|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Oct 20, 2014 17:41:57 GMT
FFS he dived! Yes there was a slight pull on his shirt but not enough to snap both his legs in half. It may have been a pen for the shirt pull but he still dived! Take ya red tinted glasses of ffs and stop this embarrassing defense of blatant cheating.
Stafford do you think we should have been given a penalty for the blatant shirt pull on Crouch?
Well yes. I am not saying Moses' wasn't. I am just saying that he dived which he did. My 10 year old would have stayed on his feat after that shirt pull.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 20, 2014 17:46:55 GMT
Stafford do you think we should have been given a penalty for the blatant shirt pull on Crouch?
Well yes. I am not saying Moses' wasn't. I am just saying that he dived which he did. My 10 year old would have stayed on his feat after that shirt pull.
So you would have no problem then if Crouch had dived to draw the shirt pull to the ref's attention?
We didn't get a penalty the first time precisely because Crouch stayed on his feet, what do you expect Moses to do a little bit later on then when he has his shirt pulled, stay on his feet as well?
Ergo two shirt pulls on two different Stoke players would have resulted in ZERO PENALTIES TO STOKE.
If the referees can't spot the infringements, then it's up to the players to make sure they know about it, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Oct 20, 2014 17:47:58 GMT
I hope Red Nev and Carra have seen this angle or we're going to get more shite on Monday Night Football
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 20, 2014 17:50:03 GMT
I hope Red Nev and Carra have seen this angle or we're going to get more shite on Monday Night Football
I thought I saw earlier, that somebody had quoted Neville on twitter supporting Moses?
I could be wrong, mind.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2014 17:50:09 GMT
That picture does show that it was more than "a bit of a tug".
|
|
|
Post by Kjones9 on Oct 20, 2014 17:51:55 GMT
It seems to be the Swansea way, snide, horrible, dirty bastards.
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Oct 20, 2014 17:52:13 GMT
Well yes. I am not saying Moses' wasn't. I am just saying that he dived which he did. My 10 year old would have stayed on his feat after that shirt pull.
So you would have no problem then if Crouch had dived to draw the shirt pull to the ref's attention?
We didn't get a penalty the first time precisely because Crouch stayed on his feet, what do you expect Moses to do a little bit later on then when he has his shirt pulled, stay on his feet as well?
Ergo two shirt pulls on two different Stoke players would have resulted in ZERO PENALTIES TO STOKE.
If the referees can't spot the infringements, then it's up to the players to make sure they know about it, isn't it?
They shouldn't dive, end of. What chance do you think of Moses getting his next pen claim or the next 10? If it is debatable the ref will give him fuck all now. He should have stayed on his feet. To be honest he probably could have got a shot away anyway if he had stayed on his feet. Diving is shit and it makes the player look a twat and the club gets more grief. I hate diving and have no reason to think differently just because it is one of our own.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Oct 20, 2014 17:58:19 GMT
I hope Red Nev and Carra have seen this angle or we're going to get more shite on Monday Night Football Surely this picture shows Rangel trying to help Victor stay on his feet.....
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 20, 2014 17:58:36 GMT
So you would have no problem then if Crouch had dived to draw the shirt pull to the ref's attention?
We didn't get a penalty the first time precisely because Crouch stayed on his feet, what do you expect Moses to do a little bit later on then when he has his shirt pulled, stay on his feet as well?
Ergo two shirt pulls on two different Stoke players would have resulted in ZERO PENALTIES TO STOKE.
If the referees can't spot the infringements, then it's up to the players to make sure they know about it, isn't it?
They shouldn't dive, end of. What chance do you think of Moses getting his next pen claim or the next 10? If it is debatable the ref will give him fuck all now. He should have stayed on his feet. To be honest he probably could have got a shot away anyway if he had stayed on his feet. Diving is shit and it makes the player look a twat and the club gets more grief. I hate diving and have no reason to think differently just because it is one of our own.
I can't agree with you mate.
If the ref had given the penalty for the shirt pull on Crouch, then I think you might have a point but because Crouch did exactly what you're advocating, WE WERE THE ONES WHO GOT PENALISED.
