Manchester United Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 11/12

tupac_healy

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Fecking keepers :P

If he doesnt take ball or man but the attacker has to hurdle him and therefore loses his balance and falls do you think its a pen and red card (if in the box obviously)?

Im not saying ye lads are wrong by the way I just wanted to get peoples views on it

If there is NO contact from the keeper, without a shadow of a doubt in my eyes no pen, no card, play on....

Its just bad luck, poor control, clever defending (from the keeper, defenders PHYSICALLY sheppard the ball out for throw ins etc & this is allowed) or whatever you want to call it, just not a foul!! Why should a keeper not force an attacker to run the ball out of play???

Paul Tergat

alproctor wrote: »

Ah sure we're all mad... :pac:

Difficult one, in fairness. I would argue that each case is different, but as a general rule, I would hope that the benefit of any doubt should be given to the goalkeeper, and if there is no contact, there should be no foul.

I can understand the argument that simply hurdling a sliding keeper can hinder an attacker and should perhaps be punished, but I believe that penalising a goalkeeper for genuine attempts to get to the ball while making no contact with an attacking player would cause chaos.

Tough to know what best to do!

DM_7

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Tough to know what best to do!

Erm follow the rules?

Win the ball fairly and everything is okay.

Paul Tergat

tupac_healy wrote: »

Why should a keeper not force an attacker to run the ball out of play???

They cant dive at a strikers feet though, not get the ball and force the attacker to lose their balance. That to me is clearly punishable. Guess we just differ in our opinions

Dont even get me started on the shepparding the ball out for a goal kick. It should be obstruction like anywhere else

tupac_healy

DM-ICE wrote: »

There is a facility where keepers can go to ground for the ball. If they win the ball they get away with what would be deemed a careless or reckless tackle outside the box so keepers already have an advantage. All they need to do is get the ball.

If they don't, its a foul.

Re the red card, Yes I do think its a tough rule but not unfair.

THIS IS TRUE FOR ANY PLAYER ON THE PITCH!!! NOT JUST KEEPERS!!!!! They in no way whatsoever have an advantage when it comes to tackling on the ground (rules wise - obviously the ability to use their hands is an advantage), with their hands or feet!!!!

Paul Tergat

DM-ICE wrote: »

Erm follow the rules?

Win the ball fairly and everything is okay.

I mean im on that side of things. I just mean I can see where the others are coming from. Whatever the rules are some will have a case for being harshly treated

tupac_healy

Paul Tergat wrote: »

They cant dive at a strikers feet though, not get the ball and force the attacker to lose their balance. That to me is clearly punishable. Guess we just differ in our opinions

Dont even get me started on the shepparding the ball out for a goal kick. It should be obstruction like anywhere else

I 10000% agree with you on this, it's the most stupid rule and obviously obstruction, yet it is viewed as 'clever' defending, why can't keepers use this sort of cleverness and force a player wide or force him to mis-control a ball???

DM_7

tupac_healy wrote: »

THIS IS TRUE FOR ANY PLAYER ON THE PITCH!!! NOT JUST KEEPERS!!!!! They in no way whatsoever have an advantage when it comes to tackling on the ground (rules wise - obviously the ability to use their hands is an advantage), with their hands or feet!!!!

No it is not.

Players often win the ball and get penalised outside the box for making a reckless challenge.

If Rafael slide in, creams a player and knocks the ball away with his knee he will get a foul called as he was reckless.

If DDG does it in the box, it won't be a foul.

Al Capwned

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Tough to know what best to do!

Take the ball. Or stay on your feet, as big as possible.

Oh btw, I reckon Rooney took a dive for the penalty this evening. A different ref would have booked him for diving.

Paul Tergat

tupac_healy wrote: »

I 10000% agree with you on this, it's the most stupid rule and obviously obstruction, yet it is viewed as 'clever' defending, why can't keepers use this sort of cleverness and force a player wide or force him to mis-control a ball???

