Séamus Coleman (D Everton b.1988)

[ArdeeBhoy]

Hmm, there seems to be a very selective use of them here.

Coleman's a decent player, but not infallible, regardless of any stats.
Does that help...
;)

[Grafter]

Hmm, there seems to be a very selective use of them here.

Coleman's a decent player, but not infallible, regardless of any stats.
Does that help...
;)

There a lot of weight on Coleman's shoulders for him to be our one world class marquee player.... people forget he was only in and out of the Everton team in 2012..... he's a fine fullback like Steve Finnan was.... no doubt Finnan would have had similar expectations heaped upon him had he not played in a team with the two Keanes, Duff etc

[ArdeeBhoy]

Tbf, wouldn't expect that of him. Just a decent established EPL (or similar) player will do for me.

The type of status that you allude to, is surely more for a certain team-mate, if you believe some on here?

[paul_oshea]

So he gave away a penalty.....

[tricky_colour]

He didn't give away a penalty the ref was hoodwinked by the dive and gave a penalty.
It was a refereeing error, the player should have been sent off for diving.

[Crosby87]

Liverpudlian Echo: Coleman a diamond in the green rough.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/sport-opinion/ian-snodin-seamus-coleman-shining-6187948

[Emmet7]

He's a decent player going forward. But he's an unpolished diamond defensively. There's a time for dribbling and a time for getting rid of it quickly particularly in the box. His fresh air volley last night was awful and he's prone to making mistakes like that which cost goals. It's no use being good attacking if you are going to give away goals like that.

[SwanVsDalton]

In fairness to Coleman it was a bad mistake but he said it himself - nine times out of ten you get away with it. No one would've mentioned a thing about it post-match except it resulted in a 30-yard screamer.

I agree he needs to cut out the mistakes but do think he's improving defensively.

[wonder88]

Two poor games for Ireland this week, however he is a good player who I think will improve further. I used to watch him at Sligo a few years back and then you could see that his defending was not of the best. However he has made great progress and he has a good chance of maybe becoming the top european player the comedy panel on RTE think he already is.

[Stuttgart88]

I didn't think he was poor at all. One mad swipe for their goal, but otherwise very industrious and proactive.

I watched the second half again just now. Coleman was in their half nearly the whole time and had some nice interplay with Reid at times. He's very comfortable receiving the ball in tight situations, a great asset.

[tetsujin1979]

he was playing in front of where I was sitting in the first half, thought it took him a long time to recover from the mistake that led to the goal, but he wasn't given much cover by Doyle in front of him.

[tricky_colour]

He should have had a free kick, he was obstructed just after that.
The goal should have not have stood.

He was barged several paces out of the way, that is illegal.
]Someone should tell the Kazahk player it is not American football!!

Clear foul.

[DannyInvincible]

He should have had a free kick, he was obstructed just after that.
The goal should have not have stood.

He was barged several paces out of the way, that is illegal.
]Someone should tell the Kazahk player it is not American football!!

Clear foul.

Just watching the goal again here (from 1:30) and I'm not so sure:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AWo2svx7xw

I think you're making more out of it than is warranted. There was contact, certainly, but the momentum of both players - and Coleman was already somewhat off-kilter in a hasty effort to re-collect the ball after his air-kick - was taking them in that direction anyway, so perhaps it looked like Coleman was on the receiving end of a good oul' GAA-shtyle barge. It would have been very harsh on Kazakhstan to rule the goal out and award us a free out. I've rarely seen free-kicks given for that; what was a fairly paltry coming together of bodies. It was no more than a light budge. We deservedly paid the price for a careless error.

[tricky_colour]

Just watching the goal again here (from 1:30) and I'm not so sure:

I think you're making more out of it than is warranted. There was contact, certainly, but the momentum of both players - and Coleman was already somewhat off-kilter in a hasty effort to re-collect the ball after his air-kick - was taking them in that direction anyway, so perhaps it looked like Coleman was on the receiving end of a good oul' GAA-shtyle barge. It would have been very harsh on Kazakhstan to rule the goal out and award us a free out. I've rarely seen free-kicks given for that; what was a fairly paltry coming together of bodies. It was no more than a light budge. We deservedly paid the price for a careless error.


