|
|
Post by thestokieboy72 on Oct 23, 2014 12:25:02 GMT
It wasn't just the ref though was it? I'm pretty sure the linesman flagged for a foul as well.
I sit in the South Stand and my first reaction was penalty,as did everyone else. Nobody considered it a dive,because from where we were it was a straight forward pen.
The subsequent photos and different angles of the incident all show that he was fouled in the area.
Rules are rules,if you commit a foul in the area its a penalty,so why the big debate?
Some you win,some you lose. I am pretty certain that this kind of decision will go against us at some point,then it will go for us/
|
|
|
|
Post by Onneravineet on Oct 23, 2014 12:25:22 GMT
Have said for years and years that diving should be handled in the way that Pulis suggests and hopefully it had some legs but in all honesty the media hype will disipate and nothing will be done.
During the Pulis era and since I would consider that there have been limited dives by Stoke players.
Fuller now and again, on the rare occasion he could be arsed went down easy but I would say maybe two or three times, granted I didn't see all away games. Mostly Fuller would stay up when he had more than fair cause to go down. I would even say that there were FAR more fouls given against Ric when the defender had bounced off him!!!!
Liam would dive occasionally but rarely.
Walters is a master of going down when waiting for a ball when preasured from behind.
Matty dived a few times I would say.
The matter is that we have a player in Moses who may have been cultured at Liverpool and Chelsea to win a pen in the way he did on Sunday. We all said at the time where we sit that it was never a pen but took it.
On count, we are more than way way behind on those pens that have been given against us. Fuck the media and fuck Monk the hypocritical twat. Pulis though is spot on.
|
|
|
|
Post by eddyclamp on Oct 23, 2014 12:28:22 GMT
Picture seems to say it all. Undeniable that by the letter of the law (as detestable as that phrase is), it's a pen  Can`t argue with that , hope Coates sends that to MOTD and the FA. It was only the same as what Shawcross was doing.I owe Moses an apology even if he could have stayed up. |
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Oct 23, 2014 12:29:17 GMT
Pulis timing with his comments implies a tacit support for Monks and Swansea, I would say. I think he would be best off keeping quiet given his apparent love for Peter Coates and the fact that he isn't currently a Prem manager.
..oh and the penalty may have been soft but how many times have we heard that if a player feels himself being held in the box he's entitled to go down. Seems to be one rule at one time and another sometimes else. We got the penalty fair and square....... by that definition of a foul anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Oct 23, 2014 12:32:29 GMT
I will probably live to regret this, but I'm not aware I used the words " I'm not a Stoke fan", I certainly said I'm not a die hard fan, but look I don't ask you wingy whether you attend games or not, so best get back to real football issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 23, 2014 12:40:21 GMT
When Pulis spoke out about diving when at Stoke, he stopped short of the kind of tirade that Monk did but he did advocate three match bans for it. Sure enough two games later as young dumb and full of cum 2 r's Garry will no doubt find out the question was put to him about one of his own players and he was less strident. You will not rid the game of diving sadly, there is way too much at stake and its way to hard to judge what is and what isn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 23, 2014 12:44:33 GMT
Geoff, I don't give a toss whether you are a fan or not. I'm still waiting for your answer to the question as to when tugging on a player's shirt as he runs past you at speed, became "legal" - i.e. not a foul or a penalty? Because I'm damned sure that some referees, fans, managers and players haven't been told about the new rule. You could do us all a favour by explaining it to us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 12:46:34 GMT
It's unbelievable that some of our fans, still are not accepting that fact.
I think it's unbelievable that Stoke fans cannot accept is was a soft penalty and the opposition would be seriously annoyed.
That has got nothing to do with it, pull a shirt in the box and the law states it is a foul. |
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Oct 23, 2014 12:47:16 GMT
I think that the Football Authorities, referees, players/managers/supporters are all partly to blame on the diving issue.
Perhaps we would see a dramatic improvement if supporters turned on their own club's players for diving and let them know it is unacceptable, but of course each club and their fans think its always the opponents.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 23, 2014 12:48:55 GMT
When Pulis spoke out about diving when at Stoke, he stopped short of the kind of tirade that Monk did but he did advocate three match bans for it. Sure enough two games later as young dumb and full of cum 2 r's Garry will no doubt find out the question was put to him about one of his own players and he was less strident. You will not rid the game of diving sadly, there is way too much at stake and its way to hard to judge what is and what isn't. Pulis actually makes a reasonable point - a review panel on dives is probably the best way forward. I'd have no problem in retrospectively banning a player who dives when he hasn't been fouled. Thankfully this would not apply to the Moses incident - he was clearly fouled and clearly was correctly awarded a penalty. |
|
|
|
Post by Titan Uranus on Oct 23, 2014 12:51:20 GMT
Two clear facts come from this thread ...