Bony didn't need to go down for their pen but he did and the referee gave it, if Bony had stayed on his feet, then there's every chance he wouldn't have given that one either.
That's an examplebefore the Moses incident that scream at him "GO DOWN VICTOR OR WE'RE GOING TO GET PENALISED".
If the player's could be confident that the referees would do their jobs properly, then they could stay on their feet and still get the penalty they deserve, but the ref's don't (do their jobs properly) so the player's (don't stay on their feet).
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Oct 20, 2014 18:02:24 GMT
They shouldn't dive, end of. What chance do you think of Moses getting his next pen claim or the next 10? If it is debatable the ref will give him fuck all now. He should have stayed on his feet. To be honest he probably could have got a shot away anyway if he had stayed on his feet. Diving is shit and it makes the player look a twat and the club gets more grief. I hate diving and have no reason to think differently just because it is one of our own.
I can't agree with you mate.
If the ref had given the penalty for the shirt pull on Crouch, then I think you might have a point but because Crouch did exactly what you're advocating, WE WERE THE ONES WHO GOT PENALISED.
Bony didn't need to go down for their pen but he did and the referee gave it, if Bony had stayed on his feet, then there's every chance he wouldn't have given that one either.
That's two examples before the Moses incident that scream at him "GO DOWN VICTOR OR WE'RE GOING TO GET PENALISED AGAIN".
If the player's could be confident that the referees would do their jobs properly, then they could stay on their feet and still get the penalty they deserve, but the ref's don't (do their jobs properly) so the player's (don't stay on their feet).
I agree with everything you have just said, I just can't stand diving. I just think it makes us as a club look like twats.
|
|
|
Post by enuntio on Oct 20, 2014 18:03:05 GMT
It looked bad. Players are constantly trying to hoodwink the ref. look how Crouch was fouled in the box by a crafty shirt tug, pulling him off balance. Moses went down far to easily and maybe Shawcross made it all to easy for the ref to give the first penalty, he will learn
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Oct 20, 2014 18:15:31 GMT
I think we all agree that while Moses felt a tug, he certainly went down easy. That said, there is a genuine media attack going on here and I'm someone who tends to think that the media simply highlights what goes on and there's nothing to worry about. MOTD spent more time talking about Moses than the actual game itself. They didn't even talk about the influence of Hughes subs. This morning, the papers are talking about Moses with only Percy defending Shawcross. TalkShite are dedicating an entire show to hammering him. Have they ever done this to Arsenal or Liverpool players who dive ALL THE TIME. I can only assume it is because they're not used to seeing Stoke players dive at all. Even Collymore's show is going to be full of it! When I think how Sterling, Sturridge and Suarez have dived against us in the past, I can't believe the flak Moses is getting. Collymore is going mental right now. Shame. Thought he was better than that.
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Oct 20, 2014 18:28:58 GMT
Can someone tweet that picture to Stan Collymore?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 20, 2014 18:33:40 GMT
I can't agree with you mate.
If the ref had given the penalty for the shirt pull on Crouch, then I think you might have a point but because Crouch did exactly what you're advocating, WE WERE THE ONES WHO GOT PENALISED.
Bony didn't need to go down for their pen but he did and the referee gave it, if Bony had stayed on his feet, then there's every chance he wouldn't have given that one either.
That's two examples before the Moses incident that scream at him "GO DOWN VICTOR OR WE'RE GOING TO GET PENALISED AGAIN".
If the player's could be confident that the referees would do their jobs properly, then they could stay on their feet and still get the penalty they deserve, but the ref's don't (do their jobs properly) so the player's (don't stay on their feet).
