"Entitled to go down"


Status
Not open for further replies.
They could do it afterwards though, there's zero doubt Defoe dived yesterday, ban him for 3 games and he'd think about it a bit more next time

Mind you I think Sess dived half a dozen times yesterday too, the slightest touch is enough to make him go down

It's funny like. He collapses like an epileptic deck chair.
 
You seem to be overlooking the fact that all of the ex-pro's who commented on the Bale incident believe it was a penalty, and when the ref's review it they will probably come to the same correct decision.

It should have been a pen.

Rules of the game: -

Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
•kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
•trips or attempts to trip an opponent
•jumps at an opponent
•charges an opponent
•strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
•pushes an opponent
•tackles an opponent

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:
•holds an opponent
•spits at an opponent
•handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 - Position of free kick).

Penalty kick
A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed by a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball, provided it is in play.

Gardner DID NOT trip Bale. QED - it WAS NOT a penalty
 
Rules of the game: -

Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
•kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
•trips or attempts to trip an opponent
•jumps at an opponent
•charges an opponent
•strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
•pushes an opponent
•tackles an opponent

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:
•holds an opponent
•spits at an opponent
•handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 - Position of free kick).

Penalty kick
A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed by a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball, provided it is in play.

Gardner DID NOT trip Bale. QED - it WAS NOT a penalty

:lol::oops:
 
I don't agree. All it takes is some courage and willingness to act by the FA. They could stop it in a matter of weeks.

The problem is that is goes beyond these shores. In developing this form of cheating, we are allowing British players to compete in International competition where it's the norm.

We'll never know until/unless it happens. I think retrospective action could work (and indeed it's much more realistic than refs sending folk off during the game) but there'll be a lot of fall out, especially at first.

People moan about consistency :)lol:) at the moment, it'd likely increase innumerably were this adopted.

Personally, i'd take the likes of Bale and Ridgewell to the cleaners.

Well be prepared for all kinds of controversy and fallout.

And that's just the folk on here!
 
You wouldn't thinking of Tony Pulis by any chance? - Always complains when his players are penalised if the opponent has to take evasive action to avoid leg breakers from Huth or Shawcross.

I actually feel a little bit sorry for referees - players like Bale (and Defoe) make it very difficult for them - so it is probably time to give them more help by bringing in retrospective punishment for cheating.

The real difficulty is where players ensure that they make contact with the defender - Bale could easily have avoided Gardener - but made sure he glanced against him - it's already been mentioned that he rides tackles like that elsewhere with little difficulty.

We need pundits or interviewers to have a bit more brains and/or balls to challenge players on the issue.

Pulis is a hypocrite. Never shirks away from pointing out a decision he doesn't agree with when it goes against him, but claims he never talks about the refs decisions when one goes in his favour.

Yeah, it is difficult and that's what I mean about the controversy it would bring. This is before we even begin to think about how differently these things are viewed on the continent.

I've long since given up hope on pundits and interviewers, who are happy (or only capable of) appealing to the lowest common denominator.
 
Bent used to go down with minimal contact and we all justified it as contact was made.

Short memories on here.

and we all know what ki of bloke HE is. I can't be bothered to look at the stats, but how many pens did he win by diving or "being entitled to go down", it seems to me we rarely get penalties, "entitled" or not.
 
Rules of the game: -

Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
•kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
•trips or attempts to trip an opponent
•jumps at an opponent
•charges an opponent
•strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
•pushes an opponent
•tackles an opponent

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:
•holds an opponent
•spits at an opponent
•handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 - Position of free kick).

Penalty kick
A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed by a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball, provided it is in play.

Gardner DID NOT trip Bale. QED - it WAS NOT a penalty

This is the critical bit which is why players go down in order to force the referee to give the penalty because if they stay on their feet the Referee has to decide if it was "excessive"
 
Something else I've often wondered about. How come it always seem's easy to drag a footballer into a post match interview to fawn over him after some wonder goal or whatever. Yet you never seem to see anyone pulled up for something like yesterday. Could you just imagine interviewing Defoe after yesterdays dive. Show him a 10 second video of his theatricals,shove the mic in his face after questioning him with "what the fuck was THAT", and then watch him squirm.
Never going to happen is it. Toothless media have a lot to answer for.
 
