Saha Penalty - Entitled to go down?

Mr. Presentable

PHB wrote:

Personally I think the only way to fix it is with retro-active bans for diving, 5 match ban for clear diving. Saha's dive probably wouldn't have been under that, but with the threat of the ban there, I doubt he would have done it.

Seriously. The only way to fix it is for the managers to stop telling their players it's OK. I'm looking at you, DesF. Do you tell your forwards how much pressure they need to feel on their back before they fling themselves on the ground?

_blank_

nipplenuts wrote:

Seriously. The only way to fix it is for the managers to stop telling their players it's OK. I'm looking at you, DesF. Do you tell your forwards how much pressure they need to feel on their back before they fling themselves on the ground?

I haven't told them yet, but I will tonight, for an experiment.

So, how much pressure should I tell them?

Slight?

If they are actually put off from getting the ball?

leninbenjamin

PHB wrote:

Personally I think the only way to fix it is with retro-active bans for diving, 5 match ban for clear diving. Saha's dive probably wouldn't have been under that, but with the threat of the ban there, I doubt he would have done it.

i'd like to see more than just this. i'd like to see referee teams with monitors in the stand, not only just to look at video replays on ambiguous incidents but also to give the referee continuous feedback on what's going on in the game, what he's getting right, what he's missing and if necessary tell him to pull back play for a foul he missed. give them to some extent the same authority as the referee in making decisions. I think to some extent we are expecting a lot from the referee's as the pace and intensity and professionality of the game continually increases, and they are clearly struggling to cope.

it may not work, it may interfere with the flow of the game too much, but I'd at least like to see FIFA try it out rather than just dismiss it outright.

An Citeog

Saha, in his quest for justice and support for Liverpool FC, was morally outraged at the penalty given in the Liverpool-Chelsea game and decided to seek retribution. It was never a dive, merely a protest against the injustice and heart-ache caused by such a terrible refereeing decision. Those who think otherwise have got it all wrong. Louis Saha only dived/went down easily to highlight the injustice and inconsistency of refereeing decisions.

He didn't even want to score the penalty. Cech got it all wrong and dived instead of collecting the gentle pass that Louis played down the middle of the goal. Sure that's the reason he didn't let Ronaldo take the peno in the first place!

Pepe LeFrits

Xavi6 wrote:

He dived, simple as. The tap on his shin guard wasn't enough to warrant a peno and he could have easily kept going. Cheat.

Agreed.

BrianCalgary

Xavi6 wrote:

It's not really a foul no. A clip on the shin guard shouldn't warrant a free kick or a penalty when the player can easily keep going like Saha could have. If he had have been chopped down or had his heels clipped fair enough but there was minimal contact and he dived. Mike Dean was sh*te all game anyway so I wasn't surprised he gave it.

As a referee, a foul like this one outside the penalty area you allow the advantage to go and then have the option to bring it back for a free.

Inside the penalty area it is very difficult to allow the advantage and bring it back for a penalty. In minor football you could because who gives a rip about the parents. Unfortunately the pros are called differently, for marketing purposes, which means that players have to make a dive in order to get the call as the referee isn't going to play the advantage inside the 18, rightly or wrongly. A penalty has to be an instantaneous decision. The fans and players demand it.

There was contact, minimal contact, Saha could have kept going, made a horrible dive. It was Ronaldo we have no call becuase of his reputation. Saha doesn't have a reputation as a diver which added legitimacy to the foul.

Mitch Connor

BrianCalgary wrote:

As a referee, a foul like this one outside the penalty area you allow the advantage to go and then have the option to bring it back for a free.

Inside the penalty area it is very difficult to allow the advantage and bring it back for a penalty. In minor football you could because who gives a rip about the parents. Unfortunately the pros are called differently, for marketing purposes, which means that players have to make a dive in order to get the call as the referee isn't going to play the advantage inside the 18, rightly or wrongly. A penalty has to be an instantaneous decision. The fans and players demand it.

