Herbie von Smalls Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 (edited) can't quite fathom the outrage at this. his feet were raised, but he led with his legs and his studs were facing away from his 'victim'. yellow card was spot on for cleaning the player, but the foul was more restrained than reckless. Edited October 21, 2007 by Herbie von Smalls
DazzlaJ Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 Exactly wasn't like he went in studs up two footed
Knox_Harrington Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 If you were in the ground it would have looked f***ing shocking.
MFletcher Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 I felt it was an honest attempt to win the ball. His studs were well away from the player, he went in with his legs towards the ball and not straight into the player. A yellow card was more than fair.
DazzlaJ Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 Knox_Harrington said: If you were in the ground it would have looked f***ing shocking. What do you expect Woodison is a s*** hole
ricflairandy Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 Snodin on terrece talk mentioned that he hadnt seen it because he had to leave the ground at half time. Ian st john then proceeded to tell him all about how it was the worst lunge hed ever seen. A few mins later, to a caller snodin said it looked terrible and in his mind it looked alot like cantonas kung fu kick on the fan (erm, snodin, i thought you hadnt seen it?) ,
Herbie von Smalls Posted October 21, 2007 Author Posted October 21, 2007 MFletcher said: I felt it was an honest attempt to win the ball. His studs were well away from the player, he went in with his legs towards the ball and not straight into the player. A yellow card was more than fair.i reckon that's pushing it a bit he made no attempt to play the ball. he was hell bent on taking out the man, but very careful not to injure him seriously.
Sheida V Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 I thought he was trying to block the clearance with the way he positioned his body. No way it was a sending off. It looked really odd but there was no danger to the other player.
floyd the barber Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 gotta be honest, thought it was a horrible attempt at winning the ball...his feet were high, two footed....lucky not to get a red card in my opinion.
DazzlaJ Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 (edited) Lets get Masched said: gotta be honest, thought it was a horrible attempt at winning the ball...his feet were high, two footed....lucky not to get a red card in my opinion. No way was that two footed in the general sense. Stupid yes, malicious no Edited October 21, 2007 by Lick my Dirk
Stevie H Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 it was the kind of challenge more players should have been making. where's the beef?
Sir Tokyo Sexwale Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 it was wild, but it was so high it was comical. Red card never
John am Rhein Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 I thought it was a clear and definite red card. However, justice was done when the ref gave him just a yellow.
_00_deathscar Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 I cringed when I saw it, but only because he didn't take the c*** out and break both his legs as I was hoping he would.
Guest Kaizer Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 Kuyt lost it a couple of seconds there, it was bad. He got a yellow card and he did not touch anyone, that says it all.
JohnnyH Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 It was a diving block of the ball. he was nowhere near the player and had no intention of making contact with the player. It was just a diving block like you'd see any good defender do when someone takes a shot at goal. Didn't even think it warrented a yellow.
Tim Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 hey wouldn't you do the same if you thought it was gary neville right there in front of you? (this will only make sense to those who have seen Kuyt's bbc interview)
Gomez Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 I thought it was a red and a shocking challenge at the time, and the only reason he didn't get one was because it was so poorly executed he missed neville by a mile. It seems so out of character for Kuyt, he is just not that kind of player. However, having seen it again, and heard his interview, I think he was actually trying to block the hoof up pitch, and was throwing himself in front of it. Still a stupid thing to do and lucky he made absolutely no contact though as it would have been a red if he had.
Earl Hafler Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 Herbie von Smalls said: i reckon that's pushing it a bit he made no attempt to play the ball. he was hell bent on taking out the man, but very careful not to injure him seriously. I thought he was lucky to escape a red. That sort of challenge has no place in the game and will only be replicated on the parks by kids. It was two footed in more ways than one because it looked two feet off the pitch.
MFletcher Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 Yes, but look at the way his body is positioned. He lunges to prevent the hoof up field. I've never seen Kuyt make a dirty tackle. He's an honest professional and I'm inclined to believe he was simply trying to block the ball. Yes, the challenge looked bad - but he didn't go clattering into the Ogre, he jumped in front of him. He was clearly trying to stop the ball going forward and a yellow card was given simply because he left the ground in such a manner.
abc Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 We were all laughing our heads off in the pub. And after the laughter had died down, realised that it could well have been a red. Nobody on our team should ever try that again. Unless it's on Lampard. And only if it takes him out for a year. For all the snidey tackles on Xabi the last 4 seasons, especially for that ankle breaking one.
John am Rhein Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 JohnnyH said: It was a diving block of the ball. he was nowhere near the player and had no intention of making contact with the player. It was just a diving block like you'd see any good defender do when someone takes a shot at goal. I think that's probably true. But I STILL think it should have been a red card - because that's how dangerous it was. All the same justice was done. Ditto for the last minute penalty claim.
Herbie von Smalls Posted October 21, 2007 Author Posted October 21, 2007 in his post-match interview he implied he had intended to take out the player, but without any malice. he knew he might have been sent off and his sheepish grin suggested he was relieved to have got away with it. he lost it for a moment, but was considered enough to keep his studs out of neville's way. next time dirk, next time.
John am Rhein Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 It was Neville was it? I take it back. He shoudn't even have got a yellow.
Cam Posted October 21, 2007 Posted October 21, 2007 He pulled out of it fairly early on. Still lucky not to get a red, mind. But players have to be 'rewarded' for pulling out of fouls. If he'd connected with both feet at waist height I'd have had no complaints about a 12-match ban.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now