|
Post by terrorofturfmoor on Oct 20, 2014 17:36:33 GMT
How many on this board who say Moses was pulled that hard it caused him to fall like a dying swan.Would of called him a diving cheat if it was against us.Be honest. if it's AGAINST Stoke they're defiantly diving cheating bastards ....... If it's FOR Stoke, they're definite peno's ..... That's how I see it, and I'm being honest!!!
|
|
|
Post by no1972 on Oct 20, 2014 17:37:44 GMT
Let's have lots more bastard threads about this. Not.
I reckon this thread has run long enough now, think I'll start another one on exactly the same topic ...
You are right we should all move on and forget it until next time it happens to us.All the threads on this should now be closed.
|
|
|
Post by ruts66 on Oct 20, 2014 17:39:53 GMT
You won't get total honesty from fans, players or managers - there's too much at stake.
The only way to stamp this out is for an independent body to conduct a post-match video review of all games and take action against the perpetrators, whether it be cheating, violent conduct or whatever.
- 3 game ban for violent incident missed by the ref - 5 game ban for simulation/cheating - doubled for a second offence, and so on...
|
|
|
Post by itsmorethanagame on Oct 20, 2014 17:39:55 GMT
There's no doubt in my mind that it was a dive by Victor and I'd be furious if it was given against us... However, it was clearly a plan from Swansea to ruffle up Shawcross on set pieces and to go down under any contact. Once the ref gave a penalty for that, the precedent had been set and Stoke players would have been daft not to go down under any slight contact in their box. What's good for the goose is fucking good for the gander.
I wouldn't be surprised if Swansea had words with Oliver before the game about Shawcross at corners because there's no doubt he was waiting for it and ready to blow at the first opportunity. As long as he does it in every match he refs then fine. Of course we know he won't though. In fairness he did shit it and bottle it in front of the home crowd hence the awarding of Moses penalty. I doubt he saw anything specifically in Moses going down but didn't dare not give it in case there was contact. He made his own bed with awarding the first one. Yes, there us an argument it was justified but your making life very difficult for yourself as a ref if you are going to give them.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 20, 2014 17:41:25 GMT
I reckon this thread has run long enough now, think I'll start another one on exactly the same topic ...
You are right we should all move on and forget it until next time it happens to us.All the threads on this should now be closed.
I think you might want to try reading my post again.
|
|
|
Post by retired1 on Oct 20, 2014 17:45:53 GMT
Jeez I think victim support services should have an office at the Brit. And we won the fucking match. Good job coz I'd hate to see what we would be like if we had lost.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Oct 20, 2014 17:51:27 GMT
The reason so many people, other than Stoke fans, think this was not a penalty is because the so called tug of the shirt was fleeting and shouldn't have stopped the run of Moses. What are these people advocating then?..........that a players is allowed to pull another player back as long as it only lasts one second. He was impeded by a shirt pull and that is a foul whether it was a little tug lasting a fleeting second or he was hauled to the deck....it doesn't matter and the fact that he took a tumble is irrelevant in this incident IMO.
|
|
|
Post by crownmeking on Oct 20, 2014 17:56:27 GMT
The reason so many people, other than Stoke fans, think this was not a penalty is because the so called tug of the shirt was fleeting and shouldn't have stopped the run of Moses. There is no 'so called' shirt tug, either his shirt was pulled OR it wasn't - If it was, which the picture clearly shows, it was a penalty - This is not rocket science dear.
|
|
|
Post by thehoof on Oct 20, 2014 17:57:06 GMT
Look,it was Swansea who are after Blundeland are the most deluded, up their own arses set of fans the Almighty has unfortunately seen fit to create.If Crouch had caught the ball on the half way line and then ran the remainder of the pitch with the ball stuck up his shirt, before kicking Williams in the nuts and then dumped the ball LA Knicks like in the net, it would have been a perfectly legitimate goal. Garry Monk was a renowned non fouling(is nt every foul some type of cheating) CH was'nt he?