The type of shepparding the ball out near the touchline is very different to the types of challenge we are talking about here.

We see keepers allowed to do the same as defenders whereby they stand between themselves and the ball until the ball goes out. However, for both keepers and defenders, they cant ensure the ball goes out by diving at a players feet and not getting ball or man. That is then a free kick or penalty.

Paul Tergat

alproctor wrote: »

Take the ball. Or stay on your feet, as big as possible.

Oh btw, I reckon Rooney took a dive for the penalty this evening. A different ref would have booked him for diving.

are you not contradicting yourself with these 2 statements? keeper didnt take the ball, or stay on his feet. he went down and rooney had to hurdle him??

DM_7

alproctor wrote: »

I can understand the argument that simply hurdling a sliding keeper can hinder an attacker and should perhaps be punished, but I believe that penalising a goalkeeper for genuine attempts to get to the ball while making no contact with an attacking player would cause chaos.

The scenario is important alright, if a keeper slides for the ball and mis judges it and a Kagawa is 5 yards away but runs toward and hurdles the keeper to chase down the ball it isn't a foul.

But if a keeper rushes Kagawa in possession of the ball and the he qucikly toe pokes the ball away, and jumps to avoid the keeper then it could well be deemed a foul in the rules.

Mars Bar

A goal keeper has to make a challenge to be in with any chance of winning the ball. I think the keeper was perfectly entitled to go in as he did. Rooney could easily have avoided that challenge today but he went looking for the penalty instead.

Al Capwned

Paul Tergat wrote: »

are you not contradicting yourself with these 2 statements? keeper didnt take the ball, or stay on his feet. he went down and rooney had to hurdle him??

Em, no I dont think so.

Keeper went to ground in an attempt to get the ball.
There was no contact. (Rooney 'engineered' contact, keeper didn't make contact with him.
I didn't think it was a penalty. There was no foul.

___________

What I meant was that is what I try to do, i don't mean to suggest that anything else is a foul.

DM_7

Paul Tergat wrote: »

are you not contradicting yourself with these 2 statements? keeper didnt take the ball, or stay on his feet. he went down and rooney had to hurdle him??

In that scenario Rooney is un-sporting so Keeper should get benefit of the doubt in my opinion. There is a difference between avoiding a tackle and making sure contact is made, dishonesty should be punished above a genuine attempt to get the ball. Fair Play and all that.

Al Capwned

DM-ICE wrote: »

..........

But if a keeper rushes Kagawa in possession of the ball and the he qucikly toe pokes the ball away, and jumps to avoid the keeper then it could well be deemed a foul in the rules.

I disagree.

I've a game tomorrow. If I pressure an attacker into rushing an attempt on goal, thereby forcing him to miss the goal, or lose control of the ball, I'd call that good goalkeeping, whether or not he has to avoid me or not.

Paul Tergat

alproctor wrote: »

Em, no I dont think so.

Keeper went to ground in an attempt to get the ball.
There was no contact. (Rooney 'engineered' contact, keeper didn't make contact with him.
I didn't think it was a penalty. There was no foul.

DM-ICE wrote: »

In that scenario Rooney is un-sporting so Keeper should get benefit of the doubt in my opinion. There is a difference between avoiding a tackle and making sure contact is made, dishonesty should be punished above a genuine attempt to get the ball. Fair Play and all that.

As I said before its not relating specifically to Rooney incident, that just triggered my question on it.

I think if the keeper goes down at the feet of a player, doesnt get the ball and causes the attacker to have to hurdle him and thus change his course then its a pen. I dont think there should be the need for a player to annoyingly have to leave his leg hanging to try ensure the contact.

Al Capwned

Paul Tergat wrote: »

As I said before its not relating specifically to Rooney incident, that just triggered my question on it.

