|
Post by daibando on Oct 21, 2014 13:50:25 GMT
I'm sorry but that's a ridiculous article. He writes about Chico Flores diving against West Ham but Michael Laudraup was in charge then and not Garry Monk! To say Monk is a hypocrite because he then selected Flores in his first game in charge is really stretching it...it really is. Judge him FROM NOW ON- now that he has said it and not on a game when he wasn't even the manager!!! That's a ludicrous article and scraping the barrel big time. P.s Monk got rid of Flores precisely because he didn't like his attitude.
|
|
|
Post by Kjones9 on Oct 21, 2014 13:55:39 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. Moses went down even though Rangel's arm barely touching him was not a foul.
|
|
|
Post by thepremierbanksy on Oct 21, 2014 13:57:33 GMT
Are a foul and a dive mutually exclusive?
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Oct 21, 2014 14:00:09 GMT
Rangel pulled Moses' shirt. It was a foul.
It's never been a foul. Technically, non-technically or Spanish.
Of course it was a foul. He pulled his shirt. It was not enough for him to go down but it was still a foul. This is part of the reason why so many players do go down - they wouldn't get the decision otherwise. Even that Siggurgson for them when he tried to round Begovic was looking for contact as he slid to the floor early in the first half. It's what plenty of players do...Moses won't be the first and he won't be the last.
|
|
|
Post by coates on Oct 21, 2014 14:01:35 GMT
I'm sorry but that's a ridiculous article. He writes about Chico Flores diving against West Ham but Michael Laudraup was in charge then and not Garry Monk! To say Monk is a hypocrite because he then selected Flores in his first game in charge is really stretching it...it really is. Judge him FROM NOW ON- now that he has said it and not on a game when he wasn't even the manager!!! That's a ludicrous article and scraping the barrel big time. P.s Monk got rid of Flores precisely because he didn't like his attitude. He still choose to play the cheat, total hypocrite.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2014 14:06:48 GMT
I'm sorry but that's a ridiculous article. He writes about Chico Flores diving against West Ham but Michael Laudraup was in charge then and not Garry Monk! To say Monk is a hypocrite because he then selected Flores in his first game in charge is really stretching it...it really is. Judge him FROM NOW ON- now that he has said it and not on a game when he wasn't even the manager!!! That's a ludicrous article and scraping the barrel big time. P.s Monk got rid of Flores precisely because he didn't like his attitude. He still choose to play the cheat, total hypocrite. the only way your post is correct is if you're not using the universally accepted definition of hypocrite Monk said if one of his players dived then he would not play the next week....pretty sure he never said that he would ban him for life from ever playing again for the club
|
|
|
Post by Rose City Potter on Oct 21, 2014 14:14:26 GMT
100% honest. It was a very soft pen. I would not be happy if it was given against us. However it is part of the modern game and you get some for and some against.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Oct 21, 2014 14:15:15 GMT
In my opinion anyone defending the fall of Moses is in effect defending diving.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Oct 21, 2014 14:21:10 GMT
It's never been a foul. Technically, non-technically or Spanish.
Of course it was a foul. He pulled his shirt. It was not enough for him to go down but it was still a foul. This is part of the reason why so many players do go down - they wouldn't get the decision otherwise. Even that Siggurgson for them when he tried to round Begovic was looking for contact as he slid to the floor early in the first half. It's what plenty of players do...Moses won't be the first and he won't be the last. It's never been a foul.
And of course it's what players do, they look to gain an advantage. I'm not complaining, we've been screwed in the past.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Oct 21, 2014 14:21:19 GMT
In my opinion anyone defending the fall of Moses is in effect defending diving. I'll defend diving by players as the current laws of the game and referees encourage it.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Oct 21, 2014 14:22:24 GMT
Of course it was a foul. He pulled his shirt. It was not enough for him to go down but it was still a foul. This is part of the reason why so many players do go down - they wouldn't get the decision otherwise. Even that Siggurgson for them when he tried to round Begovic was looking for contact as he slid to the floor early in the first half. It's what plenty of players do...Moses won't be the first and he won't be the last. It's never been a foul.
And of course it's what players do, they look to gain an advantage. I'm not complaining, we've been screwed in the past.
How come fouls are given for shirt pulling then?
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Oct 21, 2014 14:23:33 GMT
In my opinion anyone defending the fall of Moses is in effect defending diving. I'll defend diving by players as the current laws of the game and referees encourage it.
Correct. The fact that Moses was pole axed in the Newcastle game and got nothing shows what the players sometimes have to do to get decisions. It's called crap refereeing.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Oct 21, 2014 14:25:28 GMT
It's never been a foul.
And of course it's what players do, they look to gain an advantage. I'm not complaining, we've been screwed in the past.
How come fouls are given for shirt pulling then? And yellow cards.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Oct 21, 2014 14:26:26 GMT
It's never been a foul.
And of course it's what players do, they look to gain an advantage. I'm not complaining, we've been screwed in the past.
How come fouls are given for shirt pulling then?
How come some fouls are and some aren't? It's down to the referee and his view and his interpretation of the laws. We got a picture show Rangel grabbing his shirt - how hard is he grabbing it? Enough to pull him down? I don't think so. He went down like a sack of shit - GOOD as it got us back in the game.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2014 14:29:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Roger Everyone on Oct 21, 2014 14:37:58 GMT
The truth is once you touch,pull or push a player in the area you run the risk of giving away a penalty. It happens every week. I think Moses went down easily. But i also think it was a penalty. Just like the shawcross incident they are both pretty much the same thing. Just Ryan did it properly....
|
|
|
Post by hooftastic on Oct 21, 2014 14:44:32 GMT
I'd be fuming if it was against us. I only think it's marginally better than Sterling last season.
