Real Sociedad vs Manchester United Match Thread k/o 19.45.

ThirdMan

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Of course it is. Ruining it for who? Not me anyway. The sport grows more popular every year which suggests that diving is not ruining football for most people that watch it. People's favourite players are the likes of Ronaldo, Bale, Gerrard, Rooney, who all like a dive. So essentially, it's running it for you. That's called hyperbole.

You're right. I value honesty. I value it in myself and in others. Particularly in athletes. But that's not possible anymore. I'm being too fussy.

ThirdMan

Felexicon wrote: »

While diving would obviously not be tolerated in rugby (not sure how you could dive anyway)there are many "dark arts" that are encouraged at scrum and breakdown time. One of the best at stretching the rules is Richie McCaw and he's considered one of the best backrows of all time so your comparison is slightly wide of the mark

Ronaldo is one of the greatest footballers of all time. But he's still a cheat. The brilliance of the cheater doesn't legitimise the cheating.

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Hate the Rugby argument. It's a different sport. Some of the cheating that goes on there wouldn't be tolerated in a self policing sport like golf. But who cares because it's a different sporty with different things to enjoy?

You're right. I should have just sat back and enjoyed Ashley Young's dishonesty.

Felexicon

ThirdMan wrote: »

You're right. I value honesty. I value it in myself and in others. Particularly in athletes. But that's not possible anymore. I'm being too fussy.

So do you feel the same when a United player calls for offside against an opponent who is clearly onside and we get the decision. Or when De Gea gets a touch but then takes the goal kick awarded anyway.
It's as dishonest as diving

PhlegmyMoses

ThirdMan wrote: »

You're right. I value honesty. I value it in myself and in others. Particularly in athletes. But that's not possible anymore. I'm being too fussy.

This is bollocks though. You don't like diving in particular. Honesty is secondary. I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say that had Young deliberately brought down a player when through on goals that you wouldn't have been in here crying about football being ruined and the death of the Corinthian spirit. It's as dishonest as diving but a bit more macho for you rugby lovers so less of a problem. Am I right?

PhlegmyMoses

ThirdMan wrote: »

You're right. I should have just sat back and enjoyed Ashley Young's dishonesty.

I've never asked you to enjoy it. Just to consider that you may be going over the top with the "it's ruining football" RTE-lite, hyperbolic analysis.

ThirdMan

Felexicon wrote: »

So do you feel the same when a United player calls for offside against an opponent who is clearly onside and we get the decision. Or when De Gea gets a touch but then takes the goal kick awarded anyway.
It's as dishonest as diving

Do you believe that? Ask yourself that question and answer it honesty, leaving aside the fact that you're trying to score points here. On you analysis, time wasting by the goalkeeper in one box carries that same level of dishonesty as diving in the penalty box in order to win a game. If you believe that then okay, you win the argument. I don't wish to challenge that line of reasoning.

ThirdMan

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

This is bollocks though. You don't like diving in particular. Honesty is secondary. I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say that had Young deliberately brought down a player when through on goals that you wouldn't have been in here crying about football being ruined and the death of the Corinthian spirit. It's as dishonest as diving but a bit more macho for you rugby lovers so less of a problem. Am I right?

Creating a hypothetical situation, ascribing it to me, then telling me my own view on the matter. Classic 5th year debating tactic. You must have went to a private school. And I'm not a rugby fan by any stretch of the imagination. I watch it, yes. Fan, no.

ThirdMan

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

I've never asked you to enjoy it. Just to consider that you may be going over the top with the "it's ruining football" RTE-lite, hyperbolic analysis.

I already conceded that point. Diving is ruining football, for me. You accept cheating as being part of the game. Different strokes.

Felexicon

ThirdMan wrote: »

Do you believe that? Ask yourself that question and answer it honesty, leaving aside the fact that you're trying to score points here. On you analysis, time wasting by the goalkeeper in one box carries that same level of dishonesty as diving in the penalty box in order to win a game. If you believe that then okay, you win the argument. I don't wish to challenge that line of reasoning.

They are all as dishonest as each other. Do they all have the same affect on a game? Not in a million years. Something is either honest or dishonest,there aren't varying degrees.

PhlegmyMoses

ThirdMan wrote: »

Creating a hypothetical situation, ascribing it to me, then telling me my own view on the matter. Classic 5th year debating tactic. You must have went to a private school. And I'm not a rugby fan by any stretch of the imagination. I watch it, yes. Fan, no.

Ad hominem. The last refuge of the debating scoundrel. Tell me I'm wrong. Would you have been in here with the same attitude had the above situation occurred? Considering that neither is more dishonest than the other.

I only mentioned Rugby because for some bizarre reason, you, like many others, seem to use it and its principles in debates about a fundamentally different sport. Did you know that in horse racing, they whip the horses? Moyes should be allowed X number of whips on Hernandez when he is in a foot race with a centre back.

ThirdMan

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Ad hominem. The last refuge of the debating scoundrel.

Sarcasm is an even worse tactic, and I was guilty of that twenty minutes ago. I'm an amateur.

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Tell me I'm wrong. Would you have been in here with the same attitude had the above situation occurred? Considering that neither is more dishonest than the other.

If I tell you you're wrong you won't believe me. So this is a dead end. But no, I don't watch each game blindly, if thats what you're asking.

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Did you know that in horse racing, they whip the horses?

Beating an animal isn't a sport. But I take your point. However, rugby is one of the four codes of football played on these islands. I don't think comparisons are invalid.

Hank Scorpio

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

This is bollocks though. You don't like diving in particular. Honesty is secondary. I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say that had Young deliberately brought down a player when through on goals that you wouldn't have been in here crying about football being ruined and the death of the Corinthian spirit. It's as dishonest as diving but a bit more macho for you rugby lovers so less of a problem. Am I right?

How is this example the same as diving? If someone intentionally does this they get red carded and punished for it, rules of the game. It's called a professional foul for a reason. It isn't "dishonest", It's in plain view of everyone, everyone can see what happens.

If someone dives they win a peno and an almost certain goal without punishment.

Diving for me is in the same bracket as players faking headbutts etc

upandcumming

ThirdMan wrote: »

Blatant, weekly cheating like that would not be tolerated in rugby because the fans would not accept it.

A funny man...