Euro 2008

Ugh. No. FIFA wrote the rules, so what they say is what matters. It's not like someone else wrote the rules and FIFA is just commenting on them. From 1998 to 2005 it was clear in the "Laws of the Game" that all tackles from behind were to be red-carded. In 2005 the wording was changed, but as explained in the FIFA memorandum I posted, it was not intended to be more forgiving on tackles from behind but rather to increase emphasis on dangerous side and front tackles while continuing to expect that all tackles from behind should be red-carded. The "Instructions to Referees" and other comments from FIFA are intended precisely to prevent certain people from trying to find "wiggle room" in the wording of rules. They issued clarifications and it's beyond clear how they intended the rule to be read.

 

WTF??? This thread is STILL going on?

 

The initial arguement was what is the singular rule as written, yes or no?

It is not what FIFA issued as clarifications, not what is the instructions to officials and not how they intended the rule to be read.

It is semantics and VP is right.

Your point about what the rule actually means and its application is valid, but not for the initial arguement.

 

The initial argument was whether or not tackles from behind are supposed to draw a card. They are, as has been proven repeatedly.

Wrong. Vpkozel is unquestionably wrong, and moreover, has lied about the rule being implemented. You siding with him only makes you look stupid, so I suggest that you keep your mouth shut unless we have reason to believe that you're more of an authority on FIFA rules than Joseph Blatter or Bobby McMahon. Do yourself a favor and shut up.

 

I'm wrong again. I'm rooting for the Germans on Sunday, so bets should immediately be placed on Spain.

 

Collin - this is what you said that started this, yes or no?

The rule itself as written did not support you.

All the citing of Blatter, McMahon, Instructions to Refs, etc...supported your arguement on assessing a card, but not for the INITIAL POINT you said, that the rule requires a card, not that tackles from behind are supposed to draw a card.

Sorry, but it's true.

 

this thread is FUCKING AWESOME!!!

watching collins fonts get bigger and BIGGER, then bolder and even change color is just too fucking funny.

All I could think is he is like a cartoon character, which made me think which one his little rants remind me of and I settled on this one






























collin = cosmo spacely. now every time I read one of his posts I hear that little cartoon voice in my head

 

It is amazing that you could be so stupid as to fail at understanding a point that has been explained for this many pages.

#1) As of 1998, the rule read as follows: "A tackle from behind, which endangers the safety of an opponent, must be sanctioned as serious foul play."

That is very clear in saying that tackles from behind are serious foul plays, which the rules punish with a red card. For those who incorrectly try to weasel out by saying that the included clause limits what types of tackles from behind are serious foul plays, I point both to Blatter's comments disproving that very argument, and Justice Scalia's statement in the recent 2nd Amendment ruling:

"The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. "

Just as I've been saying about the rule listed above, the "which endangers the safety of an opponent" is announcing the purpose or reason why all tackles from behind are being considered serious fouls, not limiting them.


#2) In 2005 the wording of the rule was changed to "A tackle, which endangers the safety of an opponent, must be sanctioned as serious foul play," but FIFA explained in that memorandum that the changes were not to be considered a lessening of the severity of tackles from behind, but rather an increased emphasis on tackles from the side and front in addition to maintaining the prohibition against tackles from behind.

Who put out the rules, you fucking moron? FIFA. Who had the Decision 4 clause inserted into the rules in 1998? Blatter. FIFA gets to decide what the wording of their rules means, just as the Supreme Court decides what the wording of the Constitution means.

So Ballpark, once again, shut the fuck up before you do anything further to cement the idea that you are some brainless hick with no ability to reason or follow simple logic.

No, it isn't. You are a moron who can't understand basic concepts. When FIFA writes a rule and explains the rule, it is clear what the rule says and means. Just because you're so unbelievably stupid that you have trouble following along doesn't change reality, it just means that you're stupid. As your own custom rank says, you're "full of shit and proud" of it. Now go back to your other alias and stop bothering me.

 

"When FIFA writes a rule and explains the rule, it is clear what the rule says and means."

The issue was what does what the rule say, not what it says and what FIFA explains and clarifies...you are wrong on that technicality, which is all I was pointing out.

"You are a moron who can't understand basic concepts."

Wow, that is really the pot and the kettle.

 

Except that I'm obviously not wrong about what the rule says, unless you mean to tell me that FIFA doesn't know and isn't allowed to state what it's own rules say. Meanwhile, why not let the Supreme Court know that they can't tell anyone what the Second Amendment says either?

Both "A tackle from behind, which endangers the safety of an opponent, must be sanctioned as serious foul play" and "A tackle, which endangers the safety of an opponent, must be sanctioned as serious foul play" clearly prohibit tackles from behind given that FIFA has said that all tackles from behind endanger the opponent. You are not qualified to disagree with Joseph Blatter or Bobby McMahon on that.

No, it's you being a douchebag alias that some Mary Jane Chucklesnatch brought out of disuse just to needle me a bit. That's the only time the account "Ballpark" gets used, when someone wants to be a dick to someone else. This thread was pretty much dead, which is why you decided to stir it back up again.