There was contact, minimal contact, Saha could have kept going, made a horrible dive. It was Ronaldo we have no call becuase of his reputation. Saha doesn't have a reputation as a diver which added legitimacy to the foul.

There has been a massive instance of advantage being played in the box, then brought back for the penalty - Arsenal vs Barcelona in the Champions League final, it is something I would like to see happen more (the decision, not Arsenal in the CL final.....:p )

An Citeog

Tauren wrote:

There has been a massive instance of advantage being played in the box, then brought back for the penalty - Arsenal vs Barcelona in the Champions League final, it is something I would like to see happen more (the decision, not Arsenal in the CL final.....:p )

I don't know if you actually remember what happened in that match but it was a terrible decision. Eto'o was pulled down by Lehmann and Giuly tapped it into the empty net but the ref pulled it back, sent Lehmann off and gave Barca a free-kick from which they didn't score.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmqyw0YBaiI

Mitch Connor

An Citeog wrote:

I don't know if you actually remember what happened in that match but it was a terrible decision. Eto'o was pulled down by Lehmann and Giuly tapped it into the empty net but the ref pulled it back, sent Lehmann off and gave Barca a free-kick from which they didn't score.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmqyw0YBaiI

Indeed - i though the follow up had been missed, apologies.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Guy:Incognito

Regardless of whether he gives the peno, the ref should be able to book a player for addign on extras. Saha went down like he got a smack of a hurl.

Retrospective bookings for diving (even if the peno was given), doing the card signal to the ref (askign for a player to be booked) and other things not given should be brought in.

In fact even had he been properly fouled I think the ref should be allowed laugh at him for acting the tool and give a free out for diving.

~Rebel~

Stekelly wrote:

In fact even had he been properly fouled I think the ref should be allowed laugh at him for acting the tool and give a free out for diving.

Might be onto something there! If you make a meal of a challenge, the opposition get to point, laugh and throw assorted handbags at ya for 2minutes.

MrJoeSoap

Come to think of it, even the title of this thread is a bit of a joke. Was Saha "entitled" to go down? It makes it seem as if there is a certain minimum amount of contact at which it becomes ok for a player to fling himself to the ground.

Nalz

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Come to think of it, even the title of this thread is a bit of a joke. Was Saha "entitled" to go down? It makes it seem as if there is a certain minimum amount of contact at which it becomes ok for a player to fling himself to the ground.

Eh no it doesnt, and why are you bothering highlighting this? It got the point across. I like apple and blueberry crumble, now thats pointless. It is true though. Entitled means to have the right to something, and the question basically means did Saha have the right to dive because he was fouled. After all it was a question, to which there was 4 possible answers.

I think the best response imo was the second post of this thread. Saha overreacted, dived like he was sniped from the roof top of Old Trafford, but the reason he did that is because he was fouled and impeeded. Two wrongs made a right. We're all entitled to our opinions but thats the way I see it.

astrofool

Well at least the fact that he was actually fouled puts him at a level above Rooney/Drogba/Gerrard/Robben/Ronaldo/Pires etc. who go down without a foul. I'm sure he'll be able to live with himself.

smemon

no contest, he was clipped on the right shin, plus he got a hand in the face..

he made the most of it, but that's what good strikers do. Drogba anyone? Not nice to see but it's a case of if he can do it and get away with it, so can i.

Until there are new laws taken in, that's the way it will stay. The pictures below, show it was a clear penalty, no contest.

first pic is obvious, in the second picture, the hand is in saha's face :cool:

5starpool

Ok, my initial reaction when seeing this was that it looked a peno but the ref would never give it due to the theatrical way that Saha dived. When I saw the reply I changed my mind - it was never a peno. Obviously (my user name) I am a Liverpool fan, but I would say the same if it was a pool player that dived, and when Gerrard or similiar have done it in the past I was not particularly pleased either, aside from the fact that we got the peno of course, and I can imagine that Utd fans feel similar.

