|
|
Post by iglugluk on Oct 21, 2014 16:24:02 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. Seems this ref agrees with you and many more of us news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/2734579.stmArticle from the BBC website no less  ........ |
|
|
|
Post by Kjones9 on Oct 21, 2014 16:25:13 GMT
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!  Is that any different to insulting the poster for posting his thoughts just on the basis of what you think he said before? |
|
|
|
Post by coates on Oct 21, 2014 16:27:42 GMT
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! That was a second point, so Chico flores does his Swan act and monk picks him a few days later. So he likes working with cheats, if he was so against cheating why wasn't he left on the bench or out of the squad. He is as bad as Wenger going over the top to make a point. |
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Oct 21, 2014 16:33:39 GMT
How does a tug on a shirt that impedes a players run send the player forward, wouldn't it tend to bring him into an upright position or even backwards?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Oct 21, 2014 16:36:03 GMT
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. Seems this ref agrees with you and many more of us news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/2734579.stmArticle from the BBC website no less ........ Jeff Winter  |
|
|
|
Post by coates on Oct 21, 2014 16:36:23 GMT
Monk described chico flores as a pantomime villian, the word cheat didn't enter his vocabulary I wonder why.
|
|
|
|
Post by tcdobinghoff on Oct 21, 2014 18:05:48 GMT
How does a tug on a shirt that impedes a players run send the player forward, wouldn't it tend to bring him into an upright position or even backwards? It looked like a bit of a straight arm push to put him off balance. There was an intention to foul - why else would he grab his shirt ? Rangel immediately raised his arms to attempt to deceive the referee into believing he hadn't touched him - is that cheating ? I can recall pundits expressing the opinion that if a player in the box felt a hand on him he was "entitled" to go down. This does not mean he can only legitimately go down if he has no choice. This is an accepted attitude within the game, whether we like it or not. Moses would have certainly been aware he had at very least been grabbed and maybe thrown off-stride enough to spoil his run. The opinion I have recalled just was possibly given on a penalty awarded against Stoke though I can't be certain of that. Grabbing hold of a shirt cannot be lawful, it has to be a foul and in the area therefore a penalty. |
|
|
|
Post by Scrotnig on Oct 21, 2014 18:30:36 GMT
Over a season it probably balances out. We are one of the better teams for NOT diving, I have to say. he probably did exaggerate it a bit, people need to get over it, like we have to pretty much week in, week out.
It shouldn't happen, but it does. Let's move on. We got the luck of the roll this week.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2014 18:31:31 GMT
I don't care we won.
|
|
|
|
Post by coopstadium on Oct 21, 2014 20:06:00 GMT
I genuinely don't think he dived at all. When you're running at full pelt and your shirt is tugged your natural instinct is to lean forwards more to try and resist the shirt tug. Once the shirt is released you're still trying to pull against the shirt tug which isn't there any more so to speak. Hence why he goes down once his shirt is released. If his shirt was never held he'd have carried on running not off balance, but it was and so the ref was correct to say foul and penalty.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2014 8:41:20 GMT
Crouch has his shirt pulled off his back. Stays on his feet. No penalty.  Bony gets in a bear hug with Ryan. Falls over. Penalty.  Moses has his shirt grabbed by a Swansea player. What happens next?  |
|
|
|
Post by thehoof on Oct 22, 2014 19:16:39 GMT
Geoff,
Do you think that Taylor was cheating when he grabbed Crouch's shirt, or do you think it was acceptable?
What did you think when Moses was flattened by Newcastle? Was it cheating by the Newcastle defender perhaps?
You often purport to be the voice of reaso, but while you are invariably quick to point out Stoke's misdemeanors, you very rarely, if at all, comment when Stoke are on the receiving end of decisions.
I often wonder why this is?
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffsalmons on Oct 22, 2014 19:29:01 GMT
Two things from my view
First Bony pushes Ryan in the chest to create space before ryan grabs him so should have been our foul
Second i remember SJW staying on his feet away at Fulham when he got fouled outside of the box, when he was then subsequently fouled in the box the ref pulled the game back to the original foul- go figure- therefore what's the benefit of staying up?
Thirdly ( I can't count)- if a defender grabs a wingers shirt when he runs past him whatever the winger does he runs the risk of giving away a foul- not rocket science
|
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Oct 22, 2014 19:45:32 GMT
Your point hoof is perfectly valid and correct.
It's true that Stoke have been involved in a number of incidents that I haven't commented on.
Firstly I would like Stoke players to never dive and attempt to con the referee.
Secondly I would like our players not to question decisions of a referee ( other than the Captain ).
I think there would be massive benefits to our club in the long run if we were seen as a side who practised the above, in fact Brian Clough managed the Nottingham Forest side in such a way and it certainly did them no harm.
Finally I hate the victim tag that some posters want to obsess about, in the sense that because we are Stoke all sorts of unfair things are done against us.
I would like to see us humble in victory and gracious in defeat and to win fairly, and be a club that does not practise gamesmanship of any sort.
