Alex Sapphire wrote:Original Dub wrote:How come we have eleven people that think he didn't see it and it so happens that none of the people with this opinion have posted their reason behind it?
You're either a WUM or a fucking retard if you can't see that that knob of a ref not only saw the incident clearly, but gestured to RVP to get up straight after it.
Where are you?
I'm here OD and I did explain. Read the fookin thread. WUM or fuckin Retard I am not. Cunt am I. But you're obviously hard of thinking too :-) so I'll repeat what I said BEFORE your post:
alex sapphire wrote:tell you what the videos do prove:
he couldn't see Ade's face when the incident happened, and the most compelling evidence against him was that he was looking down at RVP when his foot struck. From behind (the angle he looks most innocent) he seems to be looking away and therefore could be seen as an accident.
the angles where you see Ade looking at what he's doing and actually extending his "stamp" were not visible from that angle.
Did he see the incident "yes", did he see the foul play "No"
Please look at the actual moment his foot makes contact from one of the other angles. The so called 'extension of his stamp' is his foot coming OFF VP's head not going ON to it. The angle they keep using makes it look as if it happens BEFORE contact, I thought the same until it was pointed out on here. It's the motion you would make with your foot if tripping over something; your foot catches the object, turns sideways, slipps off the object & stamps down as your weight transfers.
Now I don't know if Adebayor could avoid tripping over VP, he probably could but imo he DEFINITELY didn't change the angle of his foot to catch him, as it appears on ONE & only one angle & ONLY appears that way in slow motion. At normal speed the ref saw nothing. Could you see from a few feet away if someone changed the angle of their foot to stamp on somebody without having to look at their eyes? I certainly could.
Can you not see how absolutely ludicrous it would be to now start trying to judge Ade's guilt or innoccence on what you THINK his eyes are fixed on during a slomo from an angle? It's like trying to win a 'spot the ball' contest! If the referee has changed his opinion because he's making judgements on a players eyeline then it's a fucking utter disgrace. Some batsmen have their eyes closed at the moment they hit a cricket ball, which proves what?
These people have all decided because of the apparent change in angle of his foot. Of that I'm certain & for that reason, it's badly wrong. It looks like we can't contest this; they've decided that slomo is the factual evidence. It brings into question the ability of over emotive football people to interpret such evidence.
A bastsman wouldn't even be given out in a cricket game on that evidence as you can't see the point of contact & that's a fact.