|
|
|
Post by j3st3r on Oct 20, 2014 18:02:33 GMT
We'll have them go against us.. So we should take them when they go for us. Bottom line is it was a win and well needed 3pts.. Dive or no dive
|
|
|
Post by block30row19 on Oct 20, 2014 18:04:38 GMT
Would like to see all these premier league footballers down the London Underground at rush hour. I can just imagine the scene. Old frail people young children all wandering about brushing against each other, but taking no notice and carrying on about there daily business. While on the floor lay big strong burley footballers rolling around like they had been shot. :-)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2014 18:05:36 GMT
I haven't seen anyone on the board who says he was pulled back hard enough to cause him to fall. That isn't the point. His shirt was pulled. That is a foul. If it happens in the penalty area it is a penalty. Simples. I really don't understand why some of our fans just can't seem to get their heads around this!. Everyone can. What I can't get my head around is the double fucking standards that have infested this board since Moses undoubtedly dived to win the penalty yesterday. Pretty much the whole of this board to a man(and the odd woman) have slated all the diving that goes on in this league, but as soon as one of our own do it they defend him to the hilt and basically defend the indefensible. Moses has shown to me in his brief time at Stoke that he likes to go down far to easily for my liking, and ever since yesterday no Stoke fan can get on their high horses about diving ever again.
|
|
|
Post by stokemanusa on Oct 20, 2014 18:08:53 GMT
There can be no honesty in this thread or on the pitch anymore when for years it was the norm to have diving and fanciful prissy players let off the hook for diving in the PL. If anything the media sensation only made it more common place. For years our side was the hard working rugby plodders of the league. We get a bit of flair and "the norm" now we're considered cheats the likes of Arsenal and get fergie time... please. If anything its nice to be hated again for the pace and ability to get into the box and not for bombarding it.
To the rest of the league. Sod off. You all do it and know you do and how often does a player this era repreive to the ref of his play acting? Please. Honesty... hahahahaha.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Oct 20, 2014 18:20:08 GMT
How many on this board who say Moses was pulled that hard it caused him to fall like a dying swan.Would of called him a diving cheat if it was against us.Be honest. You'll get your answer the next time something similar happens against us, because as sure as eggs are eggs it will. Moses went down way too easily and I hate to see that. I hope he doesn't do it again. What I find ludicrous are the sudden and numerous calls for him to face a 3 match ban as if he invented diving. He didn't feign contact or injury unlike the Suarez, rose and sterling of this world and the full back grabbed hold of his shirt. It wasn't enough to send him to ground but the two faced cheek of the likes of shearer and csrragher who have previously said that forwards are entitled to go down if they feel any touch is laughable.
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Oct 20, 2014 18:38:41 GMT
'He stayed on his feet, if he'd gone down he'd have been given the penalty.' Said by many a pundit. Then when Moses collapses like an MFI wardrobe he's a cheat. A problem manufactured and peddled by the media.
|
|
|
Post by robstokie on Oct 20, 2014 19:06:49 GMT
How many on this board who say Moses was pulled that hard it caused him to fall like a dying swan.Would of called him a diving cheat if it was against us.Be honest. To be fair, Im glad we got a soft penalty. 9 times out of 10, we would not have got that, whereas if it was an opponent doing that against us, they would almost certainly win a pen.
|
|
|
Post by heavysoul on Oct 20, 2014 19:08:14 GMT
Balanced out a the other soft penalty.
|
|
|
Post by passtheoatcakes on Oct 20, 2014 19:27:48 GMT
It's all bollocks all players go down too easily. It's irrelevant who they play for once this "there was contact he's entitled to go down " is the norm ever team is as bad you win some you lose a lot more if your stoke I agree but it dose not make it right; but with so many people trying to defend it because its a Stoke player, is a sign deep down that we really know we were a little lucky with the decision. Stop banging on about 'rightness', this is modern football and it will never be whiter than white (was it ever?). Morality doesn't come into it, income and profitability does, welcome to the Premier League.
