Drogba a Disgrace

ntlbell

jenno86 wrote: »

Slightly different circumstances. United got decision after decision given to them in the match until the sending off and Chelsea got turned down 4 penalty claims.

smashing a ball into someone's arm is not a peno claim.

so there was two of those.

there was the tug on the shirt

that's ONE claim not friggin 4

Dancor

From another forum. What an idiot.

Loomis

greendom wrote: »

How can it not have been a penalty when he had both legs wrapped around Fabregas ?

Because he won the ball. His legs weren't wrapped around Fabregas either.

greendom wrote: »

He may have well regained control of the ball if his movement hadn't been impeded. He was fouled - its a pen - end of

If a player slide-tackles another and wins the ball it's likely the guy in possession will end up on the ground. The player could regain possession if the ball isn't knocked too far away and he's still on his feet.
It's a clean tackle, the ball in won and it is not a foul. The player ending up on his arse does not make it a free kick.

jimbling

It was a fcking disgrace..... the refereeing that is. I would have punched him for sure.... but then again, I'm not an celebrity soccer player. :pac:


People comparing rugby to soccer is a bit silly. It's a totally different game.

I agree that they hold much more respect for the ref and that it is inherent throughout the game from youth to professional. But there are reasons for that.

Soccer is much harder to ref than rugby. Obviously there are loads of intricate rules in rugby that make it "technically" tougher, but you don't get anywhere near as many decisions that can go either way, or decisions that can have a massive impact on the outcome of the game. One wrong decision can mean millions and millions in loss of revenue for the suffering team.
This is just not applicable to rugby due to the higher scores the games. It is much more likely for the better team to win, no matter what a ref does.
In soccer the best team can lose purely due to one bad referee decision. That is mind boggling and very very frustrating if you're a player.

The point is, it's the games fault, not the players, that this sort of action is rampant. Obv players should have restraint... but these are overpaid spoilt young men. What do you expect?
With regards diving, some players/manager don't see anything wrong with it. I hate to see it, but I cant disagree. They're using the games inability to ref it against the opposite team. I want to see it gone, but it's the job of the game/rules, not the players. We can't expect everyone who plays it to be honest and upstanding.... that's ridiculous.

The Refs job is too hard, he needs help. Post match citing should be brought in for excessive fouling/diving etc. Fines/bans etc. I would also like to see in action TV refereeing for the major decisions.

blah blah blah.... i could go on.... but ye all know the arguments already :rolleyes:

Boggles

Auvers wrote: »

I am a Real Madrid fan and I jumped for joy when Iniesta scored,

Your not a Real Real Madrid fan.

greendom

Seriously :eek:

Loomis

dancor wrote: »

From another forum. What an idiot.

Draupnir

jimbling wrote: »

Soccer is much harder to ref than rugby. Obviously there are loads of intricate rules in rugby that make it "technically" tougher, but you don't get anywhere near as many decisions that can go either way, or decisions that can have a massive impact on the outcome of the game. One wrong decision can mean millions and millions in loss of revenue for the suffering team.
This is just not applicable to rugby due to the higher scores the games. It is much more likely for the better team to win, no matter what a ref does.
In soccer the best team can lose purely due to one bad referee decision. That is mind boggling and very very frustrating if you're a player.

I don't even watch Rugby much, but even I know that this is complete horsesh1t.

destroyer

jenno86 wrote: »

Slightly different circumstances. United got decision after decision given to them in the match until the sending off and Chelsea got turned down 4 penalty claims.

Chelsea have at least 4 penalty claims every match. They had one genuine claim last night ,bad decision, Barca sending off, another bad decision. These things happen.

abelard

BastardPrince wrote: »

this thread reeks of double standards...

Who cares? It's about Drogba.

I'm a Chelsea fan, and I still think he's a disgrace. Last night, last year's final, countless other times. He can't control his temper, and at the end of the day it's true that he is pretty much a cheat.

It really, really hurts when people on here bad mouth Chelsea, as a "disgrace", as "bitter", as "sore losers", as "cheats", as "classless", but these are all things that can, to some extent or another, be said about Drogba.

As hard as it is to say, for a man of such talent, he drags down the reputation of the club so much. It seems nearly every time he's on the pitch, he gives people more ammunition to belittle the club.

It's often been said on here that no player is bigger than the club, but Drogba's actions consistently hog discussion about Chelsea, and never paint the club in a positive light.