Some decisions went against Utd such as the peno decision in the first half and the Cole incident, and I believe the ref got those wrong, but the fact is that the 3 other major incidents in this game that the ref got wrong, the sending off, the amount of injury time allowed in the first half, and the penalty, were all turning points, well ok, not the Saha peno as the game was over anyhow practically, and favoured Utd greatly.

Marginal contact does not always warrant a foul, and in this case the marginal contact did certainly not warrant that. I know a ref has a tough job and calls it like he sees it in a split second, but rarely when a player dives like that was there enough contact for it to be called a foul imo, and more often than not convinces a ref not to give it due to this even when it may actually be a penalty.

WhiteWashMan

Man Utd fans in acceptable simulation peno dive shocker!

in other news, a kettle was today arrested for phone harrassment of a pot....

Mitch Connor

Saw the Mikel tacle at full speed last night on SSN, not slowed down to the slowest possible viewing spped at every angle, and it looked two footed and dangerous. Full speed is how the ref would have seen it, and it didn't look good. Based on the real time footage - i think the ref was right to give the red card.

Nalz

5starpool wrote:

Marginal contact does not always warrant a foul, and in this case the marginal contact did certainly not warrant that. I know a ref has a tough job and calls it like he sees it in a split second, but rarely when a player dives like that was there enough contact for it to be called a foul imo, and more often than not convinces a ref not to give it due to this even when it may actually be a penalty.

Obstruction, kick in the shin, arm in the face = penalty.

Cant deny that any of those 3 didnt happen.

Saha making a meal of it is very disappointing, but if he was fouled what can be done.

Not that its anything got to do with this Joe Cole should have been sent off. John Obi Mikel should not. The injury time for second have was 2mins, the ball was in the last third when the goal went in, the goal went in before the third minute completed, and the ball was only half cleared and immediately played back into the danger area.

Prufrock

I think Saha should have stayed on his feet. I mean it was minimal contact at best. Not a penalty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P68S8cV_j_g

Even a United fan can't help but laugh at that.

Tauren

Tauren wrote:

Saw the Mikel tacle at full speed last night on SSN, not slowed down to the slowest possible viewing spped at every angle, and it looked two footed and dangerous. Full speed is how the ref would have seen it, and it didn't look good. Based on the real time footage - i think the ref was right to give the red card.

Thats what I said in the other thread. Watchin the match on Sunday my firsat reaction was outrage, it looked awful. The replay waters it down a bit though.

menoscemo

I think there is no doubt it was a penalty, if nothing else convinces people then just look at Ben haim's reaction. A complete lack of protestation indicates he has no complaints and realises he fouled Saha.
Whether saha dived or not is another issue. Sometimes you have to make the ref aware you have been fouled. If you take the foul as a given, then ask yourself would the referee have given a penno if he had stayed on his feet?

If the referee sees a foul but thinks Saha dived I think he would be entitled to give a penalty and book Saha. Would I be right in this assumption? It would set a great precedent if a ref had the nerve to do this.

leninbenjamin

Prufrock wrote:

I think Saha should have stayed on his feet. I mean it was minimal contact at best. Not a penalty.

what does whether the contact was minimal or not have anything do to with whether it is a penalty or not? if contact was there in any form or magnitude, and it clearly was from the replays, then it's a foul. simple as. but in this scenario, even without the contact having been there, after Saha had put the ball past him, Ben Haim clearly attempts to block Saha's path to the ball with his arm and leg without making an attempt to turn and win it himself. obstruction and a foul.

Hobart

There was contact, no question. There was in no way enough contact to make him go down. He dived, and that's why got the penalty. He cheated, simple as.

If there was a penalty for every piece of light contact, such as the one on Sunday, every corner would end with a penalty.

It's actually laughable the way he went down and shows more than a touch of desperation on his part, ronaldo giving him a friendly tap on the head in Portugusesqe type style, is also a big give away.

Dein had a nightmare of a game on Sunday and should be relegated to the 2nd Division for a couple of months before he is let loose on a Prem game again.