Clutching at Straws (SWINE STYLE)

[botoble]

Next thing you know they'll be saying its illegal to embarrass a pig by putting the ball through its legs and leaving it for dead David Brooks style

 

[Harrisblade]

He might just have a point..................

 

[Stretch]

They're hurting, bless em.

 

[B.Lade]

To be honest I did wonder that...

 

[Houston_Blade]

If it was your first ever football game you might be as special as him.

 

[Gimli]

Haha I've heard many of them saying it wasn't a foul which is ridiculous enough but this takes the biscuit

 

[GodricBlade]

View attachment 31359



Next thing you know they'll be saying its illegal to embarrass a pig by putting the ball through its legs and leaving it for dead David Brooks style

Is it me here. I thought the rule says if the SAME player touches it twice before anyone else, it's a free-kick.
Not if 2 different players touch it - 1 to roll it and the other to SMASH IT IN THE BOTTOM CORNER!!!

Illegal free-kick my arse. Pathetic thick piggy who doesn't even understand their own post.
They'll try anything to make themselves look like twats!

(Hope I've not missed something & done likewise.....)

 

[Alfreton14Blade]

Illegal bouncing, terminated by Officer Duffy.

 

[pommpey]

Yeah. It was illegal. So were all the goals, in fact.

LET'S PLAY THEM AGAIN!

pommpey

 

[ForgeBlade]

Oh wow they really are the gift that keeps on giving today aren't they? Is this in the same vein as the desperate trufflehunter who thought Forest fairy could score on the rebound in a shootout?

And they call us a "comedy club"

Fucking brilliant!

 

[S64 Blade]

It’s surprising Wednesday fans manage to find partners of the opposite sex to procreate with.

 

[madeinsheffield]

Barca have done it with penalties, which I don't agree with and thought it was against the rules, certainly isn't sporting.

Our free kick was 'kin excellent!

 

[stringer]

Is it me here. I thought the rule says if the SAME player touches it twice before anyone else, it's a free-kick.
Not if 2 different players touch it - 1 to roll it and the other to SMASH IT IN THE BOTTOM CORNER!!!

Illegal free-kick my arse. Pathetic thick piggy who doesn't even understand their own post.
They'll try anything to make themselves look like twats!

(Hope I've not missed something & done likewise.....)

He's arguing, not very well, that Brooks rolling the ball counts as him having multiple touches of the ball before Fleck smashes it home

 

[McGrath]

I hope it was illegal and the game is anulled and we have to play it again.... that would be awesome.

How good would it be if we could play that shower again!

 

[GodricBlade]

It’s surprising Wednesday fans manage to find partners of the opposite sex to procreate with.

I'm amazed at how many kids they must actually have. If there's only 1 runt in a litter, where are all the non-runts 'cos only the runtiest of runts support that shower of runty shite!

 

[LenTednTony]

Its an accurate observation which is why the 'donkey kick' free kick disappeared (you know, flicking it up behind with two feet). However. I think a roll of the ball is considered continuous contact and not double contact and, if my observation was correct, it was kicked gently backwards and not even rolled.

Clutching at straws........it's a yes from me!

 

[Pinchy]

Yeah. It was illegal. So were all the goals, in fact.

LET'S PLAY THEM AGAIN!

pommpey

Yes. Good idea. Here they are.



️️️️

 

[GodricBlade]

He's arguing, not very well, that Brooks rolling the ball counts as him having multiple touches of the ball before Fleck smashes it home

Thanks Danny - now I see what he was getting at. Nowt wrong with it still. GOAAAAAALLLLLLL!!

 

[Geordie Blade]

Is it me here. I thought the rule says if the SAME player touches it twice before anyone else, it's a free-kick.
Not if 2 different players touch it - 1 to roll it and the other to SMASH IT IN THE BOTTOM CORNER!!!

Illegal free-kick my arse. Pathetic thick piggy who doesn't even understand their own post.
They'll try anything to make themselves look like twats!

(Hope I've not missed something & done likewise.....)

I think you have missed something. His (or her) point was that 'dragging' the ball with the sole of foot (as done by Brooks) isn't strictly one clean contact. You might remember the Coventry goal below (from 1970), where the rules were subsequently changed. Brooks' drag was a similar movement, though a bit more subtle.