It looks different from different angles but look at the first shot of it.
You can see Coleman running along the line of the grass cutting but he is shoved off at about 45% degree by the Kazak.
The Kazak does not attempt to get the ball but clear a path for his colleague to shoot.
Seems to me he goes beyond what is permissible

Found one set of rules

As defined below, is a "Shoulder Charge" legal in the LIJ travel league for BU15?

Shoulder Charge:
(aka "Fair Charging"). A type of "tackle" which can be legally used to try to "win" (i.e., gain possession of) the ball. To be legal, it:
(a) cannot take place from behind
(b) is only permitted within playing distance (i.e., 3 feet) of the ball
(c) cannot be violent or dangerous
(d) must be intended to win the ball & not just to knock down the opponent
(e) must be shoulder to shoulder (not to the opponents chest or back) with the arms (especially elbows) close to the body
(f) the player must have at least one foot on the ground (i.e., he can't leap).

Seems to me much of the charge is outside 3 feet of the ball, hence it is an illegal shove, but I guess it is open to interpretation.

Don't want to sound like sour grapes or whatever, I don't' begrudge the Kazaks the goal but I don't believe Coleman made a mistake leading to a goal, it leads to a foul IMO it you take the letter of the law.

Having said that, it was a cracking goal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eIMKxzcZDE

[Charlie Darwin]

It's a fair shoulder. It's OK, tricky, it's over. We won. You don't need to contest this.

[tricky_colour]

It's a fair shoulder. It's OK, tricky, it's over. We won. You don't need to contest this.


Bit late for that, I have already fired off a letter to FIFA.

[Charlie Darwin]

I hope you suggested including us as the 33rd team. That always goes over well I find.

[tricky_colour]

It's the least they could do.

[SwanVsDalton]

Do the recipients of the 'Best Fans in the World' award not get an extra place in finals? That's why I thought were we singing Fields of Athenry for 70 minutes.

[Kingdom]

I like that Coleman always, and I mean always, looks to play football first. It happened in Germany before their goal where he tried to take on Schurrle at the bye-line, and Schurrle outpaced him, and won possession back. He was undeterred though, and showed some wonderful skill to keep possession and the ball alive (as did Glenn Whelan in fairness) before Stokes lost the ball.

I think it's become a bit of a theme with him, that when he tries to keep the ball alive, in what his irish peers might consider to be unorthodox situations, that they aren't prepared, or jittery -call it what you want. That's a problem that his team-mates need to resolve, rather than Seamus in my opinion.

Mistakes like the fresh air happen. Look at it this way, the two fresh air's in the two matches cost us two goals (stokes v germany) but thankfully in the second game it wasn't a decisive blow.

[DeLorean]

I like that Coleman always, and I mean always, looks to play football first.

Ironically enough though, if he had tried to play football first in the clip above the fresh air kick wouldn't have happened. I think he had just enough space to control the ball instead of wildly hoofing it with his weaker foot.

[DannyInvincible]

Found one set of rules

As defined below, is a "Shoulder Charge" legal in the LIJ travel league for BU15?

Shoulder Charge:
(aka "Fair Charging"). A type of "tackle" which can be legally used to try to "win" (i.e., gain possession of) the ball. To be legal, it:
(a) cannot take place from behind
(b) is only permitted within playing distance (i.e., 3 feet) of the ball
(c) cannot be violent or dangerous
(d) must be intended to win the ball & not just to knock down the opponent
(e) must be shoulder to shoulder (not to the opponents chest or back) with the arms (especially elbows) close to the body
(f) the player must have at least one foot on the ground (i.e., he can't leap).

Seems to me much of the charge is outside 3 feet of the ball, hence it is an illegal shove, but I guess it is open to interpretation.

Are those "rules" FIFA-approved or do they merely act as an interpretational guideline for a local football governing body (or the Long Island Junior Soccer League for under-15 boys, in other words)?

[tricky_colour]

Are those "rules" FIFA-approved or do they merely act as an interpretational guideline for a local football governing body (or the Long Island Junior Soccer League for under-15 boys, in other words)?

I think that is based on FIFA rules, this is what it says on the FIFA site

This is from the FIFA site:-

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf



29 Impeding the Progress of an Opponent

Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct,
block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.
All players have a right to their position on the field of play, being in the way of an opponent is not the same as
moving into the way of an opponent

30 Impeding the Progress of an Opponent Shielding the ball is permitted.

A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offence
as long as the ball is kept in playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or
body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.

