|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2014 5:02:34 GMT
It's hard though for referees to start giving penalties or free kicks for someone putting a hand on his opponents shoulder or shirt when his actions don't impede his opponents movement at all. I haven't seen today's game so cannot judge the actual supposed foul mentioned in this thread,but I saw last week's game and in my opinion the shirt pull on Moses didn't impede him in any way shape or form and the ref only gave the penalty because Moses threw himself to the floor. It's not as black and white in my opinion that refs can just give every single infringement in every game otherwise they would be blowing their whistles every other second. Part of this post is something that I was trying to get across last week but couldn't put into words very well. Football needs to collectively shake away this attitude that any kind of contact automatically equals a foul. For me, for it to be even remotely worth considering as a foul, the player in possession must be impeded unfairly in some significant way. See Modric going down a few years ago and winning a penalty to the sound of absolutely no criticism whatsoever after Whelan (I think) grazed his shin just slightly. It wasn't enough to knock him off balance, or prevent him from bearing down on goal. Therefore, it was no penalty and a yellow card, even though the referee gave the penalty. It leads to this idea of players 'winning' penalties with clever play. You don't 'win' penalties. Your aim is to score goals and penalties are a punishment for instances when you are illegally prevented from doing so. Shirt tugging is maybe a little bit different. If you make a concerted effort to grab someones shirt, then it's hard to not impede them at all. Ideally, Moses wouldn't go down because the referee would spot that and would give a penalty. Today, he was clearly dragged back unfairly, so the referee should have given the penalty. I loathe the fact that he threw himself to the floor last week, but I actually detest the fact that it was a necessary course of action. That's why I proposed that little rule above. Referees have to start giving fouls when a player is clearly unfairly impeded and not wait until they go down. When players do go down without an opponent applying the required force for that to happen, it should be a yellow card and a possible retroactive suspension no matter what. That would actually a bit fairer and hey, may actually cut down on the amount of diving we see. Then we can make a start on bring back proper tackling and so on. I don't think football has an attitude of any contact equals a foul does it? I think it has a very fed up attitude of "a foul is a foul and you shouldn't have to hit the deck to get a decision". It should be quite easy for a good referee to spot it.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Oct 26, 2014 7:48:44 GMT
Easy guide for referees: 1) If a player is fouled in the box, give a penalty. 2) If a player goes down in the box with contact that is not enough for them to go down even if it is a foul, that player gets a yellow card and no penalty. Problem solved all round. Number 2 wouldn't have worked last week though MD. If Moses had been yellow carded with no penalty then, given the photos of him clearly having his shirt pulled, this board would have been in melt down for different reason. Last week proved how difficult it is for refs to get it right when players dive and con the ref. Oliver did get it right IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Matthews dad on Oct 26, 2014 8:58:10 GMT
The media have been against us ever since our promotion.Pulis used it to our advantage.Today was the first time I thought it ever affected us. Pulis is/was the reason why the footballing world still treat us with such disdain. Pulis is the reason anyone at all gives a fuck about us!
|
|
|
Post by BraveSirRobin on Oct 26, 2014 9:17:18 GMT
I gave a fuck before pulis was here and I give a fuck now he's gone.who gives a fuck what anyone else thinks?
|
|
|
Post by harryh157 on Oct 26, 2014 9:21:42 GMT
Pulis is/was the reason why the footballing world still treat us with such disdain. Pulis is the reason anyone at all gives a fuck about us! Absolutely, without him nobody would care about us as we would still be where many think we belong.