I don't believe these views are old fashioned, it just need guts to put them into practise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kjones9 on Oct 22, 2014 20:37:17 GMT
Your point hoof is perfectly valid and correct. It's true that Stoke have been involved in a number of incidents that I haven't commented on. Firstly I would like Stoke players to never dive and attempt to con the referee. Secondly I would like ocur players not to question decisions of a referee ( other than the Captain ). I think there would be massive benefits to our club in the long run if we were seen as a side who practised the above, in fact Brian Clough managed the Nottingham Forest side in such a way and it certainly did them no harm. Finally I hate the victim tag that some posters want to obsess about, in the sense that because we are Stoke all sorts of unfair things are done against us. I would like to see us humble in victory and gracious in defeat and to win fairly, and be a club that does not practise gamesmanship of any sort. I don't believe these views are old fashioned, it just need guts to put them into practise. We again geoff? Are you saying you're a Stoke fan after all? Come on spit it out. |
|
|
|
Post by thehoof on Oct 22, 2014 21:06:12 GMT
Geoff,
There are many of your sentiments with which I am in total agreement - unfortunately there are no longer any managers who have the standing of Brian Clough and Garry Monk has done absolutely nothing in the game to command any respect
I think that if you look at the reality of the situation ( and I do not refer here to refereeing decisions, which in the long run do seem to balance themselves out), but in the way the media present issues, then Stoke do have a very real grievance.
Just take Sunday's game as an example and I will give you three examples:
A flagship sports programme has as a supposedly knowledgeable ( and that includes a requirement to be impartial) pundit given the best part of 90 seconds to vent his spleen with no right of reply.
The day before we see a game featuring 4 penalties, one featuring Frank Lampard and a supposedly "top class ex referee" believes that it was clever play by Lampard to get a penalty, but thinks that Moses should be banned, yet makes no comment about Soldado's fall for a penalty in the same game as Lampard, other than to say it wasn't a penalty and should not have been given. If it wasn't penalty does this not imply that Soldado dived, yet Mr Poll is not calling for him to be banned?
Finally the Shawcross penalty - yes it was, but have you seen Skirtl highlighted for holding before a Liverpool game, have you seen any mention of Lescott's impeding of Man Utd players during the MNF show and is John Terry or Vincent Kompany ever signalled out for their frequent manhandling of the opposition during dead ball situations?
You obviously watchmany games, and I do not think that you would bury your head in the sand and dispute that anything that I have highlighted above is not factually correct- so I think it is perfectly fair to say that the media is usually unfair, and in the worst cases positively discriminatory in the way it portrays Stoke City.
If I was to write something libellous about you, you would be perfectly within your rights to take me to court - when we talk about dignity and "proper behaviour" then I for one would applaud SCFC if they pressed for Mr Monk and his "cheat" statement to be prosecuted to the fullest extent permissible. You might then see so called professionals engaging the brains that they possess, before trying to label other professionals in the manner in which he did.
Then some respect may start to come back into the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Oct 22, 2014 21:29:02 GMT
It's a fact hoof that we don't have the free press we think we have and in many cases journalists/reporters/TV people are guided by their bosses on what they can say, I'm thinking especially on things like politics/wars and the economy.
I have to say though the idea that people in high places in the BBC/ Tabloid Newspapers/ The F.A./ Referees Body, etc are organising some form of agenda against Stoke City is ludicrous.
Every football fan thinks his own team is discriminated against, that's one of the burdens of being a die hard supporter.
Stoke may have had some bad luck on the field with decisions, but that's all it is.
Regarding comments made by Hartson and Monk, in my view there is a massive overreaction, which I am afraid is typical of todays society.
|
|
|
|
Post by swampySCFC on Oct 22, 2014 22:06:24 GMT
You don't see many penalties these days where it a clear bundling over. Refs don't seem to like the clear cut ones like the Moses one against Newcastle
|
|
|
|
Post by adi on Oct 22, 2014 22:44:57 GMT
Your point hoof is perfectly valid and correct. It's true that Stoke have been involved in a number of incidents that I haven't commented on. Firstly I would like Stoke players to never dive and attempt to con the referee. Secondly I would like our players not to question decisions of a referee ( other than the Captain ). I think there would be massive benefits to our club in the long run if we were seen as a side who practised the above, in fact Brian Clough managed the Nottingham Forest side in such a way and it certainly did them no harm. Finally I hate the victim tag that some posters want to obsess about, in the sense that because we are Stoke all sorts of unfair things are done against us. I would like to see us humble in victory and gracious in defeat and to win fairly, and be a club that does not practise gamesmanship of any sort. I don't believe these views are old fashioned, it just need guts to put them into practise. Hasn't been beneficial in the past 6 years though our honesty. Ever heard the phrase: can't beat em' join em?! Fuck it why bother? It's the footballing equivalent of parking in a disabled bay when you're not disabled. Everyone does it, so why shouldn't you until they create a rule which prevents everyone from doing it? The innocent to continue to be punished otherwise. |
|
........