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Oct 21, 2014 11:13:14 GMT
2 interesting articles www.dailystar.co.uk/columnists/david-woods/380136/Referees-need-to-follow-one-set-of-ruleswww.telegraph.co.uk/sport/9895703/FA-may-consider-retrospective-punishment-for-divers.htmlI support the notion that players who let their club down ( and indeed football) by blatant diving should be punished by their own club and to be fair, both Pulis and Monk seem to have been prepared to do this. The authorities shouldn't have any problem in looking at video evidence that shows a player going down without any contact at all and taking retrospective action They will never be able to reverse a penalty decision or compensate the team who have a player dismissed incorrectly. Fellaini got a retrospective ban - as did Huth - as have many others, but their ban did not give any advantage to the team that they were playing at the time Moses could probably have stayed on his feet on Sunday, other examples where players make every effort to stay on their feet allowing defenders to go unpunished is probably contributing to such a culture. However Rangel does make minimal contact which is against the rules. Similar contact was made on Crouch Just as officials and the media were scrutinising Shawcross on Sunday , they will probably do the same for Moses Swansea players will probably be highlighted too Let's hope that the whole affair leads to every club been given consistent punishments and criticism. Move on
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Oct 21, 2014 11:36:50 GMT
I think even those who claim he was pulled say he went down easily. Our issue is that this has happened so many times before and there's been justification. Sterling was apparently knocked off balance at speed by Wilson.
Yet Moses who is just as quick is a filthy diver.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Oct 21, 2014 12:01:25 GMT
If there is no contact it's a dive, if there is, as there was, it's a foul or in the penalty area a penalty. He had his shirt grasped by a hand, whilst this is a contact sport it is still football not handball. Ryan didn't keep his hands to himself and it was a penalty, the Swansea player didn't keep his hands yo himself and it was a penalty. Whether either contact was sufficient to bring the player down is irrelevant. One solution would be for referees to award penalties in similar circumstances when the player doesn't fall to the ground.
|
|
|
Post by tcdobinghoff on Oct 21, 2014 12:36:10 GMT
The reason so many people, other than Stoke fans, think this was not a penalty is because the so called tug of the shirt was fleeting and shouldn't have stopped the run of Moses. What are these people advocating then?.......... that a players is allowed to pull another player back as long as it only lasts one second. He was impeded by a shirt pull and that is a foul whether it was a little tug lasting a fleeting second or he was hauled to the deck....it doesn't matter and the fact that he took a tumble is irrelevant in this incident IMO. For me this is an important point - some people are arguing that Moses dived as if it was a fact but it isn't - it's a judgement and whenever you get a judgement there will be differences of opinion which is what happens now. This is further complicated by many pundits also accepting that a player "is entitled" to go down if they "feel" a hand on them for example though they don't say this consistently but, in Hartson's case particularly, selectively. A grab of a shirt however is clear - once you start making judgements about how long it lasts or how hard it was or they effect it had you are back in the world of judgements which referees are asked to make all the time. If grabbing a shirt of a player who has gone past you is a foul then that was a fact in this incident and a foul in the area is a penalty. Bony (top player mind) also went down "very easily" in my judgement a couple of other times in the area - was that "cheating" ? Then again does John Hartson think grabbing a shirt and stopping a player from jumping is "cheating" . What about raising your hands to con the referee into thinking you didn't touch the player ? Claiming a goalkick / throw in when you know it isn't ? I not condoning cheating but the issue is not simple and there are clearer examples that could be tackled .
|
|
|
Post by mrlovepants on Oct 21, 2014 12:50:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by slicko on Oct 21, 2014 13:10:08 GMT
The modern game is about small tactical advantages.
1. Oliver set out the template for the game early on with poor decisions.
2. Oliver knew he had to even things up and the baying crowd helped in that respect.
3. If Stoke were going to get anything from that tool, we had to employ similar tactics. Nzonzi tried unsuccessfully and Moses got the penalty.
It's ugly, it's unsportsmanlike, it returns points.
