Liverpool v Man City. Sun April 13th KO 13:37 SS1, Important Mod Warning in OP.

5starpool

Even if Neville wass somewhat biased against Liverpool it wouldn't bother me too much. I don't think he is though in terms of how he calls things generally.

Knex*

Have great respect for Neville as a pundit. Considering the hate he had for Liverpool while wearing United colours, he does remarkably well to restrain himself while on tv, I feel :pac:

He calls it as he sees it, and I think its very understandable that he thought Suares dived. Most of us did at the time.

SM01

Echoing the last three posts, Neville is a grand commentator and it's a non-debate. Nearly everyone (including Neville) thought Suarez wasn't touched and it took a BBC slow-mo replay from a specific angle to clarify he was. It's expected that Neville's commentary is informed by his United career which is fine by me and I find him consistently balanced, impartial and often insightful.

Grayditch

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Ah but sure wasn't he brilliant not so long ago when he was defending Suarez's right to go down. He's great when he's on your side...

"Even Neville said it was a pen"

I'm not sure the ones slating him now, defended him them and/or vice versa.

Bandana boy

If Neville did not have a bias towards Man u ,then I would find him fake. As it is it's clear he wants Man u to do well but he tends to discuss incidents fairly and you cant ask for much more than that.

Vicxas

Bandana boy wrote: »

If Neville did not have a bias towards Man u ,then I would find him fake. As it is it's clear he wants Man u to do well but he tends to discuss incidents fairly and you cant ask for much more than that.

Same with Garragher, still biased to Liverpool but can still make critical comments about them.

Its nice to see.

gafferino

From the match day programme, City took a full page advert to mark the 96.

willowthewisp

Wrong thread

gafferino

willowthewisp wrote: »

Wrong thread

No its not. This is from the match day program on Sunday. It had previously been posted in the Liverpool thread (closed today as a mark of respect in case you hadnt noticed).
This is a fitting place for it and shows the class of Man City. Their fans were impeccable too in the minute silence.
The ad was a nice touch.

Knex*

willowthewisp wrote: »

Wrong thread

I would seriously doubt that, considering its been posted in this thread about 5 times now.

Sorry gafferino! :pac:

Crash Bang Wall

citytillidie wrote: »

But Suarez did not dive, he went down easy each time there was contact

Im off the opinion, that if any contact doesnt cause a player to fall then its a dive. Very old school opinion, but Im not bothered. But, and this really annoys me, the pundits are constantly going on that a player is entitled to go down if there is contact. By that logic, Suarez was entitled to go down after all the challenges. In his defence, I dont think there was any playacting when Kompany shoved him over, but all the rest were laughable.

In an ideal world you would rather players stay on their feet, and the officials decide whether its a foul or not. Never going to happen though.

And re Dzeko, it wasnt a dive, but hes entitled to a pen as Sakho slid in and got nowhere near the ball (just like Vidic at OT v Sturridge)..for me thats obstruction and a pen.

Liverpool fan by the way

mayordenis

Funnily enough I think the big 'dive' one was the least diveish of all, honestly a big impact to your thigh or something wouldn't be as dramatic to your balance as your toe being clipped when running.

smileyj1987

Well what a game . That was pure spectacle to watch . A few points from the game .
1). It was obvious the ref didn't want to make a big call in that game . Clattenburg really did a Howard Webb type of job on it . He just let the game play out and hoped he didn't have to make any big decisions . I really believe if he could have shown Henderson a yellow for that challenge he would have .
2). For all the money city have it's seems they stil lack a little bit of team spirit . Kompany at the 30 min mark was pure sulk mode .
3). It really should have finished up a draw but so should the first game at the etihad been that way so I guess it evened it's self out .

Knex*

smileyj1987 wrote: »

Well what a game . That was pure spectacle to watch . A few points from the game .
1). It was obvious the ref didn't want to make a big call in that game . Clattenburg really did a Howard Webb type of job on it . He just let the game play out and hoped he didn't have to make any big decisions . I really believe if he could have shown Henderson a yellow for that challenge he would have .
2). For all the money city have it's seems they stil lack a little bit of team spirit . Kompany at the 30 min mark was pure sulk mode .
3). It really should have finished up a draw but so should the first game at the etihad been that way so I guess it evened it's self out .

Not sure I could agree on that. Most teams who have gone 2 down at Anfield this season have crumbled. Even look at Everton, who most would probably laud for having a great team spirit.

City clawed back into the game, dominated away from home in a way no other team has done to Liverpool this season, and ultimately, were unlucky to leave with their hands empty.

smileyj1987

Knex. wrote: »

Not sure I could agree on that. Most teams who have gone 2 down at Anfield this season have crumbled. Even look at Everton, who most would probably laud for having a great team spirit.