So say what you want about Drogba, he probably deserves it. But seperate him from the club, there are som many people there who don't deserve to be painted with the same brush.

Xavi6

ntlbell wrote: »

the players sent out to represent them are or showed that.

so yes.

That's rubbish. The actions of one or two individuals are enough to form a generalisation about an institution that employees hundreds of people? Good man :rolleyes:

Mitch Connor

ntlbell wrote: »

smashing a ball into someone's arm is not a peno claim.

so there was two of those.

there was the tug on the shirt

that's ONE claim not friggin 4

Just because you decide it is not a penalty, does not mean it was not a penalty claim that was turned down. Quit acting the goat.

Eto'o's hand ball is debatable given the space and speed, but he had his arms raised - why do that if not to block down space?

Pique's was a CLEAR handball.

Yaya was pulling out of Drogba so there was a case there.

Malouda was shoved down IN the box, for which a free was given, another case for a penalty there.

destroyer

Mr. Anderson wrote: »

Because he won the ball. His legs weren't wrapped around Fabregas either.



If a player slide-tackles another and wins the ball it's likely the guy in possession will end up on the ground. The player could regain possession if the ball isn't knocked too far away and he's still on his feet.
It's a clean tackle, the ball in won and it is not a foul. The player ending up on his arse does not make it a free kick.

STICK TO TOPIC

jimbling

ntlbell wrote: »

fouls are not given on what might or might not happen

it was eithier a foul or it wasn't

if he got the ball first what would of happened afterwards is irrelvant.

did he get the ball first?

if your answer is yes then in your own eyes it wasn't a peno

if he didn't then it was it's that simple

This is wrong. There are dangerous tackles that are not allowed.
You can get the ball first when you tackle from behind. Foul.
You can get the ball first when you tackle with studs up. Foul.

I don't even know what tackle you're on about as I didn't see it... but just saying its not that black and white.

Eamon Dunphy

Eamon Dunphy wrote: »

He didn't even have an erection.

That's why I said nearly raping him;)

greendom

jimbling wrote: »

It was a fcking disgrace..... the refereeing that is. I would have punched him for sure.... but then again, I'm not an celebrity soccer player. :pac:


People comparing rugby to soccer is a bit silly. It's a totally different game.

I agree that they hold much more respect for the ref and that it is inherent throughout the game from youth to professional. But there are reasons for that.

Soccer is much harder to ref than rugby. Obviously there are loads of intricate rules in rugby that make it "technically" tougher, but you don't get anywhere near as many decisions that can go either way, or decisions that can have a massive impact on the outcome of the game. One wrong decision can mean millions and millions in loss of revenue for the suffering team.
This is just not applicable to rugby due to the higher scores the games. It is much more likely for the better team to win, no matter what a ref does.
In soccer the best team can lose purely due to one bad referee decision. That is mind boggling and very very frustrating if you're a player.

The point is, it's the games fault, not the players, that this sort of action is rampant. Obv players should have restraint... but these are overpaid spoilt young men. What do you expect?
With regards diving, some players/manager don't see anything wrong with it. I hate to see it, but I cant disagree. They're using the games inability to ref it against the opposite team. I want to see it gone, but it's the job of the game/rules, not the players. We can't expect everyone who plays it to be honest and upstanding.... that's ridiculous.

The Refs job is too hard, he needs help. Post match citing should be brought in for excessive fouling/diving etc. Fines/bans etc. I would also like to see in action TV refereeing for the major decisions.

blah blah blah.... i could go on.... but ye all know the arguments already :rolleyes:

Rugby is a much tougher game to ref in terms of rule interpretation; its a lot easier in terms of player co-operation

ntlbell

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Just because you decide it is not a penalty, does not mean it was not a penalty claim that was turned down. Quit acting the goat.

Eto'o's hand ball is debatable given the space and speed, but he had his arms raised - why do that if not to block down space?

Pique's was a CLEAR handball.

Yaya was pulling out of Drogba so there was a case there.

Malouda was shoved down IN the box, for which a free was given, another case for a penalty there.

the ball was struck at eto at pace his hand made no movement toward the ball. no claim

pique's hands were out BEFORE the ball was kicked - ball to hand. no claim.

drogba's shirt was pulled. claim.

malouda's foot was outside the line and no part of his body was inside the box when the foul was commited. no claim.