I think if the keeper goes down at the feet of a player, doesnt get the ball and causes the attacker to have to hurdle him and thus change his course then its a pen. I dont think there should be the need for a player to annoyingly have to leave his leg hanging to try ensure the contact.

And I disagree. There must be contact.

Anyway........ what's next!

Paul Tergat

alproctor wrote: »

And I disagree. There must be contact.

Anyway........ what's next!

Aye I was just bored and decided to ask a Q. Interesting to see peoples views

DM_7

alproctor wrote: »

I disagree.

I've a game tomorrow. If I pressure an attacker into rushing an attempt on goal, thereby forcing him to miss the goal, or lose control of the ball, I'd call that good goalkeeping, whether or not he has to avoid me or not.

Again it depends on the scenario though- I didn't outline the scenario well - if Kagawa avoids the keeper easily and can continue playing, he should and the ref will probably not regard it as careless (Simply because the tackle was so easily avoided it probably wasn't dangerous).

But if Kag genuinely loses his balance (not because he just falls over or something but because of the nature of the challenge) avoiding a challenge that didn't win the ball - then it has to be a foul according to the rules.

The actual scanario is important, the rules do not require contact but they do require the challenge to be careless, reckless or excessive.

Pro. F

alproctor wrote: »

And I disagree. There must be contact.

Why?

Donnielighto

since its been goin on for the last few pages, heres how i see it.



from fifa rules of the game

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
pushes an opponent
tackles an opponent


An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player:

plays in a dangerous manner
impedes the progress of an opponent

from the fifa interpretation guidebook

Careless, reckless, using excessive force
“Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or
consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution.
• No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is judged to be careless
“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the
danger to, or consequences for, his opponent.
• A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned
“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary
use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.
• A player who uses excessive force must be sent off


.
.
.



Impeding the progress of an opponent
Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the
opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an
opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.
All players have a right to their position on the fi eld of play, being in the way of
an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

ball coming in, if the keeper makes a decent attempt at getting the ball and gets it before contact is made, fine.
if he gets the ball after contact is made, penalty.

if the keeper doesnt get the ball and makes contact the ref can play advantage or pull it back, either are ok
if the keeper doesnt get the ball and doesnt make contact the ref can play advantage or pull it back but the keeper would have to have been judged to have been careless in forethought, impeding the players isnt an offence in this case by the interpretations ie the ball is in touching distance


the rules and interpretation i feel come down heavily in favour of the keeper, the keeper would have to make clear contact with the player or be seen to be tryin to take the player out.

when i say come down in favour of i mean in the grey area cases, clearly sometimes the keeper makes a horrendously timed challenge.

also and this isnt interpretation of fifa stuff or anything but i think if you are seen to dive you should get a yellow regardless of what the keeper did, it would make everyone try their best to stay up.

tupac_healy

Paul Tergat wrote: »

The type of shepparding the ball out near the touchline is very different to the types of challenge we are talking about here.

We see keepers allowed to do the same as defenders whereby they stand between themselves and the ball until the ball goes out. However, for both keepers and defenders, they cant ensure the ball goes out by diving at a players feet and not getting ball or man. That is then a free kick or penalty.

And this in my opinion, is an indirect freekick because it is obstruction!


I think we will all have to agree to disagree on this one, I for one will concede due to the rule presented a few pages back, it does not mean for one second I agree with it or think it is right (in fact I think its a joke to be honest) but I will respect it.

tupac_healy

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
pushes an opponent
tackles an opponent


An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player:

plays in a dangerous manner
impedes the progress of an opponent



Ah FFS :mad: even if they take the ball cleanly first? This is a joke and we are heading towards a basketball type system of tackling...


I fear for the day when the slide tackle will be banned altogether, it truely will be the death of the sport...

Paul Tergat

tupac_healy wrote: »

And this in my opinion, is an indirect freekick because it is obstruction!


I think we will all have to agree to disagree on this one, I for one will concede due to the rule presented a few pages back, it does not mean for one second I agree with it or think it is right (in fact I think its a joke to be honest) but I will respect it.