City clawed back into the game, dominated away from home in a way no other team has done to Liverpool this season, and ultimately, were unlucky do leave with their hands empty.

I still don't think they have a full on team spirit . I think of few of their players seem to go missing when it isn't going their way .
I would say they where unlucky to loose . But their second goal was horrendous defending .

Morzadec

Crash Bang Wall wrote: »

Im off the opinion, that if any contact doesnt cause a player to fall then its a dive. Very old school opinion, but Im not bothered. But, and this really annoys me, the pundits are constantly going on that a player is entitled to go down if there is contact. By that logic, Suarez was entitled to go down after all the challenges. In his defence, I dont think there was any playacting when Kompany shoved him over, but all the rest were laughable.

In an ideal world you would rather players stay on their feet, and the officials decide whether its a foul or not. Never going to happen though.

And re Dzeko, it wasnt a dive, but hes entitled to a pen as Sakho slid in and got nowhere near the ball (just like Vidic at OT v Sturridge)..for me thats obstruction and a pen.

Liverpool fan by the way

Unfortunately a ref is rarely/never going to give a penalty if a player is impeded but stays on his feet. It would be considered 'soft', the referee may consider the player wants to play advantage - it's not in the refs interests to make a decision here and draw the spotlight on himself.

The player has to give the ref a decision to make and quite often the only way to do that is by going down/not making a genuine effort to stay up (i.e. telling the ref 'LOOK I'VE BEEN FOULED!!). If not defenders will continue tug, jostle, push, chip away with little kicks - nothing overboard but still illegal moves and infringements - with the knowledge that no penalty will be given.

People may not like the above and may view it very cynically, and 'unmanly' but it's the truth.

Is it cynical from the attackers (what Suarez and Dzeko did)? Yes, perhaps. But I understand their predicament. The alternative is to let defenders away with impedeing them. What do you want them to do? They feel they have been impeded and the best and arguably only way to appeal this is to let themselves go to ground.

The decision referees/those who make the rules need to make is - what level of infringement from a defender constitutes a foul and a penalty? We see tugging from every corner (an infringement) - general cosensus seems to be that's fair game.

The way to stop players going down easy would be for referees to start penalising these type of infringements from defenders more. The consensus at the moment is that the player must lose control of the ball (i.e. fall over) for it to be an infringement. It's no wonder then that attackers go to ground easy - I see it almost as a form of appeal (like putting your hand up for an offside or handball).

The alternative to this is to allow defenders to get away with all sorts of manhandling imo.

I have noticed a general shift in pundits/commentators opinion in favour of attackers.

For example both the Dzeko and the Suarez incidents on Match of the Day were called as penalties. Sturridge against United was called as a penalty, as was Suarez against Villa.

Despite my general views about diving (i.e. it's not as bad as many suggest, and I can understand the attackers view that he feels he has been impeded and wants to force a decision onto the ref) I'm not sure if any of the above are stonewallers, and in fact I though many if not all probably weren't penalties.

Anyway, abit of an off-topic ramble, but I do think the whole issue of diving/going down easy is interesting, and I have noticed a shift in the way it's being viewed.

The old-schollers will hate it and they will view it in black and white terms of cheating - end of story. If you can stay on your feet but you don't it's a dive and you are a cheat.

I think that's a far too simplistic view. I fully subscribe to Neville's point of view regarding diving and I think it was great that he was brave and honest enough to tell us all the truth.

I've come to realise this and I don't have any great problem with what Dzeko and Suarez did - they felt they were impeded (they were), they knew they would have no chance of being recompensed if they stayed up and were in a difficult position as a result of the infringement, so they appealed for the ref to make a decision (i.e. went down).

This is the reality of the game now.

Bandana boy

City were awesome second half and showed incredible spirit to come back from the mauling they started with on top of losing their inspirational captain to Injury

It was the finest of margins that saw Liverpol win ,Silvas stretch, the penalty and an unlikely error from Kompany.

Dcully

Bandana boy wrote: »

City were awesome second half and showed incredible spirit to come back from the mauling they started with on top of losing their inspirational captain to Injury

It was the finest of margins that saw Liverpol win ,Silvas stretch, the penalty and an unlikely error from Kompany.

Finest of margins indeed, just like sterling called offside when clearly onside in the other meeting.

gosplan

So are people actually saying that Suarez's dive just outside the box in the second half actually wasn't a dive?

5starpool

gosplan wrote: »

So are people actually saying that Suarez's dive just outside the box in the second half actually wasn't a dive?

Some are, others aren't. I think it was a dive, contact or not.

gosplan

5starpool wrote: »

Some are, others aren't. I think it was a dive, contact or not.