I agree with everything you have just said, I just can't stand diving. I just think it makes us as a club look like twats. Yeah I know what you mean mate but I think players feel as though they have to make a meal of it or else they won't get what's due to them. Personally I'd have preferred Crouch to have gone down like a sack of spuds (like Moses) if that was the only way we were going to get what's due to us. I think there is quite a bit of difference between going down to highlight an infringement and going down when there hasn't been ant infringement at all. One isn't cheating and the other is.
|
|
|
Post by TheBra1n on Oct 20, 2014 18:50:57 GMT
it wasnt a dive for me, he felt the contact and decided to go down, could have he stayed on his feet? of course he could have, would the ref have given a penalty for a shirt pull??? of course he wouldnt, we have seen it time and time again that by going to ground it forces the ref to make a decision, he has to make a choice. At the end of the day he had his shirt pulled of that there isnt a single person that can argue he didnt, that is a fact backed up by the pictures, and this by the letter of the laws of the game in a foul, and given its inside the area then its a penalty, the only thing Victor Moses is guilty of is forcing the referee to make a decision, a dive for me is trying to make something that didnt happen seem like it happened, and i especially hate when players throw a leg out looking for contact, that one pisses me off
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Oct 20, 2014 19:19:06 GMT
They shouldn't dive, end of. What chance do you think of Moses getting his next pen claim or the next 10? If it is debatable the ref will give him fuck all now. He should have stayed on his feet. To be honest he probably could have got a shot away anyway if he had stayed on his feet. Diving is shit and it makes the player look a twat and the club gets more grief. I hate diving and have no reason to think differently just because it is one of our own.
I can't agree with you mate.
If the ref had given the penalty for the shirt pull on Crouch, then I think you might have a point but because Crouch did exactly what you're advocating, WE WERE THE ONES WHO GOT PENALISED.
Bony didn't need to go down for their pen but he did and the referee gave it, if Bony had stayed on his feet, then there's every chance he wouldn't have given that one either.
That's an examplebefore the Moses incident that scream at him "GO DOWN VICTOR OR WE'RE GOING TO GET PENALISED".
If the player's could be confident that the referees would do their jobs properly, then they could stay on their feet and still get the penalty they deserve, but the ref's don't (do their jobs properly) so the player's (don't stay on their feet).
Paul I think you are being very harsh suggesting that players have to dive because referee's don't do their jobs properly. I would argue that it would be pretty much impossible for any referee to have spotted the Moses shirt pull without the benefit of a TV replay. You can't blame the referees. In my opinion the rules need changing such that if a player dives i.e. goes down quite deliberately and unnaturally when he doesn't need to, then it is not a foul. If the rule was changed then the Moses incident would have not been a foul and Moses should have been booked and justice would have been seen to have been done. It might require TV replays to help the officials though.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 20, 2014 19:29:34 GMT
I can't agree with you mate.
If the ref had given the penalty for the shirt pull on Crouch, then I think you might have a point but because Crouch did exactly what you're advocating, WE WERE THE ONES WHO GOT PENALISED.
Bony didn't need to go down for their pen but he did and the referee gave it, if Bony had stayed on his feet, then there's every chance he wouldn't have given that one either.
That's an examplebefore the Moses incident that scream at him "GO DOWN VICTOR OR WE'RE GOING TO GET PENALISED".
If the player's could be confident that the referees would do their jobs properly, then they could stay on their feet and still get the penalty they deserve, but the ref's don't (do their jobs properly) so the player's (don't stay on their feet).
Paul I think you are being very harsh suggesting that players have to dive because referee's don't do their jobs properly. I would argue that it would be pretty much impossible for any referee to have spotted the Moses shirt pull without the benefit of a TV replay. You can't blame the referees. In my opinion the rules need changing such that if a player dives i.e. goes down quite deliberately and unnaturally when he doesn't need to, then it is not a foul. If the rule was changed then the Moses incident would have not been a foul and Moses should have been booked and justice would have been seen to have been done. It might require TV replays to help the officials though. So Moses stays on his feet and Crouch stays on his feet and neither gets a penalty but Bony goes down (when he doesn't NEED to) yet he gets the penalty? Doesn't appear fair to me. As I said to Stafford, I think there's a big difference between going down to highlight an infringement and going down when there hasn't been any infringement at all. Only one instance is actually cheating.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Oct 20, 2014 19:34:57 GMT
I can't agree with you mate.
If the ref had given the penalty for the shirt pull on Crouch, then I think you might have a point but because Crouch did exactly what you're advocating, WE WERE THE ONES WHO GOT PENALISED.
