|
Post by chiefdelilah on Feb 28, 2015 23:55:17 GMT
The thing with 'entitled to go down' is people cry about it but why should the defender be allowed to get away with a foul? He's cheating, isn't he? Should that not be penalised?
|
|
|
Motd
Feb 28, 2015 23:58:17 GMT
Post by 2004 on Feb 28, 2015 23:58:17 GMT
Haven't seen the game but even I can tell that was shit editing from MOTD.
|
|
|
Motd
Mar 1, 2015 0:02:48 GMT
Post by thisfootballclub on Mar 1, 2015 0:02:48 GMT
The thing with 'entitled to go down' is people cry about it but why should the defender be allowed to get away with a foul? He's cheating, isn't he? Should that not be penalised? Of course it should, but the attacker should not be punished by trying to stay on his feet and score an open play goal, there needs to be more than one pair of officials eyes in and around the box these days as many players are looking to con the referee whenever opportunity arises.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Mar 1, 2015 0:08:44 GMT
The thing with 'entitled to go down' is people cry about it but why should the defender be allowed to get away with a foul? He's cheating, isn't he? Should that not be penalised? Of course it should, but the attacker should not be punished by trying to stay on his feet and score an open play goal, there needs to be more than one pair of officials eyes in and around the box these days as many players are looking to con the referee whenever opportunity arises. He isn't conning the referee if he is being fouled though, and until refs grow the bollocks to start giving penalties for these offences when players do stay on their feet then it's hard to blame players who are actually being fouled for going down. Why should the defender be allowed to cheat with impunity?
|
|
|
Motd
Mar 1, 2015 0:17:10 GMT
Post by thisfootballclub on Mar 1, 2015 0:17:10 GMT
Of course it should, but the attacker should not be punished by trying to stay on his feet and score an open play goal, there needs to be more than one pair of officials eyes in and around the box these days as many players are looking to con the referee whenever opportunity arises. He isn't conning the referee if he is being fouled though, and until refs grow the bollocks to start giving penalties for these offences when players do stay on their feet then it's hard to blame players who are actually being fouled for going down. Why should the defender be allowed to cheat with impunity? I agree, this is what needs addressing most of all in the modern game. I fear it won't be though as the referee discretion approach we currently have means refereeing individuals with weaker willpower will crumble under the pressure of the glamour club. I don't want the game to be refereed by robots but when your up against several players from each side looking to manipulate the officials at every opportunity what choice do you have?
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Mar 1, 2015 5:33:44 GMT
The thing with 'entitled to go down' is people cry about it but why should the defender be allowed to get away with a foul? He's cheating, isn't he? Should that not be penalised? Because it's not the players decision to make, it's the referee's. People moan about the quality of refs but it's made infinitely harder when these diving cunts keep fancying a lie down every 2 minutes and pundits somehow justify it. Most of them have also added rolling around to make it even worse, perhaps they're just uncomfortable and we could throw them a pillow or two. It's the scurge of the game and needs sorting.
|
|
|
Motd
Mar 1, 2015 7:22:27 GMT
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 1, 2015 7:22:27 GMT
If a player is fouled in the area and knows he has been fouled, I don't really have a problem with him going to ground. If he goes to ground and he hasn't been fouled then that should be a red card offence. With the dodgy referees we seem to have at the moment then it seems to me that the only way to eradicate the dive (i.e. going to ground where there has not been a foul) is for a video panel to meet the day after the game and hand out 3 match bans to dives where there was no foul (6 matches if the dive resulted in a player being sent off) - AND strike off any penalty which had been awarded in error and if this means reversing the result of the match - so be it!
There would be chaos for a few weeks but very soon diving would become quite rare if not eliminated completely - players (and their managers) would soon realise that there was no advantage (and plenty of disadvantages) in diving to get penalties.
|
|
|
Motd
Mar 1, 2015 7:27:06 GMT
via mobile
Post by bathstoke on Mar 1, 2015 7:27:06 GMT
Gay Welsh cunt. Oh don't start that again!!...I give up Happy St David's Day
|
|
|
Post by broadwayroundabout on Mar 1, 2015 7:35:21 GMT
If a player is fouled in the area and knows he has been fouled, I don't really have a problem with him going to ground. If he goes to ground and he hasn't been fouled then that should be a red card offence. With the dodgy referees we seem to have at the moment then it seems to me that the only way to eradicate the dive (i.e. going to ground where there has not been a foul) is for a video panel to meet the day after the game and hand out 3 match bans to dives where there was no foul (6 matches if the dive resulted in a player being sent off) - AND strike off any penalty which had been awarded in error and if this means reversing the result of the match - so be it! There would be chaos for a few weeks but very soon diving would become quite rare if not eliminated completely - players (and their managers) would soon realise that there was no advantage (and plenty of disadvantages) in diving to get penalties. Sort of Agree with the idea but not a chance, betting scams and total confusion with league positions etc etc, Sky wouldn't allow it for starters with them being the new owners of the premier leugue !