Saying that though I agree that we've had enough go against us and stonewall penalties denied that I'll take it.
|
|
|
Post by jbstokie on Oct 21, 2014 14:59:26 GMT
I'm sorry but that's a ridiculous article. He writes about Chico Flores diving against West Ham but Michael Laudraup was in charge then and not Garry Monk! To say Monk is a hypocrite because he then selected Flores in his first game in charge is really stretching it...it really is. Judge him FROM NOW ON- now that he has said it and not on a game when he wasn't even the manager!!! That's a ludicrous article and scraping the barrel big time. P.s Monk got rid of Flores precisely because he didn't like his attitude.So you also think Monk is a lying cunt? "I wasn't really expecting Chico to go," Monk conceded. "I am a little bit disappointed, but I can't grumble with Chico at all. He has been magnificent with me since I took over — he did very well for me.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Oct 21, 2014 15:01:59 GMT
Ah Sterling - the one where he felt a bit of contact and went down like a sack of shit resulting in mass hysteria on here and vitriol aplenty.
|
|
|
Post by thestatusquo on Oct 21, 2014 15:04:49 GMT
It's definitely a foul. It would come under "holding an opponent" as you are preventing the players progress and is punishable by awarding of a direct free kick. Any booking would be put down as unsporting behaviour by the ref.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Oct 21, 2014 15:13:07 GMT
Keeping in mind the title of this thread, the tug on the shirt neither caused him to fall or held him back in my opinion, I'm not sure how the referee could be 100% certain and must have been taken in by the player falling.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Oct 21, 2014 15:24:39 GMT
In my opinion anyone defending the fall of Moses is in effect defending diving. Sorry can't agree with that comment. As I stated in a previous post there are two photos doing the media rounds taken within a second of each other. The first shows Rangel tugging on Moses shirt and then the next stride of Rangels run Moses is falling and Rangel is still pulling firmly on his shirt. You can see this plainly. His fall/dive however you wish to describe it is far far removed from a player diving when no contact has been made. Whichever way you look at the incident Moses was fouled in the area and was awarded a penalty.....justice is done simples. Had he not been impeded and taken a fall/dive then I would completely agree with you but he was fouled.
|
|
|
Post by coates on Oct 21, 2014 15:32:39 GMT
He still choose to play the cheat, total hypocrite. the only way your post is correct is if you're not using the universally accepted definition of hypocrite Monk said if one of his players dived then he would not play the next week....pretty sure he never said that he would ban him for life from ever playing again for the club Can guarantee if a a swansea player dives monk will defend them.
|
|
|
Post by coates on Oct 21, 2014 15:33:34 GMT
Stoke invented shirt wrestling at corners and diving didn't they?? Pisses me off.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Oct 21, 2014 15:34:36 GMT
Most neutrals lawrie think this was not a penalty, and even after seeing replays on the T.V. I can't be sure.
Tell me how the referee could be so sure, and remember he should be certain before awarding a penalty, I think the circumstances got to the Referee and he buckled under pressure.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2014 15:38:11 GMT
the only way your post is correct is if you're not using the universally accepted definition of hypocrite Monk said if one of his players dived then he would not play the next week....pretty sure he never said that he would ban him for life from ever playing again for the club Can guarantee if a a swansea player dives monk will defend them. aaah cool....see what you mean now. you're going to insult him based on what you have decided he'll do at some point in the future. glad we got that cleared up!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2014 15:39:19 GMT
Most neutrals lawrie think this was not a penalty, and even after seeing replays on the T.V. I can't be sure. Tell me how the referee could be so sure, and remember he should be certain before awarding a penalty, I think the circumstances got to the Referee and he buckled under pressure. out of interest geoff, how do you feel about the ref failing to give a foul against Diame specfically because Flamini decided to stay on his feet?
|
|
|
Post by lancer on Oct 21, 2014 15:44:44 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. He was held then released, his forward impetus caused him to lose his balance, he didn't dive.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Oct 21, 2014 15:44:51 GMT
Most neutrals lawrie think this was not a penalty, and even after seeing replays on the T.V. I can't be sure. Tell me how the referee could be so sure, and remember he should be certain before awarding a penalty, I think the circumstances got to the Referee and he buckled under pressure. Geoff the TV coverage does not show the shirt tugging......this was photographed from behind the goal so looking at the TV coverage it looks like very minimal contact and a dive. Taking your second point about the ref not being sure then consider this a minute....Rangel knew he was blind siding the ref when pulling his shirt, which is in a way cheating in itself, so Moses tries to convince the ref its a foul by falling over. Crouch was denied a blatant penalty earlier after a blind side shirt pull that prevented him jumping for the ball so may be this incident swayed Moses into doing what he did to ensure the penalty was awarded. I don't see anything wrong with that and would disagree that I am condoning diving by doing so.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Oct 21, 2014 16:19:20 GMT
If we are in a situation mick where the player who dives will often get a free kick compared to the one who stays on his feet then we have a big problem, that is why I think the referee has to be 100% certain when a player goes to ground that it wasn't a dive. In the case of the Moses incident I don't think he could have been certain and therefore he has unwittingly encouraged players to fall/dive.
|
|