1. geoff321 is an idiot, a wind-up merchant, a toss-pot and doesn't support Stoke City FC.
and
2. Tony Pulis is in agreement and supporting Monk. Therefore calling our player a cheat.
|
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Oct 23, 2014 12:51:58 GMT
I will probably live to regret this, but I'm not aware I used the words " I'm not a Stoke fan", I certainly said I'm not a die hard fan, but look I don't ask you wingy whether you attend games or not, so best get back to real football issues. You said you were a fan of Potteries football. You were quite evasive with any direct questions. (I really think it A & B actually.) |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 23, 2014 12:54:50 GMT
When Pulis spoke out about diving when at Stoke, he stopped short of the kind of tirade that Monk did but he did advocate three match bans for it. Sure enough two games later as young dumb and full of cum 2 r's Garry will no doubt find out the question was put to him about one of his own players and he was less strident. You will not rid the game of diving sadly, there is way too much at stake and its way to hard to judge what is and what isn't. Pulis actually makes a reasonable point - a review panel on dives is probably the best way forward. I'd have no problem in retrospectively banning a player who dives when he hasn't been fouled. Thankfully this would not apply to the Moses incident - he was clearly fouled and clearly was correctly awarded a penalty. Would you trust the panel to come to that conclusion bearing in mind the media coverage of the incident forny? I don't. Remember what a panel concluded about Charlie's intentions against Arsenal last season. Presumably Derren Brown sat on it. It's just too hard to judge in the vast majority of incidents. Also would Stoke have a case for sending a montage of Bony's activities during the match to be judged? |
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Oct 23, 2014 12:56:38 GMT
I can only answer Lakeland by saying that if in all areas of life you are going to stick 100% to the letter of the law, then most of us would be in gaol and the majority of football matches would have stoppages for fouls every few minutes, in fact in terms of matches we are not far off that now.
The replay shows the run of Moses was not affected by the TOUCH of the Swansea player, no way did the TOUCH send him down, no way did the TOUCH prevent a goal scoring opportunity and the referee should have used common sense, rather than feeling intimidated to level things up.
The real issue though is about diving and you are encouraging it by your comments.
|
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Oct 23, 2014 13:02:19 GMT
He wasn't fouled Dave and remember the referee didn't have picture to look at, he's evened it up and we all know it. Geoff haven't you seen the photos of Rangel grabbing Moses shirt? If you have, unless the laws of football have changed recently then shirt pulling is foul play. I know the ref couldn't see the shirt pull, but that's not the point is it. It was a foul and the ref called it and rightly awarded a peno. |
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Oct 23, 2014 13:04:22 GMT
So we want refs to be consistent, but we want them to use their judgement rather than apply the laws of the game as they are written.
Good luck with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 23, 2014 13:04:32 GMT
Pulis actually makes a reasonable point - a review panel on dives is probably the best way forward. I'd have no problem in retrospectively banning a player who dives when he hasn't been fouled. Thankfully this would not apply to the Moses incident - he was clearly fouled and clearly was correctly awarded a penalty. Would you trust the panel to come to that conclusion bearing in mind the media coverage of the incident forny? I don't. Remember what the panel concluded about Charlie's intentions against Arsenal last season. I'm sure they'll get it wrong sometimes. But I'd trust a video review panel AFTER THE EVENT to have a better chance of getting it right than refrees who only see it in real time and at speed. Many a time I've seen an incident in a game and only really understood what actually happened when I've watched a replay a few times. |
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Oct 23, 2014 13:06:03 GMT
Watch the video replay lawrie, there's no way that should have been a penalty.
I don't expect people will agree with me on here but I bet the vast majority of neutral fans would.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Oct 23, 2014 13:08:30 GMT
rob,
99% of refs would not have given either penalty, so that would be consistency.
