|
Post by riccyfuller93 on Nov 6, 2017 16:28:10 GMT
People don't even know the meaning of the word dive.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 17:39:17 GMT
I love how these pundits are lining up to demand Wenger apologise to Sterling.
Can't remember the same queue when he wrongly said that Shawcross spent an entire match kicking people when it was proven he didn't.
|
|
|
Post by ElworthPotter on Nov 6, 2017 17:49:15 GMT
Is Sterling a diving bastard? Yes Did he dive for the penalty on Sunday? No - blatant foul Even if he did dive, would that mean Arsenal deserved to draw or win? No
|
|
|
Post by hanibal7 on Nov 7, 2017 0:02:11 GMT
He was 100% correct with regard to their game with Man City at the weekend, the offside goal and Stirling's laughable yet successful attempt to win a penalty. He was also very funny, I had to stop myself from laughing about his comment on the referee deciding the game! “It was an intense game of quality on both sides,” Wenger said. “I thought Manchester City were on a high but I felt we had plenty of dangerous situations and chances and I would say overall once again the referee made the decision today. Defo a penalty, and was the linesman missed the offside.Refs nowadays have slow motion etc to watch within seconds of a decision, so I done believe refs are worse.Some refs of the 70,s would keep up with the pace, overweight and old.
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Nov 7, 2017 0:36:36 GMT
How was it a dive when there was clear contact between the 2 players? Might have been a soft penalty. But it definitely wasn't a dive. Whare is the law that says if there is any contact then a foul/penalty has been committed? As far as I know the shoulder charge has not been outlawed. The argument is not whether there was or was not contact but what the nature of the contact was. If it was a fair shoulder charge then it wasn't a penalty. The problem is if it wasn't a shoulder charge did the contact constitute a foul - and I have to admit I have no idea what the laws of the game have to say on that point. According to the Laws of Football, the referee may decide to award a direct free kick even if there is no contact or, conversely, not award a free kick when there is contact. There are seven offences for which a referee may award a direct free kick. Two of those offences are 1) kicks or attempts to kick an opponent, and 2) trips or attempts to trip an opponent. It comes down to the referee’s opinion if there was an attempt to kick or trip an opponent even if (s)he makes not contact, Similarly, the referee may decide to apply the ”advantage rule” when there is contact and allow play to continue.
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Nov 7, 2017 0:37:52 GMT
He was 100% correct with regard to their game with Man City at the weekend, the offside goal and Stirling's laughable yet successful attempt to win a penalty. He was also very funny, I had to stop myself from laughing about his comment on the referee deciding the game! “It was an intense game of quality on both sides,” Wenger said. “I thought Manchester City were on a high but I felt we had plenty of dangerous situations and chances and I would say overall once again the referee made the decision today. Defo a penalty, and was the linesman missed the offside.Refs nowadays have slow motion etc to watch within seconds of a decision, so I done believe refs are worse.Some refs of the 70,s would keep up with the pace, overweight and old. Say that again. Are you drunk?
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Nov 7, 2017 0:40:12 GMT
I love how these pundits are lining up to demand Wenger apologise to Sterling. Can't remember the same queue when he wrongly said that Shawcross spent an entire match kicking people when it was proven he didn't. Or when Monk called Moses a diver. TalkSport were all over Wenger today though, cos it's fucking Sterling. Getting sick of the Citeh wankfest, too.
|
|
|
Post by ted1965 on Nov 7, 2017 9:07:53 GMT
Wenger is correct Sterling and many others are cheats but as usual he only speaks out when the decision goes against his team, he has selective memory like most managers but it’s not just his age it’s afflicted him for decades. Those who run the game could and should have clamped down on such behaviour long ago but they won’t because many games could end up being abandoned due to the lack of players on the field, of course eventually it would stop but unless it was a rule applied throughout football it would be a meaningless gesture.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2017 10:24:03 GMT
Sterling has been a diver from day one, no matter who he plays for. Pity someone can't give him something to go down for properly, if you get my drift! He's also a tart IMHO!
