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

gosplan

Richard Wet Nectar wrote: »

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.

That's all fine and all but doesn't apply here.

Skylinehead

Skylinehead wrote: »

Because no foul has been committed.


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

Well I totally disagree and I think you are wrong in saying that's how football works. You will see frees given regularly in the situation I describe.

In my opinion a rash challenge by a defender, that an attacker has to take evasive action to avoid is just as much of a free as if he takes out the player.

Skylinehead

Richard Wet Nectar wrote: »

Well I totally disagree and I think you are wrong in saying that's how football works. You will see frees given regularly in the situation I describe.

In my opinion a rash challenge by a defender, that an attacker has to take evasive action to avoid is just as much of a free as if he takes out the player.

Well find me the rule that says that and I'll agree with you.

smileyj1987

Skylinehead wrote: »

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.

But it has nearly gotten to the stage that you have to roll or dive to get your free . I think it could be time too really come down hard on the offenders to stamp it out . I would say a points deduction for the team would be the most effective way of doing this .

Skylinehead

smileyj1987 wrote: »

But it has nearly gotten to the stage that you have to roll or dive to get your free .

Has it? Again, if it isn't enough to stop you. then it isn't a foul and you don't deserve a free. Football is a contact sport.

I think it could be time too really come down hard on the offenders to stamp it out . I would say a points deduction for the team would be the most effective way of doing this .

Offenders in what sense, tackling or diving?

Skylinehead

Skylinehead wrote: »

Well find me the rule that says that and I'll agree with you.

FA wrote:

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six 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
A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following four offences:
- tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball
- holds an opponent
- spits at an opponent
- handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
A direct free kick is taken from where the offence occurred.

Pretty clear here in the football leagues rule book.

My points would fall under this imo.

Skylinehead

Richard Wet Nectar wrote: »

Pretty clear here in the football leagues rule book.

That doesn't even come close to covering a mistimed challenge. Try again. That ones for a deliberate foul.

Ebbs

Skylinehead wrote: »

Well find me the rule that says that and I'll agree with you.

"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"

It's a free kick if the attacking player has to evade the challenge. Even if he doesnt evade the challenge but the defender misses the ball, a free kick and card can be awarded at the digression of the referee.

Edit: Beaten to it.

smileyj1987

Skylinehead wrote: »

Has it? Again, if it isn't enough to stop you. then it isn't a foul and you don't deserve a free. Football is a contact sport.
Offenders in what sense, tackling or diving?

I firmly believe if you don't exaggerate the contact you won't get a free . To me exaggerating is the same as diving . So yes I think players need to go down to the ground even after the softest of fouls . It would be the non contact divers I would punish . Deduct points from the team and clubs will do all they can to stop it .

gosplan

At this stage, I'll finish wasting my time discussing this stuff with this..

I think it's clear that a lot of players, Suarez included, look to knock the ball past people and win free kicks and pens. It's a practiced move and to think otherwise is naive in the extreme.

Suarez gets it right and it's a free kick/pen plus a card perhaps.

Suarez gets it wrong and it's a dive.

And if it's 50/50 then it's a bit of both, and I think that's what happened the other day.

But don't give me this sh1t that Utd fans used to say about Ronaldo 'oh when you're tripped at full speed, it's different'.

I think you can see that that the decision to go down has been made. And when you see both legs insta-buckle from a touch on one foot ... well anyone who has ever fallen or been tripped while running can identify that this is not what happens.

But Suarez does this so so so well, and it's part of the game.

There's conflict cause we view such things as morally bankrupt and not in tune with the ethics of sport as laid down by the old Etonions, you know ... everyone turn up and give it socks and may the best man win. But those guys viewed 'training' as cheating(true) and their values aren't suited to modern football.

I think we need to get over this and accept it for what it is, an awesome tactic from Suarez.

Mickalus

Skylinehead wrote: »

That doesn't even come close to covering a mistimed challenge. Try again. That ones for a deliberate foul.

Sure it does....
Mistimed = careless / reckless, would you not agree?

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six 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

Skylinehead

Mickalus wrote: »

Sure it does....
Mistimed = careless / reckless, would you not agree?

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six 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

Yes, mistimed could be careless. But where does a mistimed tackle correlate with any of those rules if there's no contact?

Skylinehead

Skylinehead wrote: »

Yes, mistimed could be careless. But where does a mistimed tackle correlate with any of those rules if there's no contact?

The referee just interprets it as a careless challenge which, with the ball being long gone (or never really having a chance of getting the ball) can only be looked on as an attempt to trip or kick the player.

Skylinehead

Richard Wet Nectar wrote: »

The referee just interprets it as a careless challenge which, with the ball being long gone (or never really having a chance of getting the ball) can only be looked on as an attempt to trip or kick the player.

Who said the ball was long gone? You're just adding things in now to suit your argument.

mayordenis

What the **** are people arguing at this stage?

Is someone really saying that mistimed tackles are grand?

Skylinehead

Skylinehead wrote: »

Who said the ball was long gone? You're just adding things in now to suit your argument.

Just missed so, doesn't change it in my opinion.

If a player has to take evasive maneuvers such as jumping a challenge to avoid being collided with then he is, in my opinion entitled to go down and win a free.

The rules can also be interpreted in a why which goes along with this.

On the other hand in a situation like Suarez at the weekend, if there is contact the player is also entitled to go down as even if it wasn't enough to knock them it could ruin there momentum etc thus rewarding the attempted trip by the defender.

gosplan

mayordenis wrote: »

What the **** are people arguing at this stage?

Is someone really saying that mistimed tackles are grand?

It's heading that way.

I think we should start a new thread with the gif and a poll

Was it
A: a foul
B: a dive
C: a foul and a dive
neither a foul nor a dive

Props to whoever came in suggesting D earlier on. I hope it was the most awesome troll of all time - it would take about 20 pages to unpack such genius.

Mickalus

gosplan wrote: »

It's heading that way.

I think we should start a new thread with the gif and a poll

Was it
A: a foul
B: a dive
C: a foul and a dive
neither a foul nor a dive

Props to whoever came in suggesting D earlier on. I hope it was the most awesome troll of all time - it would take about 20 pages to unpack such genius.

Should also have a scoring system for how good the dive/foul was. I think you're on to a winner there!

Jesus Wept

Typical Suarez haterz are hating away, full of hate.

Augmerson

Our Year wrote: »

Typical Suarez haterz are hating away, full of hate.

Jesus Wept

Anyone got a link to the MOT2 coverage where they show that Suarez didn't dive?