thought it was all done. JB goes and logs in with his 3rd handle.

Shit shit shit.

 

I can only respond from the perspective of USSF advice. This is their advice on "playing distance."

12.15 PLAYING DISTANCE
The referee’s judgment of “playing distance” should be based on the player’s ability to play the ball, not upon any arbitrary standard.

So, you tell me, was Jozy close enough to be able to play the ball? I would say there is no doubt that a reasonable ref could see that distance find it within Jozy's ability to play the ball (given how bad his first touch is rumored to be, it must be easily within his playing distance!) Again, watch players shield the ball in the EPL. That will give you what most EPL refs feel is playing distance. If a player initiates contact to shield the ball outside of playing distance it is a foul.

According to the USSF advice, one could make a case, albeit a difficult one, I would suggest, that Az's tackle is a cardable offense:

12.34 VIOLENT CONDUCT
It is violent conduct when a player (or substitute) is guilty of aggression towards an opponent (when they are not contesting for the ball) or towards any other person (a teammate, the referee, an assistant referee, a spectator, etc.). The ball can be in or out of play. The aggression can occur either on or off the field of play.

A player is unlikely to be “contesting for the ball” if the player’s action against the opponent occurs from behind and with the ball on the opposite side of the opponent or with the ball beyond playing distance.

(I don't think that Az' tackle rises to VC, but his contesting for the ball was based on the faulty assumption JA was going to cross. That is a careless tackle, in my book. But it could easily have been over looked.

Again, I am not arguing it had to be called. But those who say it "couldn't" be called - ie. did not include what the LOTG require for a foul - are clearly incorrect - at least by USSF standards.)

 

I don't think you understand the concept of "playing distance."

But then again, I don't think you understand the LOTG. Or rather, I don't think you want to understand.

 

At this point in the argument I think the understanding is bleeding out my ass.

 

Didn't we used to lock up threads at 100 pages? I propose locking up this thread and starting anew. This mindless babble has gone in circles for 20+ pages now. No one is saying anything new. No one is winning an argument they haven't already won.

It's turned into a handful of posters pulling out rulers and having a pecker measuring contest.

 

Is it in legal playing distance and is your challenge careless or reckless?