The key point in it seems to be being within playing distance of the ball and I would say much of his shove on
Coleman was outside playing distance. Hence it is an offence.

Colman should have had an indirect free kick.

[geysir]

The key point Tricky, is that Coleman would have had a better chance if he had tried to control the ball instead of hoofing it. He was punished for it. 'Hoofing bad, control good', is the new mantra.
Brilliant goal though, unlike the mickey mouse one, Germany got after Stokes lost possession.

[DannyInvincible]

But, Tricky, the Kazakh didn't move into Coleman's path.

[tricky_colour]

I like that Coleman always, and I mean always, looks to play football first. It happened in Germany before their goal where he tried to take on Schurrle at the bye-line, and Schurrle outpaced him, and won possession back. He was undeterred though, and showed some wonderful skill to keep possession and the ball alive (as did Glenn Whelan in fairness) before Stokes lost the ball.

I think it's become a bit of a theme with him, that when he tries to keep the ball alive, in what his irish peers might consider to be unorthodox situations, that they aren't prepared, or jittery -call it what you want. That's a problem that his team-mates need to resolve, rather than Seamus in my opinion.

Mistakes like the fresh air happen. Look at it this way, the two fresh air's in the two matches cost us two goals (stokes v germany) but thankfully in the second game it wasn't a decisive blow.

I do not see it as a mistake at all, he was in space and had the time to recover the situation if he missed his clearance.
However because he was fouled in an of the ball incident he could not recover.
The only error is on the part of the ref, he missed the off the ball shove on Coleman.

[tricky_colour]

But, Tricky, the Kazakh didn't move into Coleman's path.

Yes he did "Impeding is forcing a change of direction by an opponent then the ball is not within playing distance of either player."

Initially both Coleman and the ball are in the dark green stripe of the grass The no 21's initial challenge on Coleman may be
fair, but he continues to drive Coleman away into the light green stripe of grass.

He does not have to move into Coleman's path all he has to do is force a change of direction or obstruct and I think he does that.
You could argue his initial challenge is a legal changing direction as he is in within playing distance.
However I am not even sure that he is within playing distance as he leans into Coleman.

I know it is a very fine point though and it is complicate, for example if he forces a change in Coleman's direction
within legal distance is maintaining that change legal, you could argue if Coleman tries to get back on line
and in the direction of the ball he is fouling the no 21.

Maybe you can argue the no 21 is legally shielding the ball after his initial challenge within distance.

However the two rule seem to contradict one another page 29 and 30.

It seems you can place yourself into the path or a player but you cannot move into the path of the player
is there a difference between move yourself and place yourself?

But that is a bit of an aside as you can argue Colman's path has changed.

I guess the ref took the easy option of awarding the goal rather than try and explain why a foul had been committed!!!

However again both 29 and 30 say within playing distance and IMO the no 21 continues to shield the ball when
not within playing distance.

To me he places himself between Coleman and the ball for tactical reason ie so his colleague Borat the Magnificent
can whack it into the top corner without Coleman challenging and that is a foul as he was not within playing distance at
the time. So I almost changed my mind there, I thought he was allowed to shield as long as he didn't use his arms,
but he can't use his arms either within or without playing distance.


I mean I know when I used to play I would quite often place myself between the opponent and the ball to let
a ball run out of play (in my favour), however I always felt a bit of a cheat because I knew I was doing this deliberately to
obstruct the player getting to the ball, however I always got away with it.
Obviously I made it look like I was not deliberately obstructing although I knew I was, I just pretended I was a bit slow.

Its a bit of a fine point though, it is more about intention.

Perhaps need to be thrashed out in the European court of human rights!!!

[EAFC_rdfl]

dear god

[DeLorean]

That show on Sky Sports, Barclays Premier League World, are doing a piece on Coleman's Irish football background next week. They are also following some dedicated Irish Liverpool fans from Dublin to a match at Anfield, or something along those lines.


Sky Sports 3
Thursday, 24th October @ 18:30

[KK77]

That show on Sky Sports, Barclays Premier League World, are doing a piece on Coleman's Irish football background next week. They are also following some dedicated Irish Liverpool fans from Dublin to a match at Anfield, or something along those lines.


Sky Sports 3
Thursday, 24th October @ 18:30

They are indeed following them!

