Re: NO BAN despite the FA studying video evidence...
Why Video Evidence can sometimes be misleading.
RVP stated that "I, too, have made hard and sometimes mistimed challenges but never with the intention of hurting an opponent."
"I was trying to kick the ball," Adebayor told Sky Sports after the match. "I see him tackling and I don't have time to take my feet back because I'm trying to kick the ball.
Both of them make mistimed plays. One a reckless challenge the other a mistimed kick. Both of them said there were no intent to injure anybody.
In defense of Ade he had to evade a two-legged lunge, which he was successful, but at the same time making an awkward attempt to kick the ball.
It just happened the ball rolled faster than Pursy's head. Now this happened all in milliseconds which to the naked eye looks an innocous but mistimed kick.
Of course if we were to splitfame in slo mo it looks like Ade was intentionally kicking Pursy's head.
C'mon guys see it in real time! In the context of human reactions and capabilities.
I would suggest Ade had more time to reflect and to change his course of action for his legendary run than to retract his kick ( at the same time evading an injury reckless tackle).
If City were to mount a challenge they should include a Physicist/Scientist/Accident specialists.
Remember in most accidents cars/moving projectiles/soccer balls are faster than moving human bodies or human reactions to avoid collisions
If we were to split frame in slo mo we could say the some innocent drivers could have avoided a lot of accidents but judged guilty because he had time to change the course of action.
Its very disingenous of some folks to use video to foist this 'sleight of eye trick' on the public.
IMHO City should mount a legal challenge.
Remember Persie had more time to reflect on making a 2-legged lunge than Ade on evading the tackle and kicking the ball at the same time.