Whilst they might possibly have a point, referees have generally been pretty flexible about the interpretation on this. If we're going to get into physics and momentum here, every single kick of the ball is, by definition, a 'push' (or 'drag'). At an atomic level, though, the foot doesn't actually even actually touch the ball - we're now into the realm of electromagnetic and nuclear force and I realise that I've wandered somewhat away from the point.

 

[GodricBlade]

I think you have missed something. His (or her) point was that 'dragging' the ball with the sole of foot (as done by Brooks) isn't strictly one clean contact. You might remember the Coventry goal below (from 1970), where the rules were subsequently changed. Brooks' drag was a similar movement, though a bit more subtle.



Whilst they might possibly have a point, referees have generally been pretty flexible about the interpretation on this. If we're going to get into physics and momentum here, every single kick of the ball is, by definition, a 'push' (or 'drag'). At an atomic level, though, the foot doesn't actually even actually touch the ball - we're now into the realm of electromagnetic and nuclear force and I realise that I've wondered somewhat away from the point.

Thanks Geordie - I had missed that and appreciate the tangential response too. To get down to that level of detail in just a few sentences is applauded

 

[Sharrow Snuff Mill]

Is it me here. I thought the rule says if the SAME player touches it twice before anyone else, it's a free-kick.
Not if 2 different players touch it - 1 to roll it and the other to SMASH IT IN THE BOTTOM CORNER!!!

Illegal free-kick my arse. Pathetic thick piggy who doesn't even understand their own post.
They'll try anything to make themselves look like twats!

(Hope I've not missed something & done likewise.....)

According to the Pig argument it would be illegal to cross it for a header unless an opponent touched it on the way. A direct fee kick close to your own goal line would mean you`d have to have a shot at goal from 100 yards. Another one a bit lacking in the brain cell department.

 

[Toronto Blade]

View attachment 31359



Next thing you know they'll be saying its illegal to embarrass a pig by putting the ball through its legs and leaving it for dead David Brooks style

they will try to come up with any excuse but there it was on tv for all to see the pigs were soundly beaten by a better team in fact the scoreline could have been higher.
The ball wasn't just put between his legs the poor piggy suffered broken ankles on that embarrassing move.How much did they pay for him.

 

[pommpey]

At no time did Brooksy's foot lose contact with the ball.

Of course, the next time the ball made contact was Fleck's foot and the next time it hit summat was the back of the fucking net.

1-and-2-and-3!

What's not to love about that, you desperate, squealing cunts?

pommpey

 

[SwissBlade]

The Wednesday fan may or may not have a point, I don't know of this law being infringed by a roll seen as multiple touches though. It would be unlike a ref to miss this.

However, bigger concerns for them
- persistent fouling
- not closing the shot down on the freekick
- diving into tackles all over the pitch on Brooks (this freekick and the second half nutmeg)
- poor tracking of slow striker Clarke
- Poorly organised midfield
- leaving Clarke unmarked prior to their 2nd ( missed chance)
- New Dutch superstar defender allowing Duffy to beat him twice, not blocking the shot
- Westwood getting beaten on his front post

Theres probably more, but these are off the top of my head

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

View attachment 31359



Next thing you know they'll be saying its illegal to embarrass a pig by putting the ball through its legs and leaving it for dead David Brooks style

As illegal as Hoopers offside, you arse wipe

 

[UnitedBlade]

This free kick happens every week in football all round the world. Do you not think the authorities and refs would have changed their guidelines if it was illegal?

If anyone has bothered to watch Brooks technique he jabs it backwards, he doesn't "roll" it. It certainly isn't multi touch.

I wouldn't bother trying to prove this but I would bet there is less contact in that free kick than the conventional shot at goal with the foot going through the ball.

What a silly set of cunts they are.

 

[stringer]

Thanks Danny - now I see what he was getting at. Nowt wrong with it still. GOAAAAAALLLLLLL!!

Absolutely not. And what a finish/feeling.

 

[The Crab]

He might just have a point..................

Be the first one they got all fucking weekend

 

[elgoog44]

it was very similar to the Argentina free kick in 98 against England, both very well worked and will only work once or twice if not done regularly, but not Illegal at all, would seem they want now to blame anything and everything for the loss, the majority of them.

 

[JohnDenver]

- New Dutch superstar defender allowing Duffy to beat him twice

To me that reeked of a lack of preparation and perhaps a lack of respect. Duffy has a lovely change of direction but he won't get by a player with pace. You just need to stand up and follow the ball.

Brilliant from Duffy but a multi million pound defender should do better.

Oh, and...