[DannyInvincible]

Yes he did "Impeding is forcing a change of direction by an opponent then the ball is not within playing distance of either player."

Initially both Coleman and the ball are in the dark green stripe of the grass The no 21's initial challenge on Coleman may be
fair, but he continues to drive Coleman away into the light green stripe of grass.

He does not have to move into Coleman's path all he has to do is force a change of direction or obstruct and I think he does that.
You could argue his initial challenge is a legal changing direction as he is in within playing distance.
However I am not even sure that he is within playing distance as he leans into Coleman.

I know it is a very fine point though and it is complicate, for example if he forces a change in Coleman's direction
within legal distance is maintaining that change legal, you could argue if Coleman tries to get back on line
and in the direction of the ball he is fouling the no 21.

Maybe you can argue the no 21 is legally shielding the ball after his initial challenge within distance.

However the two rule seem to contradict one another page 29 and 30.

It seems you can place yourself into the path or a player but you cannot move into the path of the player
is there a difference between move yourself and place yourself?

But that is a bit of an aside as you can argue Colman's path has changed.

I guess the ref took the easy option of awarding the goal rather than try and explain why a foul had been committed!!!

However again both 29 and 30 say within playing distance and IMO the no 21 continues to shield the ball when
not within playing distance.

To me he places himself between Coleman and the ball for tactical reason ie so his colleague Borat the Magnificent
can whack it into the top corner without Coleman challenging and that is a foul as he was not within playing distance at
the time. So I almost changed my mind there, I thought he was allowed to shield as long as he didn't use his arms,
but he can't use his arms either within or without playing distance.


I mean I know when I used to play I would quite often place myself between the opponent and the ball to let
a ball run out of play (in my favour), however I always felt a bit of a cheat because I knew I was doing this deliberately to
obstruct the player getting to the ball, however I always got away with it.
Obviously I made it look like I was not deliberately obstructing although I knew I was, I just pretended I was a bit slow.

Its a bit of a fine point though, it is more about intention.

Perhaps need to be thrashed out in the European court of human rights!!!

There is no contradiction evident in the rules quoted, nor, from them, is there any indication that the ref should have awarded us a free-kick. You've either misread them or don't understand them. The fact you've abbreviated the stated rule, leaving out a vital element of information, and passed your edited statement off as a direct quote lifted from the rule-book, albeit with a spelling error included, by no means helps your case. I don't know if that was intentional or simply a case of you failing to grasp the significance of the sliced information. FIFA don't include unnecessary waffle in their rules; every word serves a purpose and has a meaning.

[DannyInvincible]

I was a bit stuck for time posting in work earlier, but "moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent" is an essential aspect of obstructing an opposition player. Therefore, Tricky, I don't know why you saw fit to disregard that element from what is merely your mistaken personal interpretation outlined at the beginning of your post. The Kazakh player didn't move into Coleman's path. At no point was Coleman even facing his opponent when the two bodies came together, primarily as a result of momentum. Besides, the ball was easily within playing distance of Coleman at the moment the players connected.

[tricky_colour]

I was a bit stuck for time posting in work earlier, but "moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent" is an essential aspect of obstructing an opposition player. Therefore, Tricky, I don't know why you saw fit to disregard that element from what is merely your mistaken personal interpretation outlined at the beginning of your post. The Kazakh player didn't move into Coleman's path. At no point was Coleman even facing his opponent when the two bodies came together, primarily as a result of momentum. Besides, the ball was easily within playing distance of Coleman at the moment the players connected.

You have to look at the rules on page 30 it is not my mistaken
interpretation of the rule on page 29 it is the correct reading of the rule
on page 30.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf

The two rules do seem to contradict one another. However he is not within playing distance
and he is between Coleman and the ball for tactical reasons, there is no mention of path
in the rule hence it is a clear cut case of obstruction and a free kick should be awarded.



Shielding the ball is permitted.

A player who places himself between an opponent and
the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offence
as long as the ball is kept in playing distance and the
player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or
body.

If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be
fairly charged by an opponent.

So reword that slightly and it is "a player commits an offence if he places
himself between and opponent and the ball for tactical reasons, unless
he is within playing distance"

[tricky_colour]

dear god

Finally one person realsies the goal should never have stood!!!

