Preston vs Manchester United Match Thread 16/2/15 k/o 19.45 BBC

adox

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

So what? It amazes me that people get up on the high horse about cheating when a player dives but you never hear a peep out of them when a player takes a yellow for the team and hacks down a player on a promising break or a defender uses a bit of gamesmanship to impede a striker.

As I said earlier, if a keeper comes flying out like that and leaves himself exposed, the player should be looking to take advantage.

But committing a foul, although technically cheating as its breaking the laws of the game, is an act perpetrated and punished with all involved aware of the consequences. Diving is also cheating, but is trying to con the officials into giving a decision. It's easy to see how it upsets people more. Just like players over exagerating injuries or feigning them, it's just a bloody con at the end of the day.

Quazzie

efb wrote: »

Regardless of the dive, it WAS a penalty for an attempted wreckless challenge

An attempted wreckless challenge isn't a foul. I think you mean something else, and the reporcussion of that is a free kick inside the box not a penalty.

http://www.myactivesg.com/sports/football/how-to-play/football-rules/indirect-free-kicks-in-penalty-box

So I'm sure you'll agree now that it shouldn't have been a penalty.

PhlegmyMoses

adox wrote: »

But committing a foul, although technically cheating as its breaking the laws of the game, is an act perpetrated and punished with all involved aware of the consequences. Diving is also cheating, but is trying to con the officials into giving a decision. It's easy to see how it upsets people more. Just like players over exagerating injuries or feigning them, it's just a bloody con at the end of the day.

There are plenty of fouls that regularly go unpunished that are deliberate gamesmanship and the players are looking to con the ref. Blocking somebody making a run at a corner, sneakily dragging out of somebody as they make a run, lunging, reckless tackles attempting to block a shot that put the player off and the ball into row Z and crease him after the fact. Backing into a player at a high ball, using a player as leverage for a header, arms around a player at corner. You get the gist.

These are all examples of players trying to gain an advantage to prevent or score a goal yet none of them elicit the same response as diving. None of these has any moral high ground imo.

efb

Quazzie wrote: »

An attempted wreckless challenge isn't a foul. I think you mean something else, and the reporcussion of that is a free kick inside the box not a penalty.

http://www.myactivesg.com/sports/football/how-to-play/football-rules/indirect-free-kicks-in-penalty-box

So I'm sure you'll agree now that it shouldn't have been a penalty.

Good to know- based on that Indirect Free Kick is correct

adox

Quazzie wrote: »

An attempted wreckless challenge isn't a foul. I think you mean something else, and the reporcussion of that is a free kick inside the box not a penalty.

http://www.myactivesg.com/sports/football/how-to-play/football-rules/indirect-free-kicks-in-penalty-box

So I'm sure you'll agree now that it shouldn't have been a penalty.

Tripping or attempting to trip an opponent is a direct free kick. Kicking or attempting to kick an opponent is a direct free kick.

PhlegmyMoses

adox wrote: »

Tripping or attempting to trip an opponent is a direct free kick. Kicking or attempting to kick an opponent is a direct free kick.

Yeah that link doesn't say anything about indirect frees other than what relates to specific situations with goalkeepers.

Quazzie

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Yeah that link doesn't say anything about indirect frees other than what relates to specific situations with goalkeepers.

Yes it does. One of the examples it gave was for a high boot on Ronaldo.

Did you even look at the page?

adox

Quazzie wrote: »

Yes it does. One of the examples it gave was for a high boot on Ronaldo.

Did you even look at the page?

That was for dangerous play without contact. That doesn't mean that all infringements in the box without contact are automatically an indirect kick, as per my post above.

Quazzie

adox wrote: »

That was for dangerous play without contact. That doesn't mean that all infringements in the box without contact are automatically an indirect kick, as per my post above.

So how does it differ from what happened to Rooney? He wasn't impeded, there was zero contact. Where is the difference.

Jelle1880

secman wrote: »

So Rooney in full flight bearing in on goal , whilst jumping over the leg of the sprawling 6'6" keeper stubs the toes of the right foot into the grass and loses his footing and goes down. ..
... don't think it was a deliberate dive...
.........








..

Seriously ?

It's clear he trails his leg looking for the contact, when he doesn't get it he still goes down.

The goalie was stupid to come out like that, but it was absolutely a dive.

http://giant.gfycat.com/EnormousDarkHare.gif

adox

Quazzie wrote: »

So how does it differ from what happened to Rooney? He wasn't impeded, there was zero contact. Where is the difference.

adox wrote: »

Tripping or attempting to trip an opponent is a direct free kick. Kicking or attempting to kick an opponent is a direct free kick.

`

Quazzie

adox wrote: »

`

He didn't do any of those. He made an attempt at the ball. Do you honestly think he came out to try and trip or kick Rooney? Your argument is flawed.

NIMAN

This nonsense is one of the things that grinds my gears in modern football.

To see Phil Neville say it was a definite penalty makes me lose respect for the game.
In the 70s or 80s that wouldn't be a penalty, it wouldn't have been justified by anyone as a penalty, but then again players in that era wouldn't have dived like that, its a modern thing.

At least Kilbane told it like it was, but then against would we expect the likes of Phil Neville or Hodgson to say Rooney dived? Not a chance.

Giggsy11

NIMAN wrote: »

This nonsense is one of the things that grinds my gears in modern football.

To see Phil Neville say it was a definite penalty makes me lose respect for the game.
In the 70s or 80s that wouldn't be a penalty, it wouldn't have been justified by anyone as a penalty, but then again players in that era wouldn't have dived like that, its a modern thing.