|
|
|
Post by BraveSirRobin on Oct 26, 2014 9:26:37 GMT
Why do you care about what others think? It's all pretty negative anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2014 9:39:11 GMT
Pulis is/was the reason why the footballing world still treat us with such disdain. Pulis is the reason anyone at all gives a fuck about us! He's one of many reasons that is true. But he is the sole reason why we still get all the negative press
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Oct 26, 2014 10:44:29 GMT
Part of this post is something that I was trying to get across last week but couldn't put into words very well. Football needs to collectively shake away this attitude that any kind of contact automatically equals a foul. For me, for it to be even remotely worth considering as a foul, the player in possession must be impeded unfairly in some significant way. See Modric going down a few years ago and winning a penalty to the sound of absolutely no criticism whatsoever after Whelan (I think) grazed his shin just slightly. It wasn't enough to knock him off balance, or prevent him from bearing down on goal. Therefore, it was no penalty and a yellow card, even though the referee gave the penalty. It leads to this idea of players 'winning' penalties with clever play. You don't 'win' penalties. Your aim is to score goals and penalties are a punishment for instances when you are illegally prevented from doing so. Shirt tugging is maybe a little bit different. If you make a concerted effort to grab someones shirt, then it's hard to not impede them at all. Ideally, Moses wouldn't go down because the referee would spot that and would give a penalty. Today, he was clearly dragged back unfairly, so the referee should have given the penalty. I loathe the fact that he threw himself to the floor last week, but I actually detest the fact that it was a necessary course of action. That's why I proposed that little rule above. Referees have to start giving fouls when a player is clearly unfairly impeded and not wait until they go down. When players do go down without an opponent applying the required force for that to happen, it should be a yellow card and a possible retroactive suspension no matter what. That would actually a bit fairer and hey, may actually cut down on the amount of diving we see. Then we can make a start on bring back proper tackling and so on. I don't think football has an attitude of any contact equals a foul does it? I think it has a very fed up attitude of "a foul is a foul and you shouldn't have to hit the deck to get a decision". It should be quite easy for a good referee to spot it. 'There's a little touch there so it's a penalty' 'He just about catches the trailing leg, so he has the right to go down there' 'There's a little bit of contact between Whelan's boot and Modric's shinpad, it's a stonewall penalty' Then you can start chucking in things like Ashley Young going ballistic last year because he went shoulder to shoulder with Whelan and was too weak to stand his ground. A Spurs defender had his arm brush against Joe Allen's back the other month and Allen launched himself at the floor. It wasn't enough to impede him or affect him in any way, but because there was contact everyone was quite happy.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2014 14:55:23 GMT
Not seen today's incident, but can't believe some of the dribble that I've read on this board over the last week. If Moses had wanted to stay on his feet last Sunday then he could have done. Yes, there was a slight tug on his shirt, but nothing to justify him going down. Arguably, that has cost him today. I'm sure that if the roles were reversed and someone went down in front of the boothen as Moses did we would be baying for blood. It's not dribble though is it? Moses was entirely right to go down last week when he could have stayed on his feet and entirely wrong to stay on his feet when he should have gone down today. The referee's decisions in both instances clearly demonstrate this. How can you say what you're saying Paul because you are basically advocating cheating. How can a player be doing the right thing when he is choosing when to go down or not? Regardless of what the referee is going to give or not it is cheating,plain and simple. I know we had this conversation last week but you are so wrong with what you're saying it's untrue.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 26, 2014 15:13:51 GMT
It's not dribble though is it? Moses was entirely right to go down last week when he could have stayed on his feet and entirely wrong to stay on his feet when he should have gone down today. The referee's decisions in both instances clearly demonstrate this. How can you say what you're saying Paul because you are basically advocating cheating. How can a player be doing the right thing when he is choosing when to go down or not? Regardless of what the referee is going to give or not it is cheating,plain and simple. I know we had this conversation last week but you are so wrong with what you're saying it's untrue. It was a blatant penalty yesterday but because Moses specifically (and that's the important bit) didn't go down he didn't get given the penalty. If the referee had given the penalty yesterday, even though Moses had stayed on his feet, then it would encourage Moses not to think that he HAS to go down in order to get the decision. There's no chicken and egg situation here - if referees had the balls to award penalties when players stay up, then the players wouldn't need to feel as though they need to highlight the infringement. Unfortunately referees very rarely do, as yesterday clearly demonstrated.
|
|
|
Post by Vermelho20312505 on Oct 26, 2014 15:25:37 GMT
If what happened last week with Moses hadn't happened, Moses would have gone down today. It's not cheating as the word sounds, it's just making the best of your chances. He obviously doesn't want to be labelled as a cheat and that is why he never went down today. You could see that he wanted to though. It's cheating. Sent from my GT-I8190N using proboards
|
|
|
Post by Vermelho20312505 on Oct 26, 2014 15:31:17 GMT
I don't think football has an attitude of any contact equals a foul does it? I think it has a very fed up attitude of "a foul is a foul and you shouldn't have to hit the deck to get a decision". It should be quite easy for a good referee to spot it. 'There's a little touch there so it's a penalty' 'He just about catches the trailing leg, so he has the right to go down there' 'There's a little bit of contact between Whelan's boot and Modric's shinpad, it's a stonewall penalty' Then you can start chucking in things like Ashley Young going ballistic last year because he went shoulder to shoulder with Whelan and was too weak to stand his ground. A Spurs defender had his arm brush against Joe Allen's back the other month and Allen launched himself at the floor. It wasn't enough to impede him or affect him in any way, but because there was contact everyone was quite happy. All quotes from ex pros with a vested interest in not slagging off their mates (and potential employers). They have made cheating acceptable. My other favourite is: "Why would be go down when he could score?" Because cheating is now ingrained in them it's a greater reward to win a pen and get a red or yellow for the opposition AND they take away the chance they'll miss and look like cocks. They're gutless. And when our players do it it angers me even more. Sent from my GT-I8190N using proboards
|
|
|
Post by wrighter on Oct 26, 2014 15:32:17 GMT
Funny how the papers and panelists didnt label Jordan Henderson a " cheat " when he " fell " v Hull @ Anfield yesterday isnt it ?