JJ

Ah well, this just gives Special1TV some ammunition to rip the piss out of Double D, Potato and the rest of Chelski this week.

Dave!

abelard wrote: »

So say what you want about Drogba, he probably deserves it. But seperate him from the club, there are som many people there who don't deserve to be painted with the same brush.

Lampard for one. Gentleman IMO.

ntlbell

jimbling wrote: »

This is wrong. There are dangerous tackles that are not allowed.
You can get the ball first when you tackle from behind. Foul.
You can get the ball first when you tackle with studs up. Foul.

I don't even know what tackle you're on about as I didn't see it... but just saying its not that black and white.

ok, for pedantic pants i'll rephrase

if you get the ball first from a legal and not a dangerous tackle?

hows that for you?

jimbling

Draupnir wrote: »

I don't even watch Rugby much, but even I know that this is complete horsesh1t.

What's horsesh1t about it? I watch rugby all the time. There are very very few times where refereeing decisions are the talking point of a game. Obv it happens occasionally, but not often.

ntlbell

Xavi6 wrote: »

That's rubbish. The actions of one or two individuals are enough to form a generalisation about an institution that employees hundreds of people? Good man :rolleyes:

The actions of a vast majority of the players over the last few years

the actions previous managers showing a complete lack of class

it's a never ending story with chelsea.

not just one or two.

there's no smoke without fire.

The Recliner

ntlbell wrote: »

fouls are not given on what might or might not happen

it was eithier a foul or it wasn't

if he got the ball first what would of happened afterwards is irrelvant.

did he get the ball first?

if your answer is yes then in your own eyes it wasn't a peno

if he didn't then it was it's that simple

The fact that he got the ball first is irrelevant in the eyes of the law of the game

..."In association football, a player tackles an opponent by taking control of
the ball from them.

This is achieved by using either leg to wrest possession from the opponent, or sliding in on the grass to knock the ball away. The target of the tackle must always be the ball, otherwise it may be deemed as illegal by the referee, especially if the player makes contact with his opponent before the ball, or makes unfair contact with the player after playing the ball.

If the tackle comes from the front or the side and succeeds in touching the ball first, it is considered legal, regardless of whether the opponent cannot avoid being toppled by the tackler's leg afterwards.

Tackling with both legs, or from behind is also illegal. This explicitly includes "scissoring" (tackling with legs apart, so as to trap the opponent's leg or legs in between), which is likely to be punished with a straight ejection (red card), as it poses a high risk of severe knee injury to the player being tackled."

Reading that it was a penalty and red card

Personally I think it was a harsh sending off and penalty but rules are rules

ntlbell

The Recliner wrote: »

The fact that he got the ball first is irrelevant in the eyes of the law of the game

..."In association football, a player tackles an opponent by taking control of
the ball from them.

This is achieved by using either leg to wrest possession from the opponent, or sliding in on the grass to knock the ball away. The target of the tackle must always be the ball, otherwise it may be deemed as illegal by the referee, especially if the player makes contact with his opponent before the ball, or makes unfair contact with the player after playing the ball.

If the tackle comes from the front or the side and succeeds in touching the ball first, it is considered legal, regardless of whether the opponent cannot avoid being toppled by the tackler's leg afterwards.

Tackling with both legs, or from behind is also illegal. This explicitly includes "scissoring" (tackling with legs apart, so as to trap the opponent's leg or legs in between), which is likely to be punished with a straight ejection (red card), as it poses a high risk of severe knee injury to the player being tackled."

Reading that it was a penalty and red card

Personally I think it was a harsh sending off and penalty but rules are rules

the target was the ball his leg came in from the "side" he won the ball..

jenno86

destroyer wrote: »

Chelsea have at least 4 penalty claims every match.

True, maybe. But they are not as stonewall as the ones last night. United don't have to worry about that because they get everything their own way.

Auvers

Boggles wrote: »

Your not a Real Real Madrid fan.

aye it killed me to say it but thats how much I dislike Chelsea but it dosent matter because Utd will win in the final

greendom

ntlbell wrote: »

the target was the ball his leg came in from the "side" he won the ball..

and fouled the player

Mitch Connor

ntlbell wrote: »

the ball was struck at eto at pace his hand made no movement toward the ball. no claim

pique's hands were out BEFORE the ball was kicked - ball to hand. no claim.

drogba's shirt was pulled. claim.

malouda's foot was outside the line and no part of his body was inside the box when the foul was commited. no claim.