Bony didn't need to go down for their pen but he did and the referee gave it, if Bony had stayed on his feet, then there's every chance he wouldn't have given that one either.
That's an examplebefore the Moses incident that scream at him "GO DOWN VICTOR OR WE'RE GOING TO GET PENALISED".
If the player's could be confident that the referees would do their jobs properly, then they could stay on their feet and still get the penalty they deserve, but the ref's don't (do their jobs properly) so the player's (don't stay on their feet).
Paul I think you are being very harsh suggesting that players have to dive because referee's don't do their jobs properly. I would argue that it would be pretty much impossible for any referee to have spotted the Moses shirt pull without the benefit of a TV replay. You can't blame the referees. In my opinion the rules need changing such that if a player dives i.e. goes down quite deliberately and unnaturally when he doesn't need to, then it is not a foul. If the rule was changed then the Moses incident would have not been a foul and Moses should have been booked and justice would have been seen to have been done. It might require TV replays to help the officials though. Justice seen to be done? Two of our players were fouled in the penalty area yesterday and we got one penalty. That's not justice in my book.
|
|
|
Post by pieman72 on Oct 20, 2014 19:42:17 GMT
Moses went down easy yes. Every other striker would do the same. His shirt was pulled the ref gave it. We should have had a penalty for crouch having his shirt pulled but we didn't. Things even themselves out
|
|
|
Post by coates on Oct 20, 2014 19:43:34 GMT
"@chicoflores12: Walters speaks less and learn to play football, you're very wrong."
hilarious
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Oct 20, 2014 19:47:16 GMT
Paul I think you are being very harsh suggesting that players have to dive because referee's don't do their jobs properly. I would argue that it would be pretty much impossible for any referee to have spotted the Moses shirt pull without the benefit of a TV replay. You can't blame the referees. In my opinion the rules need changing such that if a player dives i.e. goes down quite deliberately and unnaturally when he doesn't need to, then it is not a foul. If the rule was changed then the Moses incident would have not been a foul and Moses should have been booked and justice would have been seen to have been done. It might require TV replays to help the officials though. So Moses stays on his feet and Crouch stays on his feet and neither gets a penalty but Bony goes down (when he doesn't NEED to) yet he gets the penalty? Doesn't appear fair to me. As I said to Stafford, I think there's a big difference between going down to highlight an infringement and going down when there hasn't been any infringement at all. Only one instance is actually cheating. No my suggestion would be that because Bony went down quite deliberately and unnaturally i.e. he was cheating, then he would forfeit the right to the penalty. That seems fair to me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2014 19:48:29 GMT
Monday night football
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2014 19:49:50 GMT
Monday night football
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Oct 20, 2014 19:52:19 GMT
So Moses stays on his feet and Crouch stays on his feet and neither gets a penalty but Bony goes down (when he doesn't NEED to) yet he gets the penalty? Doesn't appear fair to me. As I said to Stafford, I think there's a big difference between going down to highlight an infringement and going down when there hasn't been any infringement at all. Only one instance is actually cheating. No my suggestion would be that because Bony went down quite deliberately and unnaturally i.e. he was cheating, then he would forfeit the right to the penalty. That seems fair to me. But then you are relying on referees to reward honesty which they very rarely do. How many penalties have been awarded to players who tried to stay on their feet having been fouled? Mame even got up having been fouled at Man City but wasn't given a penalty! Howard Webb even encouraged players to go down when they felt contact a few years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 20, 2014 19:58:50 GMT
So Moses stays on his feet and Crouch stays on his feet and neither gets a penalty but Bony goes down (when he doesn't NEED to) yet he gets the penalty? Doesn't appear fair to me. As I said to Stafford, I think there's a big difference between going down to highlight an infringement and going down when there hasn't been any infringement at all. Only one instance is actually cheating. No my suggestion would be that because Bony went down quite deliberately and unnaturally i.e. he was cheating, then he would forfeit the right to the penalty. That seems fair to me. Yes but that rule hasn't been introduced. Thinking specifically about yesterday ... If the ref is going to award a penalty to Bony who has gone down unnaturally to highlight an infringement, then surely there's nothing wrong with the referee also awarding Moses a penalty who also went down unnaturally to highlight an infringement? If we're being fair like.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Oct 20, 2014 20:13:03 GMT
Well yes. I am not saying Moses' wasn't. I am just saying that he dived which he did. My 10 year old would have stayed on his feat after that shirt pull.