We would have been stupid not to have tried. Additionally, I suspect Sparky told his players that pressure on the referee would change our fortunes.
|
|
|
Post by daibando on Oct 21, 2014 13:17:10 GMT
The problem of cheating is a serious threat to the health of the game, on most of the threads I've read posters are turning the issue into a bit of a farce. Gamesmanship/cheating is widespread and no club/league/country can claim to be whiter than white, to turn this into an anti Stoke issue is nonsense. Nonsense? Really? How do you explain the coverage of this versus the coverage of Lampard's penalty then? Because Monk's comments turned it into a big issue that's why?
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Oct 21, 2014 13:17:58 GMT
The reason so many people, other than Stoke fans, think this was not a penalty is because the so called tug of the shirt was fleeting and shouldn't have stopped the run of Moses. There is no 'so called' shirt tug, either his shirt was pulled OR it wasn't - If it was, which the picture clearly shows, it was a penalty - This is not rocket science dear. Couldn't agree more! If Moses hadn't been fouled he would have cheated to get a penalty. BUT he was fouled! It was the second time a Stoke player had his shirt pulled on the blind side of the officials in the penalty box! Monk should go back to his monastery!
|
|
|
Post by bignickhowes on Oct 21, 2014 13:27:57 GMT
How many on this board who say Moses was pulled that hard it caused him to fall like a dying swan.Would of called him a diving cheat if it was against us.Be honest. if it's AGAINST Stoke they're defiantly diving cheating bastards ....... If it's FOR Stoke, they're definite peno's ..... That's how I see it, and I'm being honest!!! problem is thats how every fan sees it fan there teams
|
|
|
Post by daibando on Oct 21, 2014 13:29:53 GMT
The reason so many people, other than Stoke fans, think this was not a penalty is because the so called tug of the shirt was fleeting and shouldn't have stopped the run of Moses. geoff, stop being so sensible!!......As a neutral (i.e not a Stoke fan) this was my take of it. Bony went down to show that he had been fouled, which he had been - although the refs need a clear consistent policy to deal with shirt tugging in the area as it happens all the time (Martin Skirtel is the worst offender) and mostly goes unpunished. Moses went down even though Rangel's arm barely touching him was not a foul. It was, as you said, fleeting and in no way impeded him or stopped him. To say it's a foul because there was minimal contact is silly as players make contact with each other constantly. What people should ask is if the contact constituted a foul...i.e enough to effect and impede the player. Moses was looking for it as was lampard against Spurs. It only made news because of Monks reaction.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Oct 21, 2014 13:32:46 GMT
The reason so many people, other than Stoke fans, think this was not a penalty is because the so called tug of the shirt was fleeting and shouldn't have stopped the run of Moses. geoff, stop being so sensible!!......As a neutral (i.e not a Stoke fan) this was my take of it. Bony went down to show that he had been fouled, which he had been - although the refs need a clear consistent policy to deal with shirt tugging in the area as it happens all the time (Martin Skirtel is the worst offender) and mostly goes unpunished. Moses went down even though Rangel's arm barely touching him was not a foul. It was, as you said, fleeting and in no way impeded him or stopped him. To say it's a foul because there was minimal contact is silly as players make contact with each other constantly. What people should ask is if the contact constituted a foul...i.e enough to effect and impede the player. Moses was looking for it as was lampard against Spurs. It only made news because of Monks reaction. Rangel pulled Moses' shirt. It was a foul.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Oct 21, 2014 13:42:57 GMT
geoff, stop being so sensible!!......As a neutral (i.e not a Stoke fan) this was my take of it. Bony went down to show that he had been fouled, which he had been - although the refs need a clear consistent policy to deal with shirt tugging in the area as it happens all the time (Martin Skirtel is the worst offender) and mostly goes unpunished. Moses went down even though Rangel's arm barely touching him was not a foul. It was, as you said, fleeting and in no way impeded him or stopped him. To say it's a foul because there was minimal contact is silly as players make contact with each other constantly. What people should ask is if the contact constituted a foul...i.e enough to effect and impede the player. Moses was looking for it as was lampard against Spurs. It only made news because of Monks reaction. Rangel pulled Moses' shirt. It was a foul.
It's never been a foul. Technically, non-technically or Spanish.
|
|