Why were the arms out (in both cases) to begin with, if not to block down space?

On the malouda incident you are talking crap.

Draupnir

jimbling wrote: »

What's horsesh1t about it? I watch rugby all the time. There are very very few times where refereeing decisions are the talking point of a game. Obv it happens occasionally, but not often.

That's only because of the way referee's are treated in rugby, they aren't questioned in the same manner and are respected by the players more. If footballers behaved like rugby players and the media reporting on rugby didn't highlight the bejaysus out of every little decision, then these problems wouldn't occur.

example: imagine if the media went back to every offside decision in rugby to check if it was offside.

Football media expect the referee and his assistants to be robots and never make a mistake, whereas the players constantly make mistakes. Thats the double standards problem.

jenno86

jenno86 wrote: »

True, maybe. But they are not as stonewall as the ones last night. United don't have to worry about that because they get everything their own way.

Why does every topic turn into ''United love/hate'' threads?

ntlbell

greendom wrote: »

and fouled the player

if he won the ball it wasn't a foul :rolleyes:

jimbling

ntlbell wrote: »

ok, for pedantic pants i'll rephrase

if you get the ball first from a legal and not a dangerous tackle?

hows that for you?

That's much better thanks. You're still a tosser though.

ntlbell

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Why were the arms out (in both cases) to begin with, if not to block down space?

On the malouda incident you are talking crap.

the ball went to his hand - ball to hand no claim.

no crap he was outside the box.

Johnny Utah

Draupnir wrote: »

That's only because of the way referee's are treated in rugby, they aren't questioned in the same manner and are respected by the players more. If footballers behaved like rugby players and the media reporting on rugby didn't highlight the bejaysus out of every little decision, then these problems wouldn't occur.

example: imagine if the media went back to every offside decision in rugby to check if it was offside.

Football media expect the referee and his assistants to be robots and never make a mistake, whereas the players constantly make mistakes. Thats the double standards problem.

Exactly, well said.

The Recliner

ntlbell wrote: »

the target was the ball his leg came in from the "side" he won the ball..

But he was off his feet and scissored the player

Foul and penalty and sending off

Harsh yes but the correct decision

Mitch Connor

The Recliner wrote: »

But he was off his feet and scissored the player

Foul and penalty and sending off

Harsh yes but the correct decision

Off his feet, won the ball, then accidently brought the player down. It is very debatable.

ntlbell

The Recliner wrote: »

But he was off his feet and scissored the player

Foul and penalty and sending off

Harsh yes but the correct decision

if you slide in from the side take the ball and take the player out of it break his leg ruin his career for the rest of his life.

no free...legal tackle, spot of bad luck.

if the tackle was legal and he won the ball it's no free..

as far as i know the ref gave the peno because he didn't think darren won the ball, he was wrong.

The Recliner

ntlbell wrote: »

if he won the ball it wasn't a foul :rolleyes:

Not true no matter how many times you say it or rolleyes, read the ruling again

This is the same thing as saying that a handball isn't a penalty because there is no intent, the rules state otherwise and it is down to interpretation

jimbling

Draupnir wrote: »

That's only because of the way referee's are treated in rugby, they aren't questioned in the same manner and are respected by the players more. If footballers behaved like rugby players and the media reporting on rugby didn't highlight the bejaysus out of every little decision, then these problems wouldn't occur.

example: imagine if the media went back to every offside decision in rugby to check if it was offside.

Football media expect the referee and his assistants to be robots and never make a mistake, whereas the players constantly make mistakes. Thats the double standards problem.

I see your point, but I still think that the reason referring in soccer is far more controversial is that one wrong decision can have drastic effects on a game. I think that happens far less in rugby.

deisedevil

Some of those Chelsea players are nasty as Fcuk!

Last year in CL final Terry walked up beside Tevez and started hiding his face while calling him an Argie C**t, while Drogba behind them hocked one up and spat it at the back of Tevez's head!

Ballack was totally going OTT running after the ref like that, wasn't even a peno to begin with, I can understand emotions running high and all that but compared to the yellows and reds I have seen others getting for doing much less to refs he was way worse and should have got sent off.