[EAFC_rdfl]

Finally one person realsies the goal should never have stood!!!
Clear Tay fluck and stop ruining this thread.yous are worse than oul women arguing

[SkStu]

You have to look at the rules on page 30 it is not my mistaken
interpretation of the rule on page 29 it is the correct reading of the rule
on page 30.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf

The two rules do seem to contradict one another. However he is not within playing distance
and he is between Coleman and the ball for tactical reasons, there is no mention of path
in the rule hence it is a clear cut case of obstruction and a free kick should be awarded.



So reword that slightly and it is "a player commits an offence if he places
himself between and opponent and the ball for tactical reasons, unless
he is within playing distance"

http://i.imgur.com/x19otv0.gif

[tricky_colour]

"Impeding the Progress of an Opponent" is an "Indirect Kick Foul" in soccer (see "Fouls, Indirect Kick, Impeding The Progress Of An Opponent"). This used to be called "obstruction". Generally, a player cannot use his body to impede another player's movements, even if it is not deliberate. This can be called if a player is not within "playing distance" of the ball (i.e., 3 feet) and block's an opponent's movement or screens an opponent from the ball. However, if a player is within playing distance & able to play the ball (meaning not laying on the ground), the player can legally screen an opponent from the ball. (You usually see this when a ball is going out of bounds & the player whose team will get the throw-in screens the opponent so the opponent can't save the ball). The rule also applies to "innocently" impeding the goalkeeper by standing in front of him when he has the ball.

Clearly the Kazak player used his body to block Colman when the ball was not with in playing distance.
OK it made no distance on this occasion, but people need to aware of the rules of the game, it might cost us qualification.

Seems some of the refs need to read up on the rules as should some of the soccer 'experts', the pundits and journalists,
none of whom seem to have spotted this obvious infringement. I mean you can forgive the odd barstooler for being
ignorant of the laws of the game, but when people are being paid to be experts on the game they should at least know the basics.

[tricky_colour]

Actually, rather than whinging about this, perhaps a better way forward would be to take the positives out
of this unfortunate incident.

Now that we can see that refs, for one reason or another will allow players to get away with obstruction
it seems to me that we should use this to our advantage and obstruct opposition players to keep or
gain possession of the ball whenever possible. I think this may be something StSku was alluding to in his rather
obtuse post, but to be honest, I am not too sure what his point was, if indeed he had one.

[rebelmusic]

Considering our last goal was illegal in that Stokes kicked the ball from out of play i think you can leave this one go....

[SkStu]

I think this may be something StSku was alluding to in his rather
obtuse post, but to be honest, I am not too sure what his point was, if indeed he had one.

My point is that I think it is time for us all to put the miscarriage of justice that befell Coleman and the Republic of Ireland team on Tuesday night behind us, irrespective of whether or not your interpretation of a rule is accurate. A strict interpretation of every rule is not to the benefit of the game unless you want a college of umpires throwing flags to stop play for every minor and major infraction in the game like NFL or something. And even then, infractions are missed.

But thank you for isolating my playful post as obtuse and ignoring others including one that accuses you of ruining the thread, acting like a woman and asking you to remove yourself from the thread... :)

[ArdeeBhoy]

90% certain that was a goal. Who cares anyway? In a meaningless game too.
Did Coleman?

[DannyInvincible]

You have to look at the rules on page 30 it is not my mistaken
interpretation of the rule on page 29 it is the correct reading of the rule
on page 30.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf

The two rules do seem to contradict one another. However he is not within playing distance
and he is between Coleman and the ball for tactical reasons, there is no mention of path
in the rule hence it is a clear cut case of obstruction and a free kick should be awarded.



So reword that slightly and it is "a player commits an offence if he places
himself between and opponent and the ball for tactical reasons, unless
he is within playing distance"

The latter rule outlines what might be understood as further clarification; it is not a contradiction.

And the ball was within playing distance of both when the two came together, so there was no foul in accordance with rule 30. The ball was within a foot of both players when the bodies connected. There was no foul under rule 29 either due to the fact that the Kazakh player did not move into the path of Coleman. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to comprehend.


Clear Tay fluck and stop ruining this thread.yous are worse than oul women arguing

Ha, well, we are discussing a footballing incident in which Coleman was directly involved. I understand that satisifes the intended purpose of this thread. I think I shall desist, however; I can't make the rules any clearer for Tricky than they already are, unfortunately.