So you would have no problem then if Crouch had dived to draw the shirt pull to the ref's attention?
We didn't get a penalty the first time precisely because Crouch stayed on his feet, what do you expect Moses to do a little bit later on then when he has his shirt pulled, stay on his feet as well?
Ergo two shirt pulls on two different Stoke players would have resulted in ZERO PENALTIES TO STOKE.
If the referees can't spot the infringements, then it's up to the players to make sure they know about it, isn't it?
No it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Oct 20, 2014 20:18:23 GMT
No my suggestion would be that because Bony went down quite deliberately and unnaturally i.e. he was cheating, then he would forfeit the right to the penalty. That seems fair to me. Yes but that rule hasn't been introduced. Thinking specifically about yesterday ... If the ref is going to award a penalty to Bony who has gone down unnaturally to highlight an infringement, then surely there's nothing wrong with the referee also awarding Moses a penalty who also went down unnaturally to highlight an infringement? If we're being fair like. Agreed, we can't have it both ways can we? Under the current rules both the Bony and Moses shirt pulls were fouls and both were penalties.
|
|
|
Post by fentonstokie1 on Oct 20, 2014 20:27:19 GMT
So you would have no problem then if Crouch had dived to draw the shirt pull to the ref's attention?
We didn't get a penalty the first time precisely because Crouch stayed on his feet, what do you expect Moses to do a little bit later on then when he has his shirt pulled, stay on his feet as well?
Ergo two shirt pulls on two different Stoke players would have resulted in ZERO PENALTIES TO STOKE.
If the referees can't spot the infringements, then it's up to the players to make sure they know about it, isn't it?
They shouldn't dive, end of. What chance do you think of Moses getting his next pen claim or the next 10? If it is debatable the ref will give him fuck all now. He should have stayed on his feet. To be honest he probably could have got a shot away anyway if he had stayed on his feet. Diving is shit and it makes the player look a twat and the club gets more grief. I hate diving and have no reason to think differently just because it is one of our own. I hate diving too but You know what I hate reading your sanctimonious claptrap even more so why don't you just take a dive mate and forget to surface!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2014 20:32:44 GMT
Well yes. I am not saying Moses' wasn't. I am just saying that he dived which he did. My 10 year old would have stayed on his feat after that shirt pull.
So you would have no problem then if Crouch had dived to draw the shirt pull to the ref's attention?
We didn't get a penalty the first time precisely because Crouch stayed on his feet, what do you expect Moses to do a little bit later on then when he has his shirt pulled, stay on his feet as well?
Ergo two shirt pulls on two different Stoke players would have resulted in ZERO PENALTIES TO STOKE.
If the referees can't spot the infringements, then it's up to the players to make sure they know about it, isn't it?
No it isn't. A player should only ever go down if the contact or foul is strong enough to send him to the floor. Once a player chooses to go down he is cheating,end of. I know it goes on throughout football and you can say I'm being naive.and I would get that,but it is the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2014 20:43:52 GMT
All of this shit is happening because of the governing bodies and the medias attempts to make the sport non-contact. Years ago, a penalty would only be awarded if there'd been a very deliberate foul or an obvious attempt to prevent a goal by foul means. This usually involved the attacking player being booted four foot in the air.
Twenty years ago, Moses wouldn't have gone down because a) he'd have been laughed at, and b) his manager would have been furious at him for refusing the opportunity to have a go at goal. Now though, a penalty has become much more a matter of opinion. Any pacey player can go down with minimal or no contact, and the referee has to make a split second decision which even after multiple replays, people still can't agree on.
They're reaping what they've sown, but the change in attitude largely benefits the bigger teams anyway, so all is fine.
|
|