Drogba played his usual game, on the ground more than standing. 1st leg and 2nd leg he went down and acted like he was concussed with only the slightest of touches, what a sham! Shur what can you expect from someone who in an after match interview admits that he dives all the time and sees nothing wrong with it.
Then he really covered himself in glory afterwards!

Anelka isn't known to dive but he took one last night and got a player sent off, bad form.

John Terry yet again ran at the ref screaming his head off, and started the onslaught on the ref at full time, great example from their glorious capt.

Why couldn't they all follow the example of Frank Lampard?

I heard that Ballack and Drogba both went after the ref in the tunnel aswell, Drogba belting the wall and the ref had to run back on to the field.

All in all, Chelksi players yet again acted like scumbags and blackened their name.

Xavi6

jimbling wrote: »

That's much better thanks. You're still a tosser though.

Banned

Also, any more United/Arsenal/Liverpool talk will result in infractions for thread spoiling. Take it elsewhere.

And further to that, cut out the backseat modding. Report posts you don't feel are appropriate

witnessmenow

Xavi6 wrote: »

That's rubbish. The actions of one or two individuals are enough to form a generalisation about an institution that employees hundreds of people? Good man :rolleyes:

If clubs can be fined or forced to play behind doors for failing to control fans, Im pretty sure they can be held responsible for the actions of two of their employees



Lads, Utd Arsenal forum thata way

---

>

jenno86

Deleted User wrote: »

Why does every topic turn into ''United love/hate'' threads?

Because of United fans coming in here and '**** stirring' and talking crap. Now thats clarified let get back on topic.;)

ntlbell

greendom wrote: »

But winning the ball resulted in a foui on the player. The ball was in the air by Fabregas' chest, Fletcher was coming in from the side. Taking the ball meant fouling the player.

sorry xavi missed your post

The Recliner

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Off his feet, won the ball, then accidently brought the player down. It is very debatable.

I agree it is debateable but if you go off your feet you are risking a foul whether you win the ball or not, if you are off your feet then you lack control

ntlbell wrote: »

if you slide in from the side take the ball and take the player out of it break his leg ruin his career for the rest of his life.

no free...legal tackle, spot of bad luck.

if the tackle was legal and he won the ball it's no free..

as far as i know the ref gave the peno because he didn't think darren won the ball, he was wrong.

Wrong and none of us know why the Ref gave the Penalty yet but even if he gave it for your reason it still would have been a penalty under the rules

Taking the ball does not make a tackle legal, I am not going to repeat myself again so if you refuse to accept this then there aint much I can do about it but it is the rule, the rule is not open to interoretation it is very clear, the implementation of the rule however is open to interrepation which is why we have inconsistancies and this myth that winning the ball makes it not a foul

*Edit* Apologies Xavi, was writing it as you posted your warning

jenno86

jenno86 wrote: »

Because of United fans coming in here and '**** stirring' and talking crap. Now thats clarified let get back on topic.;)

Yes now that is clarified lets get back to the topic..

_blank_

The Recliner wrote: »

Taking the ball does not make a tackle legal, I am not going to repeat myself again so if you refuse to accept this then there aint much I can do about it but it is the rule, the rule is not open to interoretation it is very clear, the implementation of the rule however is open to interrepation which is why we have inconsistancies and this myth that winning the ball makes it not a foul

Association Football has no rules.

It has Laws.

And the referees are the appointed judges of these laws.

There are no hard and fast rules that must be adhered to at all times.

patmac

Back on topic. The problem with Drogba is he is such a bad actor, he could seriously do with some lessons. The incident where he challenged for the ball in the second half and rolling around as if he had been shot, almost carried of the field then trots back on just after the replay showed he wasn’t touched, that along with Anelka’s dive, Ballack's almost rape, would anger any neutral. Add in an owner who got his money by dubious means and Cashley Cole and you can see why Chelsea are not very popular at the moment.
I’m not even convinced by Drogba’s antics at the end they were so over the top, were they even genuine? Has he got a brain?
So in response to the op yes he is a disgrace, and Chelsea got everything they deserved last night.

deisedevil

deisedevil wrote: »

Anelka isn't known to dive but he took one last night and got a player sent off, bad form.

patmac wrote: »

that along with Anelka’s dive

I don't think Anelka dived, did he?.. I thought he just fell over his own feet and the ref got it wrong..

I'll have to have another look though

jenno86

I heard he got acting lessons from this guy! :pac: :pac:

[