Yeah, the whole bit where he threw himself to the ground made me think 'dive' too.

Bandana boy

re the bridge in Cabra ,disgraceful behaviour from what I am positive is a couple of drunk local scumbags

But the faux rage and insinuation that this is a pandaemic among Liverpool fans is pandaering to the masses

mayordenis

He was tripped though, so you're wrong, but sure whatever, believe what you want.

Mickalus

Here it is...
Demichelis catches Suarez's left foot with his right foot.
As Suarez was running, his left foot was about to touch down, but the tackle took it away from him, therefore he went down.

It's is kinda hard to see it especially in real time, but it doesn't look a dive to me.

gosplan

mayordenis wrote: »

He was tripped though, so you're wrong, but sure whatever, believe what you want.

But how can you be tripped if it doesn't make you fall over?

Surely that's the definition of tripped?

You can say there's contact and Suarez is entitled to exaggerate it. That's a whole argument I don't buy into but see the validity of nonetheless.

There was contact but he wasn't tripped. The only thing that caused Suarez to hit the floor was his own decision to fall.

Knex*

mayordenis wrote: »

He was tripped though, so you're wrong, but sure whatever, believe what you want.

Yeah, but the couple of rolls after and the grabbing of the leg probably didn't help his cause!

Lord Trollington

3-2

That's all that matters. Dive by Suarez or not. He wasn't the first to dive or be accused of diving and he certainly won't be the last.

Particularly a team as multicultural as Man City

gosplan

Knex. wrote: »

Yeah, but the couple of rolls after and the grabbing of the leg probably didn't help his cause!

There's a fairly obvious look to these things tbh. Legs buckle, head goes back, the the roll.

Also if you have practically the entire football world saying 'dive' and the supporters of one club saying 'no, if you slow it down at just the right moment...'

Dickerty

Knex. wrote: »

Yeah, but the couple of rolls after and the grabbing of the leg probably didn't help his cause!

Then they should give the penalty for the foul, and a yellow for the "simulation". It is not right to NOT give a pen for a real foul because the player overdoes it. No reason you cannot do both.

gosplan

Lord Trollington wrote: »

3-2

That's all that matters. Dive by Suarez or not. He wasn't the first to dive or be accused of diving and he certainly won't be the last.

Particularly a team as multicultural as Man City

Totally, it should be about Coutinho burying that chance really.

Also, do we need to revise opinions on Kompany? I mean that was shocking.

Mickalus

gosplan wrote: »

There's a fairly obvious look to these things tbh. Legs buckle, head goes back, the the roll.

Also if you have practically the entire football world saying 'dive' and the supporters of one club saying 'no, if you slow it down at just the right moment...'

Your honour, if you slow it down at just the right moment where there is irrefutable proof there is contact, it shows..... there is contact!!!

It also shows it hit the leg he was about to stand on, in effect tripping him.

Grayditch

Slight contact. Dramatic reaction. Suarez runs the risk of getting carded when he goes OTT with it and that's what happened, I guess.

Knex*

gosplan wrote: »

There's a fairly obvious look to these things tbh. Legs buckle, head goes back, the the roll.

Also if you have practically the entire football world saying 'dive' and the supporters of one club saying 'no, if you slow it down at just the right moment...'

We all thought he should have been sent off (2nd yellow), when we saw it first.

You can't deny that that seeing the contact changes things, somewhat.

gosplan

Mickalus wrote: »

Your honour, if you slow it down at just the right moment where there is irrefutable proof there is contact, it shows..... there is contact!!!

It also shows it hit the leg he was about to stand on, in effect tripping him.

God, can't believe I'm in this discussion.

Suarez could have stayed on his feet if he wanted. That is all.

In my mind intentional going down, whether justified or not, is simulation.

Mickeroo

I'm firmly of the opinion an incident can be a dive and a foul at the same time.

5starpool

gosplan wrote: »

God, can't believe I'm in this discussion.

Suarez could have stayed on his feet if he wanted. That is all.

In my mind intentional going down, whether justified or not, is simulation.

I'm not sure why it's even up for debate.

Mickeroo

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'm firmly of the opinion an incident can be a dive and a foul at the same time.

Yeah he was fouled and then made a meal of it.

Milner did the exact same as did Silva. Not sure either of them were actually fouled.

GTR63

Knex. wrote: »

Have great respect for Neville as a pundit. Considering the hate he had for Liverpool while wearing United colours, he does remarkably well to restrain himself while on tv, I feel :pac:

He calls it as he sees it, and I think its very understandable that he thought Suarez dived. Most of us did at the time.

Give me Neville ahead of Alan Smith any day, hate his guts. A pure wind up merchant during that Sunderland game he was. :mad:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'm firmly of the opinion an incident can be a dive and a foul at the same time.