|
|
|
Motd
Mar 1, 2015 7:39:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by mrred on Mar 1, 2015 7:39:32 GMT
I was beginning to think that they'd skip over the tackle but they got there in the end. Honestly thought Ireland tackle was a non incident.
|
|
|
Motd
Mar 1, 2015 7:42:03 GMT
Post by lawrieleslie on Mar 1, 2015 7:42:03 GMT
The thing with 'entitled to go downi' is people cry about it but why should the defender be allowed to get away with a foul? He's cheating, isn't he? Should that not be penalised? This was my arguement when Moses appeared to take a dive to win the penalty vs Swanlake. The defender was actually pulling Moses back by his shirt but it was done in a way the ref couldn't see the pulling back. So Moses took a tumble to help the ref make the correct decision and that, IMO, is when a player is "entitled to go down". I agree with you here that it's the defender who is cheating as well as if not more than the player who dives.
|
|
|
Motd
Mar 1, 2015 8:18:17 GMT
via mobile
Post by ladyinred on Mar 1, 2015 8:18:17 GMT
How does the attacker going to ground, help the ref to see the offence? An offence will occur before the player goes to ground. Is the point that by going to ground the ref will have to make a decision? A decision based on guesswork/ quality of dive because he didn't see the offence?
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Mar 1, 2015 8:57:43 GMT
The thing with 'entitled to go down' is people cry about it but why should the defender be allowed to get away with a foul? He's cheating, isn't he? Should that not be penalised? Because it's not the players decision to make, it's the referee's. People moan about the quality of refs but it's made infinitely harder when these diving cunts keep fancying a lie down every 2 minutes and pundits somehow justify it. Most of them have also added rolling around to make it even worse, perhaps they're just uncomfortable and we could throw them a pillow or two. It's the scurge of the game and needs sorting. I remember you saying this last time and what it basically boils down to is it being ok for defenders to cheat but not strikers.
|
|
|
Motd
Mar 1, 2015 9:05:31 GMT
via mobile
Post by stokiejoe on Mar 1, 2015 9:05:31 GMT
Players should stay on their feet if they can. The referees shoud give decisions based on whether a player is fouled not on whether he goes down or not.A deliberate foul is cheating but so is falling over when you don't need to. We need better refereeing and to do that they need the help of video. It is bound to disrupt the game but that is the price to be paid for getting the correct decision.
|
|
|
Motd
Mar 1, 2015 9:12:30 GMT
Post by jeycov on Mar 1, 2015 9:12:30 GMT
The thing with 'entitled to go down' is people cry about it but why should the defender be allowed to get away with a foul? He's cheating, isn't he? Should that not be penalised? Because it's not the players decision to make, it's the referee's. People moan about the quality of refs but it's made infinitely harder when these diving cunts keep fancying a lie down every 2 minutes and pundits somehow justify it. Most of them have also added rolling around to make it even worse, perhaps they're just uncomfortable and we could throw them a pillow or two. It's the scurge of the game and needs sorting. Spot on - officials do have a very difficult task and the main plea is for consistent officiating. Maybe the opportunity to review and retrospectively punish offenders (both attacking and defending) would be worth considering
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2015 9:13:20 GMT
Has our ex manager come out and commented on diving yet? I remember him racing to the media when the Moses thing kicked off.
?
|
|
|
Motd
Mar 1, 2015 9:21:59 GMT
Post by OldStokie on Mar 1, 2015 9:21:59 GMT
Ireland was lucky to be on the pitch to have his leg gashed. That double-footed stamp on their player was an ankle breaker. Naughty boy!