It now appears that a footballer, upon detecting the slightest breeze from the flapping of an opponent's shirt as he runs alongside him, feels 'entitled' (!!!) to go down as if he has been shot with an elephant gun and to then writhe in such apparent agony that one might reasonably conclude that he is having dental surgery carried out through his anus and without the benefit of anaesthetic. He is then normally assisted to his feet and one can imagine the physio having to whisper "There, there, come on, be a big boy, dry those tears, it'll be alright" as the player is supported, limping dramatically, towards the touchline, before miraculously returning to the field of play fully restored and seemingly unscathed.

Nasri did a classic yesterday after being felled by Bassong. Began his multi-roll writhing then miraculously recovered to jump straight up and do the nut to nut dance before being sent off.
 
I think penalties are a totally unfair idea anyway. The fact they exist means that people are always going to try and affect play in order to be awarded them, leaving the defenders with no option than to just stand off and watch...

Example:
If (like Bale's yesterday) an attacker is running down the side of the box, there's 3 defenders and a goalkeeper between him and the goal, there's no way he's in a shooting position, but he just happens to be in the box. He goes down.

Why should that warrant a free shot at goal from close range, with no defenders present?
 
Its the other way round.

If you are touched and don't go down the Ref will probably not give a foul/penalty.

Like Bale and worse Defoe, yesterday, the problem is players are looking for contact and are already going down

Why should thr Ref give a free kick/penalty because you have been touched? In order to gain a free kick or a penalty an offence or a foul has to have occurred.

Not rocket science. Personally I believe that Refs are far too lenient on divers. A few red cards for a first time offence would pretty quickly keep them and others vertical.

By the way, what is the rule now on the shoulder charge? Is it still permitted? If so it knocks all of this contact=foul bollocks into oblivion.
 
Why should thr Ref give a free kick/penalty because you have been touched? In order to gain a free kick or a penalty an offence or a foul has to have occurred.

Not rocket science. Personally I believe that Refs are far too lenient on divers. A few red cards for a first time offence would pretty quickly keep them and others vertical.

By the way, what is the rule now on the shoulder charge? Is it still permitted? If so it knocks all of this contact=foul bollocks into oblivion.

There isn't one.
 
There isn't one.

Thanks, interesting then. Because it was generally agreed over the decades when I played that a "fair" shoulder charge was allowed.

I guess just another way in which the game has lost any real memory of those days when contact was allowed. Days which I much preferred.

There isn't one.

Thanks, interesting then. Because it was generally agreed over the decades when I played that a "fair" shoulder charge was allowed.

I guess just another way in which the game has lost any real memory of those days when contact was allowed. Days which I much preferred.

However there is a question of interpretation and I thought that this might interest you. It is an extract from http://www.livestrong.com/article/461520-rules-on-pushing-in-soccer/.

Ok it has the dreaded word Soccer in it, but it deals pretty reasonablly with rule 12.


Law 12, "Fouls and Misconduct," of the Laws of the Game states that a referee may award a direct free kick to the opponent if a player pushes an opponent with excessive force or in a manner that appears careless or reckless. A direct free kick, which allows the kicker to attempt to score a goal on the kick, is taken at the point of the foul. If a reckless or forceful push occurs in the penalty box, the referee can award a penalty kick.