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Nov 7, 2017 14:30:01 GMT
Wenger is correct Sterling and many others are cheats but as usual he only speaks out when the decision goes against his team, he has selective memory like most managers but it’s not just his age it’s afflicted him for decades. Those who run the game could and should have clamped down on such behaviour long ago but they won’t because many games could end up being abandoned due to the lack of players on the field, of course eventually it would stop but unless it was a rule applied throughout football it would be a meaningless gesture. Wenger imported diving in its current form into the country. Yes, I know Franny Lee used to love a cheeky dive and arguably Klinsmann was the first of the modern era to really incorporate it into his game, however, Wenger essentially built diving into his of 'Invincibles'. Diving was seen, by Mr Wenger, as a legitimate part of his teams tactics, before the likes of Manchester United, Liverpool and Chelsea who are now fully subscribed and on board with diving. That 2004 Arsenal team was full of serial divers. Pires was the most notorious, so has become a bit of a scapegoat in the media and among fans, but the whole team was on board with it. Henry was a serial diver, but has got away with it due to his incredible success as a player. Lauren was an absolute villain as well. Heck, even the goalkeeper Lehmann was a serial diver. When you consider the fact that diving was still a relatively small part of English football back then, I doubt very few teams at that time had such a well organised operation when it came to diving and utilising it as part of the game. You compare to the Chelsea team of that year, whereby it's actually hard to pick out a serial diver in that team. Maybe Adrian Mutu? The Man Utd team had Ronaldo to be fair and Ruud Van Nistelrooy but still not quite the investment in diving that Arsenal had around that time. I have zero sympathy with him. He was a big part of the reason football is in the mess it is in today. He can get fucked.
|
|
|
Post by raythesailor on Nov 8, 2017 9:04:33 GMT
Wenger is correct Sterling and many others are cheats but as usual he only speaks out when the decision goes against his team, he has selective memory like most managers but it’s not just his age it’s afflicted him for decades. Those who run the game could and should have clamped down on such behaviour long ago but they won’t because many games could end up being abandoned due to the lack of players on the field, of course eventually it would stop but unless it was a rule applied throughout football it would be a meaningless gesture. Wenger imported diving in its current form into the country. Yes, I know Franny Lee used to love a cheeky dive and arguably Klinsmann was the first of the modern era to really incorporate it into his game, however, Wenger essentially built diving into his of 'Invincibles'. Diving was seen, by Mr Wenger, as a legitimate part of his teams tactics, before the likes of Manchester United, Liverpool and Chelsea who are now fully subscribed and on board with diving. That 2004 Arsenal team was full of serial divers. Pires was the most notorious, so has become a bit of a scapegoat in the media and among fans, but the whole team was on board with it. Henry was a serial diver, but has got away with it due to his incredible success as a player. Lauren was an absolute villain as well. Heck, even the goalkeeper Lehmann was a serial diver. When you consider the fact that diving was still a relatively small part of English football back then, I doubt very few teams at that time had such a well organised operation when it came to diving and utilising it as part of the game. You compare to the Chelsea team of that year, whereby it's actually hard to pick out a serial diver in that team. Maybe Adrian Mutu? The Man Utd team had Ronaldo to be fair and Ruud Van Nistelrooy but still not quite the investment in diving that Arsenal had around that time. I have zero sympathy with him. He was a big part of the reason football is in the mess it is in today. He can get fucked. Good post and informative.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Nov 8, 2017 12:04:33 GMT
People don't even know the meaning of the word dive. So true... Dive (noun): football stadium in Burslem
|
|
|
Post by hanibal7 on Nov 8, 2017 14:50:55 GMT
Defo a penalty, and was the linesman missed the offside.Refs nowadays have slow motion etc to watch within seconds of a decision, so I done believe refs are worse.Some refs of the 70,s would keep up with the pace, overweight and old. Say that again. Are you drunk? No, my huge fingers are not very good on my phone, and predictive text too.
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Nov 8, 2017 17:01:16 GMT
I think there is some confusion between a player being touched and going down and a player being brought down with a tackle . It's almost as if they are treated as one and the same . IMO if a player is touched but not brought down by the force of the tackle and drops to the floor it's a dive . Physical contact is not in itself a foul
|
|