OS.
|
|
|
Post by chayzenbacon on Mar 1, 2015 11:40:24 GMT
Whatever anyone thinks of Ireland's own indiscretion, it does not excuse Figueroa's foul on him or the officials' failure to send him off for it (or even to give a free kick ffs).
|
|
|
Motd
Mar 1, 2015 12:33:11 GMT
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2015 12:33:11 GMT
Of course it should, but the attacker should not be punished by trying to stay on his feet and score an open play goal, there needs to be more than one pair of officials eyes in and around the box these days as many players are looking to con the referee whenever opportunity arises. He isn't conning the referee if he is being fouled though, and until refs grow the bollocks to start giving penalties for these offences when players do stay on their feet then it's hard to blame players who are actually being fouled for going down. Why should the defender be allowed to cheat with impunity? My question is this . If and it's a bloody big if the striker stays on his feet and scores did the defender stop him from scoring or only try and FAIL to stop him and there is the thing we always assume that the defender stopped the attacker from scoring where in actual fact the attackers just take advantage of the assumption. Attackers should NEVER fall down easy they should always play to the whistle like everyone else. Referees should of course improve and give clear fouls in the box but falling over easy is not the quick fix that I want to see for bad referees. What next an Oscar for best dive of the season, or he's a world class striker that scores no goals but wins 30 penalties....oh wait Rooney already has that title. Even better get a tiny small striker even a girl as they will get knocked over easier and win more penalties. No it's clear where our problems lie in the modern game poor referees with no balls to give a decision especially against the perceived "Bigger Clubs" Why can't we employ foreign reffs for the premm?
|
|
MooG
Youth Player
Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change.
Posts: 492
|
Motd
Mar 1, 2015 12:47:32 GMT
Post by MooG on Mar 1, 2015 12:47:32 GMT
Good question Riv.
If you go with the rationale behind why the red card for denying a goalscoring opportunity was introduced, then you probably should send the defender off even if the attacker scores. That would encourage defenders not to commit the 'professional' foul and should also should give attackers a reason to stay on their feet.
It doesn't seem very logical to punish somebody for something that they didn't manage to do though.
|
|
|
Motd
Mar 1, 2015 12:54:06 GMT
Post by harryburrows on Mar 1, 2015 12:54:06 GMT
Stoke have sold 98% of their seats since promotion , seems a bit on the high side to me but MOTD must know what they are talking about Shearer finally had a go at gullit about their famous bust- up . All be it with a tongue in cheek
|
|
|
Motd
Mar 1, 2015 13:06:26 GMT
Post by Gods on Mar 1, 2015 13:06:26 GMT
Stoke have sold 98% of their seats since promotion , seems a bit on the high side to me but MOTD must know what they are talking about Shearer finally had a go at gullit about their famous bust- up . All be it with a tongue in cheek I heard that 98% number too, it's a great one to throw around, never mind that it is not actually true
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Mar 1, 2015 13:13:59 GMT
It is definitely not okay to go down to "help the referee" just because there is contact. In fact it is a morally bankrupt thing to do. It is a contact support for heavens sake. The number of penalties and disputes about them has become a horrible scar on the game. It has become as much about "winning " the penalty as it is about scoring a goal since a penalty and a goal are in effect the same thing. To borrow and amend from the great Barney Ronay yesterday if football was invented now, and pitched via various agencies, and launched from scratch as a national sport it would probably end up being called 'Did He Go Down Too Easily'
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Mar 1, 2015 13:16:10 GMT
It is definitely not okay to go down to "help the referee" just because there is contact. In fact it is a morally bankrupt thing to do. It is a contact support for heavens sake. The number of penalties and disputes about them has become a horrible scar on the game. It has become as much about "winning " the penalty as it is about scoring a goal since a penalty and a goal are in effect the same thing. To borrow and amend from the great Barney Ronay yesterday if football was invented now, and pitched via various agencies, and launched from scratch as a national sport it would probably end up being called 'Did He Go Down Too Easily' We're not talking 'contact' though. We're talking about being fouled.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Mar 1, 2015 13:46:58 GMT
I think any player who goes down when there is insufficient contact for them to do so should be sent off and banned - it is cheating, pure and simple.
Similarly any player who rolls on the floor should get a red card for each roll, with a 3 game ban for each red card. Injured players don't roll around.
Finally, any attempt to wave an imaginary card would be met with an immediate red card and a very very lengthy ban.
That would end the cheating after the first week.
And if FIFA don't like it - tough.