History

Pushing is a major foul, along with kicking, tripping, jumping at, charging, striking or tackling an opponent. Pushing has been banned since the first drafting of the Laws of the Game in 1863, writes Stanley Lover, an international referee trainer and author of two books on soccer rules. The rule appears not only in FIFA's Laws of the Game, which govern international play, but also the NCAA rules for American college teams and the National Federation of State High School Associations rules.
Interpretation

The referee has enormous discretion on whether to call a push. He will not count a shoulder-to-shoulder charge with hands held into the body as a push, but if you extend your arms or splay your elbows away from your body and shove, that will be considered a push. He also will not likely whistle for a push if by remaining silent he can allow a goal-scoring opportunity to develop for the team that received the foul. Thus you see a steady parade of pushes, bumps and shirt grabs, especially at the pro level of soccer, that are not called by the referee. "The amount of force a referee will permit is relative to the experience and age of the players, but it should never be excessive," notes the US Soccer Federation on the Ask a Soccer Referee website.
Retaliation

You take a big risk in soccer if you shove a player in retaliation for kicking, shoving, spitting or making an insulting comment. The referee frequently sees only the retaliation and not the provocation, leading to a direct free kick or even a yellow or red card. Pushes to the chest or back of excessive force that send an opponent to the ground may well receive a red card, which ejects the pushing player from the game and the following match.


The bit I have highlited seems to suggest that the shoulder charge is still a permitted part of our game. What do you think?
 
Thanks, interesting then. Because it was generally agreed over the decades when I played that a "fair" shoulder charge was allowed.

I guess just another way in which the game has lost any real memory of those days when contact was allowed. Days which I much preferred.



Thanks, interesting then. Because it was generally agreed over the decades when I played that a "fair" shoulder charge was allowed.

I guess just another way in which the game has lost any real memory of those days when contact was allowed. Days which I much preferred.

However there is a question of interpretation and I thought that this might interest you. It is an extract from http://www.livestrong.com/article/461520-rules-on-pushing-in-soccer/.

Ok it has the dreaded word Soccer in it, but it deals pretty reasonablly with rule 12.


Law 12, "Fouls and Misconduct," of the Laws of the Game states that a referee may award a direct free kick to the opponent if a player pushes an opponent with excessive force or in a manner that appears careless or reckless. A direct free kick, which allows the kicker to attempt to score a goal on the kick, is taken at the point of the foul. If a reckless or forceful push occurs in the penalty box, the referee can award a penalty kick.

History

Pushing is a major foul, along with kicking, tripping, jumping at, charging, striking or tackling an opponent. Pushing has been banned since the first drafting of the Laws of the Game in 1863, writes Stanley Lover, an international referee trainer and author of two books on soccer rules. The rule appears not only in FIFA's Laws of the Game, which govern international play, but also the NCAA rules for American college teams and the National Federation of State High School Associations rules.
Interpretation

The referee has enormous discretion on whether to call a push. He will not count a shoulder-to-shoulder charge with hands held into the body as a push, but if you extend your arms or splay your elbows away from your body and shove, that will be considered a push. He also will not likely whistle for a push if by remaining silent he can allow a goal-scoring opportunity to develop for the team that received the foul. Thus you see a steady parade of pushes, bumps and shirt grabs, especially at the pro level of soccer, that are not called by the referee. "The amount of force a referee will permit is relative to the experience and age of the players, but it should never be excessive," notes the US Soccer Federation on the Ask a Soccer Referee website.
Retaliation

You take a big risk in soccer if you shove a player in retaliation for kicking, shoving, spitting or making an insulting comment. The referee frequently sees only the retaliation and not the provocation, leading to a direct free kick or even a yellow or red card. Pushes to the chest or back of excessive force that send an opponent to the ground may well receive a red card, which ejects the pushing player from the game and the following match.


The bit I have highlited seems to suggest that the shoulder charge is still a permitted part of our game. What do you think?

I agree, and always has been.
 
Only on here have I seen or heard anyone say it wasn't a pen. The battle has been lost its generally accepted that contact equals a foul.

Why dont players fall over all over the park when they are touched?

It is accepted now, you're right, and fuckers like those on motd are encouraging people to fall over. The Comments that Hansen made about aguero, that he should go to ground, even if the contact doesn't warrant it sickens me.
 
It is accepted now, you're right, and fuckers like those on motd are encouraging people to fall over. The Comments that Hansen made about aguero, that he should go to ground, even if the contact doesn't warrant it sickens me.

One reason why I don't watch MOTD live. I record it and fast forward over the expert analysis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top