[tricky_colour]

I know of no rule in football which allows off the ball contact, even if accidental.

If anyone knows different, feel free to post it.

The Kazahkstan player should switch to the NFL where his playing style will be legal.

[SkStu]

I know of no rule in football which allows off the ball contact, even if accidental.

If anyone knows different, feel free to post it.

The Kazahkstan player should switch to the NFL where his playing style will be legal.

So are you campaigning for a strict application of every rule in the book? In my opinion a certain amount of off the ball contact is inevitable and, if reasonable, is tolerated (as it should be) as it is recognized that it is a contact sport both on and off the ball (e.g. jostling for position on a corner).

[DannyInvincible]

Sweet Jaysus, Tricky! The contact wasn't off-the-ball. As you can see from the three different angles below, the ball was within playing distance of both players at the point of contact. In fact, the ball cannot be seen in the middle freeze-frame due to its immediate position on the other side of the two players.

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc12/poguemahone85/coleman_zps0e6f66f2.png

[tricky_colour]

So are you campaigning for a strict application of every rule in the book? In my opinion a certain amount of off the ball contact is inevitable and, if reasonable, is tolerated (as it should be) as it is recognized that it is a contact sport both on and off the ball (e.g. jostling for position on a corner).


It is only inevitable because the rule are not enforced.
You see loads of pushing shoving and shirt pulling and they get away with it because the referee does not have the bottle to enforce the rules.
If I were the ref I'd enforce the rules, even if that meant I was only person left on the pitch by half time!!!
However by the end of the season most of the player would be be still be on the pitch because they would have twigged cheating will not be tolerated.

Tolerating cheating is one of the reasons our players can't play football properly, you don't need to when you can cheat instead
plus it is difficult to play when you are constantly being fouled and the offending player allowed to get away with it.

There are people on here always banging on about how continental players are more skilled than ours
and about what is the solution, is it the coaching etc.. perhaps the solution is simple enough, zero tolerance of cheating.

[tricky_colour]

Whilst we are at it ( will leave the current point aside for the moment) it might be worth noting that the player
who pushes Coleman out of the way also pushed McCarthy out of the way prior to that.
McCarthy seems to be tootling about in the midfield at this point, he is still tootling about after that when it looks to me
that he is closer to the ball than the player who slams it into the back of the net.

OK it was a meaningless match, but for someone like Roy Keane for example that would have made
no different to his competitiveness in the game.

I doubt he would have been pushed out of the way in the first place and I expect he would have been
first to the loose ball, even in training, never mind a 'meaningless' international. No game of football
is meaningless in his book.

Roy Keane dos not think, "is this a friendly or not?" he has already made the tackle. That is one of the reasons
he was one of the best players of his time, and one of the reasons some of our players won't be.

[DannyInvincible]

You're lapsing into self-parody now.

He lightly places his hands on a slumbering McCarthy's back for a split second - gaining no apparent advantage in doing so - as he makes his way around McCarthy before running toward the ball after Coleman's fluffed it. You're seriously not trying to claim that was a foul too? If anything, you'd have hoped it would have kept McCarthy on his toes and sprung him into some defensive action!

Not that it's necessarily indicative of anything certain, but you'll also notice that neither of the two Irish players make a claim for a free-kick. Obviously, they've not been in the team long enough with Robbie yet for him to have taught them the art of arm-waving!

[tricky_colour]

http://i41.tinypic.com/sgms5t.jpg

http://i43.tinypic.com/2ihnuyh.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/11v1s77.jpg

Note in the last picture McCarthy's position looks like he should be first to the ball there,
the guy who strikes the ball is not in the frame as I only noticed this aspect of the incident form these
pictures when I was thinking why doesn't McCarthy get the ball?

[peadar1987]

OK it was a meaningless match, but for someone like Roy Keane for example that would have made
no different to his competitiveness in the game.

I doubt he would have been pushed out of the way in the first place and I expect he would have been
first to the loose ball, even in training, never mind a 'meaningless' international. No game of football
is meaningless in his book.

Roy Keane dos not think, "is this a friendly or not?" he has already made the tackle. That is one of the reasons
he was one of the best players of his time, and one of the reasons some of our players won't be.

Yeah, Roy Keane would have pulled out of the friendly on some flimsy pretext, so he wouldn't have even had the opportunity to pull out of the tackle