Oh aye I completely agree on the shepparding thing. No matter if its keeper or defender its obstruction and foul.

However, that was different from the type of tackles I was referring to.

J. Marston

Lads, Emmet Kennedy is on the case.

Emmet Kennedy ‏@Emmet_Kennedy
Just got a text from a contact in London: Robin Van Persie has signed for #MUFC #AFC are now officially nothing more than a feeder club.

Cork's 96FM, breaking all the major transfer stories since....tonight.

Al Capwned

Pro. F wrote: »

Why?

From earlier...

alproctor wrote: »

Difficult one, in fairness. I would argue that each case is different, but as a general rule, I would hope that the benefit of any doubt should be given to the goalkeeper, and if there is no contact, there should be no foul.

I can understand the argument that simply hurdling a sliding keeper can hinder an attacker and should perhaps be punished, but I believe that penalising a goalkeeper for genuine attempts to get to the ball while making no contact with an attacking player would cause chaos.

I was gonna try detail my thinking on it, but donnielighto's post above has pretty much summed up my opinion.

Briefly, as i said earlier, i think the rules, or more importantly, the interpretation of the rules as they are now are spot on.

Paul Tergat

tupac_healy wrote: »

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
pushes an opponent
tackles an opponent


An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player:

plays in a dangerous manner
impedes the progress of an opponent



Ah FFS :mad: even if they take the ball cleanly first? This is a joke and we are heading towards a basketball type system of tackling...


I fear for the day when the slide tackle will be banned altogether, it truely will be the death of the sport...

Nah that has to be there. A player can jump into tackle and make contact with the ball first but cause a lot of damage to the player with the way they are making the tackle.

The problem is we get consistency with interpretation. Its human error in play

The_Kew_Tour

J. Marston wrote: »

Lads, Emmet Kennedy is on the case.



Cork's 96FM, breaking all the major transfer stories since....tonight.

Liverpool fan.

Whatsisname

Anyone know anything about Football Agent (@agent_153) on Twitter? whoever it is has claimed Van Persie has just signed for us and a medical date is in place along with getting £220,000 a week and thats why Fergie wasn't at the match tonight.

tupac_healy

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Nah that has to be there. A player can jump into tackle and make contact with the ball first but cause a lot of damage to the player with the way they are making the tackle.

The problem is we get consistency with interpretation. Its human error in play

Only if they go over the top of the ball, which would be a wreckless tackle and should be a straight red, I completely agree with you that it is a problem with consistency of interpretation...

Adamcp898

Whatsisname wrote: »

Anyone know anything about Football Agent (@agent_153) on Twitter? whoever it is has claimed Van Persie has just signed for us and a medical date is in place along with getting £220,000 a week and thats why Fergie wasn't at the match tonight.

He ain't gonna stop until everyone hears about it too by the looks of things, do I dare hope?

http://twitter.com/agent_153

redalan

Football has Laws. Not rules.

Jame Gumb

FYI Sunday Supplement back on Sky Sports at 09.30...should be good re RVP, season preview etc

Blatter

Jame Gumb wrote: »

FYI Sunday Supplement back on Sky Sports at 09.30...should be good re RVP, season preview etc

Who's on it do you know?

Jame Gumb

Blatter wrote: »

Jame Gumb wrote: »

FYI Sunday Supplement back on Sky Sports at 09.30...should be good re RVP, season preview etc

Who's on it do you know?

Neil Ashton of the Mail hosting (Brian Woolnough away apparently)

Guests are:

Rob Draper (Mail)

Andy Dunn (Mirror)

Duncan White (Telegraph)

OctavarIan

Whatsisname wrote: »

Anyone know anything about Football Agent (@agent_153) on Twitter? whoever it is has claimed Van Persie has just signed for us and a medical date is in place along with getting £220,000 a week and thats why Fergie wasn't at the match tonight.