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Mar 1, 2015 14:13:07 GMT
Because it's not the players decision to make, it's the referee's. People moan about the quality of refs but it's made infinitely harder when these diving cunts keep fancying a lie down every 2 minutes and pundits somehow justify it. Most of them have also added rolling around to make it even worse, perhaps they're just uncomfortable and we could throw them a pillow or two. It's the scurge of the game and needs sorting. I remember you saying this last time and what it basically boils down to is it being ok for defenders to cheat but not strikers. There's a difference between fouling and outright cheating in my book and choosing to fall over is just that. Your book is obviously a new version where all strikers are allowed to referee the game in their own head. If you can't see the correlation between being entitled to go down arguments and overall declining referee standards then your more indoctrinated than I thought. I apologise for being so old school but players should do their own job, leave the decisions to the ref and stop turning our great game into a cheating and conning competition. I haven't watched an el classico for ages because it's 90 minutes of cheating the ref and more and more people seem happy that that's how football is going.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Mar 1, 2015 14:18:29 GMT
I remember you saying this last time and what it basically boils down to is it being ok for defenders to cheat but not strikers. There's a difference between fouling and outright cheating in my book and choosing to fall over is just that. Your book is obviously a new version where all strikers are allowed to referee the game in their own head. If you can't see the correlation between being entitled to go down arguments and overall declining referee standards then your more indoctrinated than I thought. I apologise for being so old school but players should do their own job, leave the decisions to the ref and stop turning our great game into a cheating and conning competition. I haven't watched an el classico for ages because it's 90 minutes of cheating the ref and more and more people seem happy that that's how football is going. So fouling is preferable, is what you're saying? The attacker shouldn't be obliged to help out the defender who is fouling him (and shirt pulling, for example, is cheating - it's seeking to gain an illegal advantage, that is pretty much the definition of it). Referees have proven they're useless at awarding these decisions so the idea that a striker should just suck it up and accept he's being shafted is bizarre to me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2015 14:22:05 GMT
A combination of referees that don't understand the game, and ex pros in the media with their excuse making have brought this into the game.
If refs had the vision to give fouls regardless of whether they went down, rather than having to go down..and ex pro's labelled a cheat..a cheat, then we'd be in much better shape.
|
|
|
Motd
Mar 1, 2015 14:23:08 GMT
Post by Mint Berry Barks on Mar 1, 2015 14:23:08 GMT
I think any player who goes down when there is insufficient contact for them to do so should be sent off and banned - it is cheating, pure and simple. Similarly any player who rolls on the floor should get a red card for each roll, with a 3 game ban for each red card. Injured players don't roll around. Finally, any attempt to wave an imaginary card would be met with an immediate red card and a very very lengthy ban. That would end the cheating after the first week. And if FIFA don't like it - tough. That doesn't quite work though March. Say for example, Moses is running down the wing and takes it past his man. He's got the legs on the fullback so instead of letting Moses get around him, he purposely blocks him off. The contact isn't enough for Moses to go down but he is fouled and should have a freekick. If the same offense happens in the box, it's still a foul. If going down under the exact same challenge that would have garnered a freekick on the wing sways the ref into actually giving a penalty, then of course he (or any player) should do it. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to 'congratulate' players for staying on their feet when fouled. Refs would have the balls to actually make decisions for themselves rather than letting players decide for them. Unfortunately, this need to convince refs that you've actually been fouled is being exploited by people who dive.
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Mar 1, 2015 14:33:00 GMT
There's a difference between fouling and outright cheating in my book and choosing to fall over is just that. Your book is obviously a new version where all strikers are allowed to referee the game in their own head. If you can't see the correlation between being entitled to go down arguments and overall declining referee standards then your more indoctrinated than I thought. I apologise for being so old school but players should do their own job, leave the decisions to the ref and stop turning our great game into a cheating and conning competition. I haven't watched an el classico for ages because it's 90 minutes of cheating the ref and more and more people seem happy that that's how football is going. So fouling is preferable, is what you're saying? The attacker shouldn't be obliged to help out the defender who is fouling him (and shirt pulling, for example, is cheating - it's seeking to gain an illegal advantage, that is pretty much the definition of it). Referees have proven they're useless at awarding these decisions so the idea that a striker should just suck it up and accept he's being shafted is bizarre to me. If strikers ever do that I'll be right there with you slagging the ref off but they don't. The entitled to go down brigade have seen to that. The slightest contact and their on the floor. It wouldn't be so bad if it was just in the box but it nows happens all over the pitch. The only way back is huge retrospective punishments so the management get involved. Sessegnon got slated last night but by your rules it was fine as a defender put his hand on his shoulder. His only problem was he didn't fall over quick enough and took an extra step or two first. He's now not entitled to go down but a cheat - go figure.
|
|