Maybe cause he plays for the " mighty Liverpool might explain it eh ?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2014 15:56:21 GMT
I don't think football has an attitude of any contact equals a foul does it? I think it has a very fed up attitude of "a foul is a foul and you shouldn't have to hit the deck to get a decision". It should be quite easy for a good referee to spot it. 'There's a little touch there so it's a penalty' 'He just about catches the trailing leg, so he has the right to go down there' 'There's a little bit of contact between Whelan's boot and Modric's shinpad, it's a stonewall penalty' Then you can start chucking in things like Ashley Young going ballistic last year because he went shoulder to shoulder with Whelan and was too weak to stand his ground. A Spurs defender had his arm brush against Joe Allen's back the other month and Allen launched himself at the floor. It wasn't enough to impede him or affect him in any way, but because there was contact everyone was quite happy. That's everything a commentator or media man, or a defensive ex pro would say. A supporter worth his salt wouldn't, which is my point.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Oct 26, 2014 16:01:03 GMT
'There's a little touch there so it's a penalty' 'He just about catches the trailing leg, so he has the right to go down there' 'There's a little bit of contact between Whelan's boot and Modric's shinpad, it's a stonewall penalty' Then you can start chucking in things like Ashley Young going ballistic last year because he went shoulder to shoulder with Whelan and was too weak to stand his ground. A Spurs defender had his arm brush against Joe Allen's back the other month and Allen launched himself at the floor. It wasn't enough to impede him or affect him in any way, but because there was contact everyone was quite happy. That's everything a commentator or media man, or a defensive ex pro would say. A supporter worth his salt wouldn't, which is my point. Does it matter, what proper supporters would say? So long as that's how players, pundits and casuals feel about things, that's what'll happen on the pitch.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Oct 26, 2014 16:23:15 GMT
Just out of curiosity did anyone watch Swansea vs Leicester last night? Did anyone see Fabianski's dive right at the end when the Leicester forward slid in to block his kick?
I think he'll be fined and dropped from the next game after that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2014 17:03:16 GMT
How can you say what you're saying Paul because you are basically advocating cheating. How can a player be doing the right thing when he is choosing when to go down or not? Regardless of what the referee is going to give or not it is cheating,plain and simple. I know we had this conversation last week but you are so wrong with what you're saying it's untrue. It was a blatant penalty yesterday but because Moses specifically (and that's the important bit) didn't go down he didn't get given the penalty. If the referee had given the penalty yesterday, even though Moses had stayed on his feet, then it would encourage Moses not to think that he HAS to go down in order to get the decision. There's no chicken and egg situation here - if referees had the balls to award penalties when players stay up, then the players wouldn't need to feel as though they need to highlight the infringement. Unfortunately referees very rarely do, as yesterday clearly demonstrated. I haven't seen yesterday's incident because I never watched the game so I can't comment on what happened. I agree in as such that referee's are part of the problem and they don't give many fouls unless players go to ground. But I still stand by my opinion that choosing to go to ground regardless of what the ref is doing is cheating. After all two wrongs don't make a right. Refereeing is a hard enough job as it is and it's about time today's players started taking some responsibility for their actions because it's them who are the main culprits in all of this. I think the only way to stamp out all this cheating is retrospective action and lengthy bans for anyone found guilty.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 26, 2014 17:29:02 GMT
It was a blatant penalty yesterday but because Moses specifically (and that's the important bit) didn't go down he didn't get given the penalty. If the referee had given the penalty yesterday, even though Moses had stayed on his feet, then it would encourage Moses not to think that he HAS to go down in order to get the decision. There's no chicken and egg situation here - if referees had the balls to award penalties when players stay up, then the players wouldn't need to feel as though they need to highlight the infringement. Unfortunately referees very rarely do, as yesterday clearly demonstrated. I haven't seen yesterday's incident because I never watched the game so I can't comment on what happened. I agree in as such that referee's are part of the problem and they don't give many fouls unless players go to ground. But I still stand by my opinion that choosing to go to ground regardless of what the ref is doing is cheating. After all two wrongs don't make a right. Refereeing is a hard enough job as it is and it's about time today's players started taking some responsibility for their actions because it's them who are the main culprits in all of this. I think the only way to stamp out all this cheating is retrospective action and lengthy bans for anyone found guilty. The first reaction from the commentator yesterday, was to immediately ask - "Why didn't Moses go down there?" To be answered by the co-commentator saying - "He'd have definitely got the pen if he had. " For me mate, cheating is when you go down when there hasn't been any infringement at all. Going down to highlight an infringement because you have no confidence in the ref to give it if you don't, isn't (cheating).
|
|