Seems like just another chancer. One of his previous inside exclusives was City signing Sinclair from Swansea for £5.5m.

Blatter

Jame Gumb wrote: »

Neil Ashton of the Mail hosting (Brian Woolnough away apparently)

Guests are:

Rob Draper (Mail)

Andy Dunn (Mirror)

Duncan White (Telegraph)

Brian Woolnough is the person that usually puts me off the show, don't really like his demeanor.

Pity neither Dan Taylor or Henry Winter are on, they're usually the best. Will tune in anyway.

Kirby

Paul Tergat wrote: »

If he doesnt take ball or man but the attacker has to hurdle him and therefore loses his balance and falls

Did Rooney have to hurdle him? Yes. Did he have to go down? No.

He didn't lose his balance. He could have easily stayed on his feet. He chose to go down and that is the important factor for me and any debate as to whether or not a foul occurred goes by the wayside. The game should be played honestly, and there is nothing honest about pretending to fall over.

Diving will only be eradicated if people stop making excuses for it. Until players become too embarrassed to do it, it will keep happening.

Debating the finer points of the rules of the game on whether it was a foul or not is a completely different issue. The bigger issue, for me as a football fan, is Rooney's choice to flop over like a fish and also dangle his leg to simulate contact. Not singling him out, they are all at it. Every team has 3 or 4 floppers. It needs to stop as its ruining the game.

tupac_healy

Not sure if its been mentioned or not but the community shield is on tomorrow is it not?

Anyone going to watch it or take any interest?


Personally I'm off to see Cork City hammer Blackburn

Jame Gumb

That Geordie fella from The Sun drives me mad (Shaun Custis?).

Henry Winter is excellent.

Paul Tergat

Kirby wrote: »

Did Rooney have to hurdle him? Yes. Did he have to go down? No.

He didn't lose his balance. He could have easily stayed on his feet. He chose to go down and that is the important factor for me and any debate as to whether or not a foul occurred goes by the wayside. The game should be played honestly, and there is nothing honest about pretending to fall over.

Diving will only be eradicated if people stop making excuses for it. Until players become too embarrassed to do it, it will keep happening.

Debating the finer points of the rules of the game on whether it was a foul or not is a completely different issue. The bigger issue, for me as a football fan, is Rooney's choice to flop over like a fish and also dangle his leg to simulate contact. Not singling him out, they are all at it. Every team has 3 or 4 floppers. It needs to stop as its ruining the game.

Said it a couple of times but it wasnt related specifically to the Rooney peno

Blatter

Ha, Sean and Neill Custis have been on it a few times. I always get the impression that the other journos are always looking down on them. ''Well, you work for the Sun'' kind of attitude.

The guy who's presenting it tomorrow (Neil Ashton) is usually fairly decent.

Jame Gumb

One game doesn't mean anything, but in PSG's first league game they went 2-0 down at home (against Lorient).

Ibrahimovich then got two goals to rescue a 2-2 draw.

Only mentioning it in the context of the PSG discussions re Lucas Moura.

Must confess that I've never heard of Lorient!!!

Kirby

Lucas Moura couldn't even make the starting 11 for Brazil in the Olympics. I must say though, he looked very good when he came on.

They may have lost, but they have some squad.

Pro. F

alproctor wrote: »

From earlier...



I was gonna try detail my thinking on it, but donnielighto's post above has pretty much summed up my opinion.

Briefly, as i said earlier, i think the rules, or more importantly, the interpretation of the rules as they are now are spot on.

alproctor wrote: »

Ah sure we're all mad... :pac:

Difficult one, in fairness. I would argue that each case is different, but as a general rule, I would hope that the benefit of any doubt should be given to the goalkeeper, and if there is no contact, there should be no foul.

I can understand the argument that simply hurdling a sliding keeper can hinder an attacker and should perhaps be punished, but I believe that penalising a goalkeeper for genuine attempts to get to the ball while making no contact with an attacking player would cause chaos.

