Eduardo faces a 2 match ban

Mr. Presentable

Pro. F wrote: »

An absolute farce. So now UEFA are saying that the referee wasn't deceived? :

UEFA "it was not established to our satisfaction that the referee had been deceived"

So, no, they are not saying the referee wasn't deceived.

Mr. Presentable

Gone Drinking wrote: »

Is it suprising that the decision was over-turned? No. Everytime there's one of these decisions made, its appealed and either shortened/lessened or over-turned.

I'll bet Chelsea have their ban on buying shortened to 1 transfer window.

Is this the same UEFA that's out to get English clubs?

Mossy Monk

UEFA messed up big time with this. Amateurs are afraid of the tidal wave of complaints due this week.

Mr Alan

common sense prevails.

greendom

Mr Alan wrote: »

common sense prevails.

Absolutely I'm sure there have been countless dives all around Europe since Eduardo's not one of which has gone to UEFA. They can't make a scape goat of Eduardo just because it was on tv and the SFA got pissed off - there needs to be a consistent rule for everybody. And this is virtually impossible to administer as when a player dives there is usually contact and it is very difficult to tell one way or another

Mr Alan

Ashley Young dived that same week to win a peno in the Uefa Cup afaik.

Pro. F

Mr Alan wrote: »

common sense prevails.

That statement is simply wrong. To say that the current situation where diving dominates the sport is common sense is some unbelievable self deception.

I'm not saying that i ever had any faith in UEFA but if this had proven to be the start of a clamp down on diving then that would have been a great thing. Say if they had trialed retroactive review and punishment of dives (consistently) during the CL this season, that would have been a good start. There was still a possibility of them following that through, but instead they have bottled it just before the CL starts up again. Probably because of a dossier that Wenger put together ! All they had to do was say that this was the start of a new approach, or even better have announced that before the CL kicked off in the first place. The way they handled this shows that they were never serious.

All the negative talk and nay-saying on this thread and in the media drives me to despair. As i've said before, in this thread, if UEFA reviewed only the dives that win penalties and frees that lead directly to goals then they would have a managable case load and diving would still become unprofitable. But people are only interested in talking about how nothing can be done, how this is opening a can of worms and other such negative, small minded shìte.

Mr Alan

Surely it was already proven that it wasnt to be the start of anything considering there has been numerous dives that have gone unpunished since? Thats why everyone knew it was a farce when Uefa said they were banning Eduardo.

This was simply Uefa nearly being forced into doing something due to outrage by the Scottish FA & sensationalist English media who wished to paint a Croatian man as a villian while ignoring the sins of their own.

Common sense is not picking on one person & making a scapegoat of them while ignoring the larger problem at hand & that's what Uefa were doing.

If Uefa were to release a statement saying that all instances of diving in this seasons CL & Uefa Cup were going to viewed after the fact & cases punished where a panel decides they tried to deceive the officials, i'd view that as a really good thing. Simple fact is they won't and never had any intention of doing that, as they themselves said & thats why they are not punishing Eduardo.

Hence my comment about common sense pre-vailing.

thorbarry

Pro. F wrote: »

I'm not saying that i ever had any faith in UEFA but if this had proven to be the start of a clamp down on diving then that would have been a great thing

They never intended to clamp down on diving, didn't Ashley Young dive in the Europa league the next day?

It would have been great if the Eduardo incident was a start to clamping down on diving, but it was never going to be that

Pro. F

jasonorr wrote: »

From what I've heard, Arsenal's case was that there was definitely contact (very minimal obviously) and Uefa had to prove otherwise. Wenger sounded very confident when talking about the appeal too.

Yeah i get the point but i would say that the thing is Boruc had done very well to get out of the way, that's why it wasn't a penalty imo - Boruc didn't trip/impede Eduardo. Players dive/go down easy to win penalties but if the keeper manages to expose the dive by getting out of the way then the dive should be punished. I would contrast that to Rooney's pen against Arsenal where Rooney dived/went down easy when the keeper fooked up and the penalty was deserved (please believe that my club allegence has got nothing to do with this). The reason i'm saying that you only need to punish the dives that are exposed by the keeper (or outfield player) getting out of the way is that then players would have to be sure that it was a foul before they go down but they can still go down easy, a la Rooney, to win a penalty when the keeper/defender fooks up. I'm aware that i might be starting a whole other discussion there, i hope i made some sort of sense.

