Powered by
Univision Deportes
JUL 5 12PM ET
arg1
bel0
JUL 5 4PM ET
ned4
crc3
JUL 8 4PM ET
bra1
ger7
JUL 9 4PM ET
arg4
ned2
JUL 12 4PM ET
bra0
ned3
JUL 13 3PM ET
arg0
ger1

Real-ly (EPL Talk Preview Podcast)

Multiple competitions can be cruel at any one time, oh how a season can change. Yet, United fans still have two competitions to look on favourably as they saw their team crash out of the Champions League unceremoniously, through a series of uncomfortable and jarring moments. First a collision, then a card, immediately followed by incredulity. Which was warranted?

It leaves us realising that being the best doesn’t mean that you are the best…that leaves the league wide open for a debate from 2nd to 20th. Harry will be happy.

Joining us again is Richard Farley, a great addition to the podcast and a welcome guest. Do you agree with his opinion on the red card? Let’s EPL Talk about it:

EPL Talk: @epltalk

Kartik: @kkfla737

Kristan: @kheneage

Matt: @mattcrduncan

Morgan: @Morgan_Green

Laurence: @lozcast

Here are the different ways you can listen to the EPL Talk Podcast each day:

Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Real-ly (EPL Talk Preview Podcast)

  1. Mark says:

    I respect Richard Farley’s comments but I think the points made by the other two podcasters were valid. You cannot just look at Nani’s foul in a vacuum – a referee if he chooses to play by the book or be extremely strict with respect to foulplay needs to apply those standards consistently otherwise he is giving the team he is being more lenient towards an unfair advantage. I am not even a Manchester United fan, but by the referee’s standards Diego Lopez should have been sent off for endangering Vidic. United enjoyed an unfair advantage when Jonjo Shelvey was sent off but Evans remained in the game for the same foul committed.

    Also, I remember Carlton Cole and Gibson being sent off for similar offenses – whose red cards were later rescinded to yellow cards. Red cards do not get rescended if the red card was justified. So to argue that Nani’s foul was a definite red card is debatable.

  2. Todd says:

    @mark I agree with your comments. If you base everything on richards arguments then 2 real players shouldve been sent off. Ramos for putting his boot into evra and lopez for punching vidic.

    There are plenty of occasions that referees have used common sense in a match based on the events occurring.

    If you do want to get into an individual basis then the referee lso needs to take into account the entire scene that is happening.

  3. Wongo1 says:

    Richard Farley is obviously not a United fan and therefore saw nothing wrong with the Nani red card. When it is pointed out that Lopez should also have been sent off he stutters through it.

    The rule actually does state EXCESSIVE force. There is also an element of common sense that has to be exercised. Mr. Farley obviously did not watch the incident as Nani’s boot did not hit the chest but the arm of Arbeloa.

    I dislike other team’s fans who are blinded by dislike and you Mr. Farley unfortunately has fallen into that category with your comments.

  4. Wongo1 says:

    Richard Farley so often in his appearance on the podcast showed his bias, Gary Neville was one of the greatest players England ever produced, he worked hard studied his opponents more and more often than not negated some of the greatest players. He has brought that dedication which he often gives the most credit to SAF to his work as a pundit. To think that Neville was just a mindless guy as Mr. Farley implied so he is shocked that he is so great is simply poor and lazy.

    I am very respectful of people who have differing opinions on United but when I hear an ABU posing as a objective source that I will not respect.

    By the way Norwich never “kept” up with United geez man get real!!

  5. Wongo1 says:

    Due to Mr. Farley’s nonsense I went to:
    http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2011_12_en.pdf

    Here is the rule according to FIFA:

    LAW 12 – FOULS AND MISCONDUCT 111
    Basic requirements for a foul
    The following conditions must be met for an offence to be considered a foul:
    • it must be committed by a player
    • it must occur on the
    fi
    eld of play
    • it must occur while the ball is in play
    If the referee stops play due to an offence committed outside the
    fi
    eld of play
    (when the ball is in play), play must be restarted with a dropped ball from the
    position of the ball when play was stopped, unless play was stopped inside the
    goal area, in which case the referee drops the ball on the goal area line parallel
    to the goal line at the point nearest to where the ball was located when play
    was stopped.
    Careless, reckless, using excessive force
    “Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or
    consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution.
    • No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is judged to be careless
    “Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the
    danger to, or consequences for, his opponent.
    • A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned
    “Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary
    use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.
    • A player who uses excessive force must be sent off:

    Based on this rule Nani was Reckless at worse and should have received a caution which is a Yellow card. I do not agree that he was reckless, it was a foul but at worse he should have had a talking to and a yellow. I suggest Mr. Farley go back and read the rules or lose the United hating glasses. Just call it down the middle and we’ll all be better off.

    • Ry_Mar says:

      Yeah, not sure where Richard was coming from this time. By the end of the ‘debate’ it came down to him making a blanket statement, sticking his fingers in his ears and saying lalalalala.

      The FIFA rules clearly state the differences between careless, reckless and excessive force.

      Richard’s primary argument seems to come from someone with little to no understanding of how football refereeing works. It’s deliberately designed not to be a case of ‘studs touched chest’ = red card. Context is required, or else the sport would be relatively useless.

      A bizarre, weak, and really demeaning argument from a normally competent contributor. Was he just given the short card of having to produce a counter-argument?

      Finally, please look up parsimonious. It’s fine to use it incorrectly once, but it was a like a catch phrase.

      • Richard says:

        Ry_Mar: Heard about/Saw this comment, and you’re so right on parsimonious. The second time I did it on the show, I was so embarrassed. Totally fair to call me out on that … so fair, that I wanted to come here and admit I f*cked that up.

        • Wongo1 says:

          Richard it would also be nice to hear you admit that you were wrong on the rule and wrong on your call that it was “absolutely” a red card as you said.

        • RyMar says:

          Haha, no worries – everyone’s a critic! Keep up the good work, nice to hear a North American influence on such a big pod!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>