Why on earth would it cause chaos? If the goalkeeper fails at an attempt to get the ball and so impedes the attacker, then it's a foul. That's how the rule works and the only thing that is happening here is that players like Rooney don't trust the referees to make the right call in accordance with the laws if they stay on their feet, so they always make sure to fall over the keeper.

The argument that there has to be contact for it to be a foul is just nonsense. It doesn't pay any attention to logic. If it were the case that there could be no foul unless there was contact then players in Rooney's situation would always just run into the keeper and put themselves at more risk of injury in order to get the penalty. If there could be no foul without contact than players would be best never hurdling the keeper after nicking it past him.

It doesn't matter if the keeper makes a genuine attempt to get the ball, what matters is that he failed in that attempt because Rooney was faster than him and he then hindered Rooney. So the keeper hindered Rooney => foul => penalty.

Donnielighto

Pro. F wrote: »

Why on earth would it cause chaos? If the goalkeeper fails at an attempt to get the ball and so impedes the attacker, then it's a foul. That's how the rule works and the only thing that is happening here is that players like Rooney don't trust the referees to make the right call in accordance with the laws if they stay on their feet, so they always make sure to fall over the keeper.

The argument that there has to be contact for it to be a foul is just nonsense. It doesn't pay any attention to logic. If it were the case that there could be no foul unless there was contact then players in Rooney's situation would always just run into the keeper and put themselves at more risk of injury in order to get the penalty. If there could be no foul without contact than players would be best never hurdling the keeper after nicking it past him.

It doesn't matter if the keeper makes a genuine attempt to get the ball, what matters is that he failed in that attempt because Rooney was faster than him and he then hindered Rooney. So the keeper hindered Rooney => foul => penalty.

if the player ran into the keeper on purpose that wouldnt be a foul, see my earlier post

Pro. F

Kirby wrote: »

Did Rooney have to hurdle him? Yes. Did he have to go down? No.

He didn't lose his balance. He could have easily stayed on his feet. He chose to go down and that is the important factor for me and any debate as to whether or not a foul occurred goes by the wayside. The game should be played honestly, and there is nothing honest about pretending to fall over.

Rooney didn't have to hurdle the keeper. He could have run straight into him just like he did with Almunia a few years ago. Then people were giving out because Rooney started to go down before the contact. It seems people won't be happy until Rooney (and players like him) runs full force into the keeper after beating him with skill and speed to draw the foul.

Kirby wrote: »

Diving will only be eradicated if people stop making excuses for it. Until players become too embarrassed to do it, it will keep happening.

Debating the finer points of the rules of the game on whether it was a foul or not is a completely different issue. The bigger issue, for me as a football fan, is Rooney's choice to flop over like a fish and also dangle his leg to simulate contact. Not singling him out, they are all at it. Every team has 3 or 4 floppers. It needs to stop as its ruining the game.

Diving will never be eradicated through embarrassment. It wouldn't matter if all fans were united on all decisions about diving. For professionals victories and pay cheques will always trump what the fans think.

Pro. F

Donnielighto wrote: »

if the player ran into the keeper on purpose that wouldnt be a foul, see my earlier post

Rooney nicked the ball past the keeper with his superior skill and speed. The keeper jumped at Rooney's legs (the ball had been there previously but the keeper was too slow to get it). Rooney is allowed to run in a straight line towards the ball when it is the keeper jumping at him. It would have been a penalty if Rooney had been foolish enough to keep running and been clattered by the keeper.

UnitedIrishman

Blatter wrote: »

Ha, Sean and Neill Custis have been on it a few times. I always get the impression that the other journos are always looking down on them. ''Well, you work for the Sun'' kind of attitude.

There's a reason for that, they're both muppets. I wouldn't even class them as journalists or writers. They write stuff you'd cringe if you saw in an old Match or Shoot magazine.