Here's something interesting - since Arsenal have gotten off because there was a tiny bit of contact, does that mean that lots of yellows for dives are going to be appealed and rescinded because of proof of similar, minimal contact? That could be interesting.

nipplenuts wrote: »

UEFA "it was not established to our satisfaction that the referee had been deceived"

So, no, they are not saying the referee wasn't deceived.

ok, sorry, i'll rephrase:
So now UEFA are saying that it wasn't established to their satisfaction that the referee was deceived? How? How is it possible, in any way, that the referee wasn't deceived? The fact that Eduardo dived is beyond doubt - anybody that argues that point has lost touch with reality.

jaykay74

Pro. F wrote: »

Here's something interesting - since Arsenal have gotten off because there was a tiny bit of contact, does that mean that lots of yellows for dives are going to be appealed and rescinded because of proof of similar, minimal contact? That could be interesting.

afaik you can't appeal yellow cards.

L'prof

Pro. F wrote: »

I would contrast that to Rooney's pen against Arsenal where Rooney dived/went down easy when the keeper fooked up and the penalty was deserved (please believe that my club allegence has got nothing to do with this).

That's utter crap. So, Rooney dived, but it was still a penalty? Most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Pro. F wrote: »

Here's something interesting - since Arsenal have gotten off because there was a tiny bit of contact, does that mean that lots of yellows for dives are going to be appealed and rescinded because of proof of similar, minimal contact? That could be interesting.

As far as I'm aware, yellow's cannot be contested.

Pro. F

Mr Alan wrote: »

This was simply Uefa nearly being forced into doing something due to outrage by the Scottish FA & sensationalist English media who wished to paint a Croatian man as a villian while ignoring the sins of their own.

Common sense is not picking on one person & making a scapegoat of them while ignoring the larger problem at hand & that's what Uefa were doing.

If Uefa were to release a statement saying that all instances of diving in this seasons CL & Uefa Cup were going to viewed after the fact & cases punished where a panel decides they tried to deceive the officials, i'd view that as a really good thing. Simple fact is they won't and never had any intention of doing that, as they themselves said & thats why they are not punishing Eduardo.

Hence my comment about common sense pre-vailing.

Cool, i agree with you there completely. I was just getting pissed off with people saying that UEFA shouldn't do anything because there would be too many dives to review.

thorbarry wrote: »

They never intended to clamp down on diving, didn't Ashley Young dive in the Europa league the next day?

It would have been great if the Eduardo incident was a start to clamping down on diving, but it was never going to be that

Yeah Young won a penalty with a dive. That didn't really prove anything imo as it was in a different competition. It could have been the case that they were going to introduce/trial this in the CL first. But sure we knew it was all over when they came out and said that Eduardo's case was going to be a one off. Such an incompetant bunch of clowns they are.

thorbarry

Pro. F wrote: »

Such an incompetant bunch of clowns they are.

Spot on

Pro. F

jasonorr wrote: »

That's utter crap. So, Rooney dived, but it was still a penalty? Most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

If you disagree with what i said then how about addressing the part where i explained my reasoning? I've put forward an argument with explanation and justification that you have just ignored. What on earth is the point in that?

jaykay74 wrote: »

afaik you can't appeal yellow cards.

jasonorr wrote: »

As far as I'm aware, yellow's cannot be contested.

D'oh forgot about that. Pity.

L'prof

Pro. F wrote: »

If you disagree with what i said then how about addressing the part where i explained my reasoning? I've put forward an argument with explanation and justification that you have just ignored. What on earth is the point in that?

Because you're argument is contradicting. In one sentence you say Rooney dived and in the next you say it was a penalty. In my opinion once you say Rooney dived (he didn't simply go down easy as he started to fall before any contact was made) nothing else matters, to me that instantly means no penalty.

Pro. F

jasonorr wrote: »

Because you're argument is contradicting. In one sentence you say Rooney dived and in the next you say it was a penalty. In my opinion once you say Rooney dived (he didn't simply go down easy as he started to fall before any contact was made) nothing else matters, to me that instantly means no penalty.