With me, it's more a case of it can be neither.

Morzadec

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'm firmly of the opinion an incident can be a dive and a foul at the same time.

Absolutely! You can stick that on as a TLDR to my very long rambling post!

gosplan

gosplan wrote: »

God, can't believe I'm in this discussion.

Suarez could have stayed on his feet if he wanted. That is all.

In my mind intentional going down, whether justified or not, is simulation.

I disagree, my opinion is that there doesn't even have to be contact in order for a player to go down and I would not count it as simulation.

For instance where a players jumps a challenge and goes down rather than getting tripped and possibly injured. The defender has committed themselves, they aren't getting the ball and the attacker has three choices: stay on his feet and lose the ball due to the interference of the defender, allow the defender to take him out and get the free but possibly get injured or avoid the challenge but still go down and get the free he is entitled to. The third choice is a no brainer.

If a player is tripped, then its definitely a foul and he is fully entitled to go down in order to make sure the decision is given. You also have to remember that even the slightest contact can knock a player when they are at full speed so what you think shouldn't result in them falling may actually have been enough.

Skylinehead

Richard Wet Nectar wrote: »

avoid the challenge but still go down and get the free he is entitled to. The third choice is a no brainer.

Tell me, what free is he entitled to? The defender hasn't committed any offence if the challenge is avoided. It's a dive in that scenario.

Skylinehead

Skylinehead wrote: »

Tell me, what free is he entitled to? The defender hasn't committed any offence if the challenge is avoided. It's a dive in that scenario.

The free that the defenders challenge has entitled him to. An unfair challenge by the defender is having an influence on the game. If the attacker doesn't go down it is very unlikely he gets the free and the defender is rewarded for a poor challenge, if he takes the hit he could get injured so the sensible thing is to avoid most or all of the contact while still going down and winning the free.

Skylinehead

Richard Wet Nectar wrote: »

The free that the defenders challenge has entitled him to. An unfair challenge by the defender is having an influence on the game if he doesn't go down it is very unlikely he gets the free, if he takes the hit he could get injured so the sensible thing is to avoid most or all of the contact while still going down.

If the defender doesn't touch him, it isn't a free. Read the rules. Obviously the exception is if he's aiming at the player, but that's not what we're discussing here. If you go down with no contact, its the very definition of a dive.

smileyj1987

Skylinehead wrote: »

If the defender doesn't touch him, it isn't a free. Read the rules. Obviously the exception is if he's aiming at the player, but that's not what we're discussing here. If you go down with no contact, its the very definition of a dive.

I don't think it's that black and white though . What if a player comes flying in with 2 feet in the air and the player jumps the challenge . To me that should be punished because it could be a career ruining challenge .

Skylinehead

smileyj1987 wrote: »

I don't think it's that black and white though . What if a player comes flying in with 2 feet in the air and the player jumps the challenge . To me that should be punished because it could be a career ruining challenge .

That would be a dangerous tackle, but that doesn't apply for most challenges that could be construed as dives.

Skylinehead

Skylinehead wrote: »

If the defender doesn't touch him, it isn't a free. Read the rules. Obviously the exception is if he's aiming at the player, but that's not what we're discussing here. If you go down with no contact, its the very definition of a dive.

I can't see why you think an attacker is not entitled to go down and win a free in this situation.

Basically you say that a defender either has to take the player out or get away with a poor challenge which could influence the game just because the attacker doesn't want to risk injury.

In this situation the intention to foul is (or certainly should be) a free basically.

Skylinehead

Richard Wet Nectar wrote: »

I can't see why you think an attacker is not entitled to go down and win a free in this situation.

Because no foul has been committed.

Basically you say that a defender either has to take the player out or get away with a poor challenge which could influence the game just because the attacker doesn't want to risk injury.

Yep. No foul, no free kick. That's how football works.

In this situation the intention to foul is (or certainly should be) a free basically.

Yes, if the intention is to foul. But that's not always the case.

smileyj1987

Skylinehead wrote: »

That would be a dangerous tackle, but that doesn't apply for most challenges that could be construed as dives.

But then you also have to consider you are damned if you go down because you did it easily. if you stay on your feet you might not get the free . So it's a bit of a mixed bag if you ask me .

Skylinehead

smileyj1987 wrote: »

But then you also have to consider you are damned if you go down because you did it easily. if you stay on your feet you might not get the free . So it's a bit of a mixed bag if you ask me .

If there's enough contact to be legitimately impeded, then the referee should give the free/advantage regardless of whether you go down. But I wasn't talking about going down under some contact, if you go down under zero contact (as some posters are saying, to "evade the challenge"), then it's a dive.