|
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Oct 23, 2014 13:11:54 GMT
He wasn't fouled Dave and remember the referee didn't have picture to look at, he's evened it up and we all know it. Ok as you're having a bit of difficulty with this one let's break it down into easier parts. Answer these - Did Rangel pull Moses' shirt? - Is shirt pulling an infringement of the laws of the game? - Do infringements of the laws of the game result in freekicks being awarded by the referee? - If those infringements occur in the penalty area is a penalty kick awarded? - Therefore regardless of whether Moses went down far too softly do you now agree it was a penalty? Is that better? |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 23, 2014 13:12:32 GMT
Would you trust the panel to come to that conclusion bearing in mind the media coverage of the incident forny? I don't. Remember what the panel concluded about Charlie's intentions against Arsenal last season. I'm sure they'll get it wrong sometimes. But I'd trust a video review panel AFTER THE EVENT to have a better chance of getting it right than refrees who only see it in real time and at speed. Many a time I've seen an incident in a game and only really understood what actually happened when I've watched a replay a few times. How would things be referred though? Only if a penalty is awarded? Or is it a two way panel where someone yellow carded for an alleged dive could be exonerated if deemed not guilty? Could Bony be referred to the panel for his continual attempts to con the ref on Sunday. It would seem to me to be a very laudable and completely unworkable system. |
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Oct 23, 2014 13:14:25 GMT
I don't think either were penalties Gravy and the real issue is that you are encouraging diving.
|
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Oct 23, 2014 13:15:11 GMT
Watch the video replay lawrie, there's no way that should have been a penalty. I don't expect people will agree with me on here but I bet the vast majority of neutral fans would. Shirt grabbing is a foul. It's not subjective like pretty much every other decision in football. If you grab hold of the shirt it's a foul. End of. Moses had his shirt pulled. It a pen. No discussion. Most other fans haven't got the same view of the incident because the media curiously hasn't highlighted the short pull, only the dive. I just can't see how any sane, rational person, when presented the evidence can even suggest it's not a pen. |
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Oct 23, 2014 13:16:03 GMT
He wasn't fouled Dave and remember the referee didn't have picture to look at, he's evened it up and we all know it. Ok as you're having a bit of difficulty with this one let's break it down into easier parts. Answer these - Did Rangel pull Moses' shirt? - Is shirt pulling an infringement of the laws of the game? - Do infringements of the laws of the game result in freekicks being awarded by the referee? - If those infringements occur in the penalty area is a penalty kick awarded? - Therefore regardless of whether Moses went down far too softly do you now agree it was a penalty? Is that better? You'll need to go slower mate. Much slower. |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 23, 2014 13:17:31 GMT
I'm sure they'll get it wrong sometimes. But I'd trust a video review panel AFTER THE EVENT to have a better chance of getting it right than refrees who only see it in real time and at speed. Many a time I've seen an incident in a game and only really understood what actually happened when I've watched a replay a few times. How would things be referred though? Only if a penalty is awarded? Or is it a two way panel where someone yellow carded for an alleged dive could be exonerated if deemed not guilty? Could Bony be referred to the panel for his continual attempts to con the ref on Sunday. It would seem to me to be a very laudable and completely unworkable system. I'd imagine that both managers and the referee and or the 4th official could refer incidents to the panel. Maybe each manager could refer three incidents. If the review system did its job, I'd imagine that full blown dives where there had been no foul would die out very quickly - probably within weeks. Even the daftest footballer (or his manager) isn't going to be too ready to dive if a 3 match ban was the likely outcome. |
|
|
|
Post by Bowyer83 on Oct 23, 2014 13:18:54 GMT
The moses incident is just getting ridiculous, for me the ref made the decision hes should be left accountable.
Was it a penalty? YES! (He held on to his shirt in the box)
Did Moses go down easily? YES! (In modern day footbal who doesnt)
Are the media making a big deal? YES!
|
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Oct 23, 2014 13:22:04 GMT
I don't think either were penalties Gravy and the real issue is that you are encouraging diving. Righty ho! You've hooked me. Point me to where I have in any way encouraged or advocated diving. I am absolutely totally against simulation in football. |
|
|
|
Post by prem4stoke on Oct 23, 2014 13:22:17 GMT
Which is the worst cheat the one pulling the shirt or the one diving? Both are fouls and clearly if Moses didn't dive he would have got away with pulling the shirt, IMO that is why he dived. Why is it in this instance the diving is being talked about when there actually was a foul beforehand. These are the dives that need eradicating  |
|
|
|
Post by skip on Oct 23, 2014 13:22:16 GMT
Pulis was the master of gamesmanship, pushing the rules of the game to within an inch of breaking point. If Moses did that and went down after a whiff of a tug of his shirt, for Pulis to comment on this - no doubt egged on by a journalist after a cheap filler story - then more the fool him. Given it's his former club I thought he'd demonstrate a little more class and not pass comment.
|
|
|
|
Post by skip on Oct 23, 2014 13:24:46 GMT
I can only answer Lakeland by saying that if in all areas of life you are going to stick 100% to the letter of the law, then most of us would be in gaol [...] Speak for yourself, I wouldn't. So do you know Tony Pulis personally then Geoff? You never did answer me. |
|