I didn't simply say he 'dived', I said he 'dived/went down easy' - I'm trying to put forward a re-assessment of the significance of the term 'dive'. Because if you use it in such a limited sense as you do then deciding what is and isn't a foul becomes unreasonably difficult.
Here's the crux of my argument

Pro. F wrote: »

The reason i'm saying that you only need to punish the dives that are exposed by the keeper (or outfield player) getting out of the way is that then players would have to be sure that it was a foul before they go down but they can still go down easy, a la Rooney, to win a penalty when the keeper/defender fooks up.

I would say that it's reasonable for a skillful player to draw out a foul - using dribbling or speed or whatever to deceive the defender and cause him to make a mistake - and then go down to 'win' a penalty or free. If however the defender manages to not be fooled and does well not to foul the attacker (like Boruc did) then it is wrong for the attacker to then try and fool the ref afterwards. The fact that the attacker might be looking for a foul (ie starting to go down a fraction of a second before the foul actually hits) is not important as long as there is a foul.

I think this is very hard to discuss because it's so complicated.

I'd like to use an example (sorry if this gets long and involved, i don't see any other way of explaining what i mean):
A player with great acceleration and dribbling (let's say Henry) attacks a defender in the box. Henry tries to use his skill to bamboozle the defender and actually gets him to stick out a leg when he knocks the ball past him - Henry has drawn out the foul. Henry then happily falls over the leg to 'win' a penalty. Now there is nothing wrong with that. Henry succeeded in deceiving the defender and is getting rewarded. If Henry had tried to stay on his feet after the leg was stuck out he would have been at i disadvantage - no point in doing that. So he made sure that the ref saw the foul that it was. But say the defender never stuck out the leg, say he did a good job to not commit a foul, then Henry shouldn't try to deceive the ref. The important thing is whether the defender commits the foul or not. A dive is only cheating if there is no foul being committed by the defender.

So i say it's ok to go down easy, or dive if you want to call it that, if you are drawing the ref's attention to a foul from the defender. Almunia fouled Rooney. the fact that Rooney was looking for it (he started to go down a fraction of a second before he was tripped) is not important. He just made sure that the ref saw the foul that Almunia was committing.

Mr. Presentable

Pro. F wrote: »

I.

Rooney was looking for it (he started to go down a fraction of a second before he was tripped) is not important. He just made sure that the ref saw the foul that Almunia was committing.

That's very important. From you it's an admission the player dived, from the player it is cheating because he is going down before he's tackled.

Paleface

Just saw this on BBC regarding ex Scottish FA chief and current UEFA general secretary Gordon Taylor

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/8257389.stm

Anyone else think that the whole Eduardo debacle was instigated by him and he's being pushed out of footballing proceedings as a result??? I'm only asking as it was the first thing that sprang to my mind!

Pro. F

nipplenuts wrote: »

That's very important. From you it's an admission the player dived, from the player it is cheating because he is going down before he's tackled.

It's not cheating as i explained in my post. Deceiving the defender and drawing a foul is an essential part of the game.

Mr Alan

diving before contact is made is cheating.

there is no other word for it.

Pro. F

Mr Alan wrote: »

diving before contact is made is cheating.

there is no other word for it.

It's not as simple as that.
It's not a dive if there is a foul. If he had waited for the fraction of a second for Almunia to make contact before he started to go down it would have made no difference. Simply saying that diving is cheating is just not engaging with my point.

Your argument: he dived. diving is cheating. therefor he cheated.

My argument: The word dive is being used to loosely. He went down easily to make sure that the ref saw the foul that was taking place. That's not cheating.

Think of Henry in the CL final for Arsenal. He was through on goal, Puyol fouled him but he mistakenly stayed on his feet which was very much to his disadvantage. If he'd gone down easier the ref would have seen the foul. If Henry had gone down easy, 'dived' as you call it, then he would have been in the right. Just like Rooney was in the right to go down easy, 'dive' as you call it, because he was being fouled by Almunia.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

SuprSi

I agree with Pro F. Rooney knew he was going to be fouled, so went to ground slightly earlier than if he had waited for his leg to hit Almunia. Technically it was cheating, but there was going to be contact anyway - Rooney was just making sure it was obvious enough for the ref and everyone else to see it.

If Almunia had done what Boruc did and pulled his hands away, Rooney would've looked a fool and perhaps the penalty wouldn't have been awarded and he would have received a yellow card. Because of Almunia, Rooney was able to make the most of an inevitable situation.

Pro. F

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's such an over simplified and unrealistic explanation. Remember that it was obviously going to be a foul, also that it happened very very quickly so he only went down early by about 1 second. There is no negative consequence of Rooney having gone down early other than the over simple 'it's cheating' statement which is technically true only in an extremely pedantic sense.

As SuperSi says if Almunia had managed to get out of the way then it would have been different. If that had been the case and Rooney had still tried to claim a penalty then i'd be calling for him to be punished.

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah fair enough. I was just trying to show how going down easy isn't always cheating. But it's not really a good example here.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Mr. Presentable

Pro. F wrote: »

It's not as simple as that.
It's not a dive if there is a foul. .

But, Pro. F, there has been no foul committed yet in the Rooney example you're using. Therefore dive, therefore cheat. The fact that a foul arrived a tenth of a second later is neither here nor there. At the point of going down there had been none.

Pro. F

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ok, you insist on blindly repeating your point - i'll reduce mine to a sentence and do the same then: Going down a fraction of a second early when it's clear he's about to be fouled is not cheating.

nipplenuts wrote: »

But, Pro. F, there has been no foul committed yet in the Rooney example you're using. Therefore dive, therefore cheat. The fact that a foul arrived a tenth of a second later is neither here nor there. At the point of going down there had been none.

The fact that the foul arrived a tenth of a second later is indeed important. Because Rooney knew with certaintity that he was going to be fouled when he started to go to ground. He very slightly anticipated this foul. But what is the problem with that minute anticipation? As i said earlier, it is not cheating to try and draw out a foul in football. When somebody is succeeding in drawing out a foul then a fraction of a second anticipation of that foul becomes irrelevant.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Mr Alan

watch the Real match last night?

Dive, same as Rooney. Was contact but player left his leg trailing and was already on his way down when contact was made.

Funny thing was, all the Sky team (except Strachan iirc) called it a dive, yet didn't for Rooneys?! strange that :rolleyes:

Mitch Connor

Mr Alan wrote: »

watch the Real match last night?

Dive, same as Rooney. Was contact but player left his leg trailing and was already on his way down when contact was made.

Funny thing was, all the Sky team (except Strachan iirc) called it a peno, yet didn't for Rooneys?! strange that :rolleyes:

Didn't call Rooney's what a penalty? What are you talking about?

Should Rooney have had a penalty last night?

Why is it strange that they would call the peno in the Real game a peno but not call Rooney's (whatever Rooney's was) a penalty? Surely going by the stuff you have been saying previous they would be more likely to call Rooney's whatever a penalty and not some ramdom foreign dudes?

Mr Alan

sorry, edited now.

i'm refering to Rooney vs. Arsenal.

Pro. F

Mr Alan wrote: »

watch the Real match last night?

Dive, same as Rooney. Was contact but player left his leg trailing and was already on his way down when contact was made.

Funny thing was, all the Sky team (except Strachan iirc) called it a dive, yet didn't for Rooneys?! strange that :rolleyes:

I didn't see the Real incident you're talking about so i can't comment on it. It would be interesting to see how it compares to what we've been talking about.

But aside from that, in relation to anything in football, what does it matter what the people on sky say? They're all a shower of football retards who follow some retarded, promotion based, party line. Their opinion is completely worthless.

orourkeda

Now everybody can go back to diving in peace.

Isnt football wonderfu.

Mr. Presentable

Pro. F wrote: »

But aside from that, in relation to anything in football, what does it matter what the people on sky say? They're all a shower of football retards who follow some retarded, promotion based, party line. Their opinion is completely worthless.

Something we can agree on!

cson

Will the knives be out after tonights incident at Anfield re diving I wonder...

Kirnsy

thought eduardo had done something in the wolves match that i wasn't aware of there!

Iago

I don't think so