At least Kilbane told it like it was, but then against would we expect the likes of Phil Neville or Hodgson to say Rooney dived? Not a chance.

Yeah after all Klinsmann never dived at all.

NIMAN

Klinsmann wasn't 70s or 80s, he played in the EPL era, when diving increased exponentially.

There used to be old football matches from that era shown on Sky, and the things that stood out so obviously were:

- players didn't argue with referees
- players didn't appeal for throw-ins that they knew weren't theirs
- players tackled each other hard, but got up and played on
- players didn't dive

super_furry

Can't believe this is even a discussion. Of course he dived, anyone with a pair of eyes in their head can see that.

ceegee

NIMAN wrote: »

Klinsmann wasn't 70s or 80s, he played in the EPL era, when diving increased exponentially.

There used to be old football matches from that era shown on Sky, and the things that stood out so obviously were:

- players didn't argue with referees
- players didn't appeal for throw-ins that they knew weren't theirs
- players tackled each other hard, but got up and played on
- players didn't dive

Take a look at the Arsenal Millwall match from the 80s when the ref was mic'd. Players arguing with refs isnt a new thing

SlickRic

Do people actually think it wasn't a dive?

Christ.

NIMAN

SlickRic wrote: »

Do people actually think it wasn't a dive?

Christ.

Read this thread, quite a few of them.

eagle eye

SlickRic wrote: »

Do people actually think it wasn't a dive?

Christ.

My impression is that he did dive but he was never getting to the ball with the way the keeper came out. If he stayed on his feet and tried to make it to the ball he might have been injured, even badly injured. The keepers actions cost him a goalscoring opportunity illegally imo.

Its not like I'd criticise him for what he did.

Reminds me of back at the World Cup when Robben dived a couple of times but nobody ever talked about the times he hurdled a bad challenge but lost a great goalscoring chance because while hurdling he lost some pace and never got back into a goalscoring opportunity.

niallo27

eagle eye wrote: »

My impression is that he did dive but he was never getting to the ball with the way the keeper came out. If he stayed on his feet and tried to make it to the ball he might have been injured, even badly injured. The keepers actions cost him a goalscoring opportunity illegally imo.

Its not like I'd criticise him for what he did.

Reminds me of back at the World Cup when Robben dived a couple of times but nobody ever talked about the times he hurdled a bad challenge but lost a great goalscoring chance because while hurdling he lost some pace and never got back into a goalscoring opportunity.

I'd agree with you if he had to hurdle the keepers challenge and then fell but there was clearly two movements.

eagle eye

niallo27 wrote: »

I'd agree with you if he had to hurdle the keepers challenge and then fell but there was clearly two movements.

I said he dived, I'm just saying that by hurdling he has lost a great chance and the keeper's challenge is illegal. So he dives to make sure of the peno because if you try and keep going the ref usually just lets it go.

Even if he didn't dive there it should be a penalty because the keeper has impeded him illegally and denied him a goalscoring opportunity. If he doesn't dive he normally doesn't get the penalty that he should.

Nerdlingr

If you can stay on your feet but fall down instead, dragging your legs behind you in the hope of contact, then its a dive.
Rooney could easily have planted his left foot down after he cleared the keeper. He seems to lose all power in his legs and the ability to place one foot after another.
No point asking Neville and Hodgson what they think? Two yes men.

SlickRic

Nerdlingr wrote: »

No point asking Neville and Hodgson what they think? Two yes men.

More like one is a Utd fan, and the other is England manager, and Rooney is his captain.

Kilbane just looked confused.

Giggsy11

SlickRic wrote: »

More like one is a Utd fan, and the other is England manager, and Rooney is his captain.

Kilbane just looked confused.

No. One is England manager and other is England coach, so obviously they will make excuses.

Neville being United fan has nothing to with his opinion.

niallo27

Giggsy11 wrote: »

No. One is England manager and other is England coach, so obviously they will make excuses.

Neville being United fan has nothing to with his opinion.

Is he an English coach. I don't think he is.

SlickRic

Giggsy11 wrote: »

No. One is England manager and other is England coach, so obviously they will make excuses.

Neville being United fan has nothing to with his opinion.

Phil Neville isn't am England coach.

His opinion on Rooney, is either to do with him being an England fan, Utd fan, Rooney's friend, or a combination of the 3.

Either way, his opinion is not the slightest bit objective.

The argument that Rooney either dives or has his legs broken was pathetic.

Mickeroo

Giggsy11 wrote: »

No. One is England manager and other is England coach, so obviously they will make excuses.

Neville being United fan has nothing to with his opinion.

Why would only the association with England make him biased and not the association with United?

Edit: Nevermind, following post clears it up.

Giggsy11

niallo27 wrote: »

Is he an English coach. I don't think he is.

SlickRic wrote: »

Phil Neville isn't am England coach.

His opinion on Rooney, is either to do with him being an England fan, Utd fan, friend of Rooney's friend, or a combination of the 3.

Either way, his opinion is not the slightest bit objective.

The argument that Rooney either dives or has his legs broken was pathetic.

Apologies. I thought you meant Gary Neville.

On Phil Neville, yeah. Not sure why people even listen to them or watch them giving their opinions. Biased and half arsed comments from most pundits on studio. At least in India we get much better

Giggsy11

Mickeroo wrote: »

Why would only the association with England make him biased and not the association with United?

Edit: Nevermind, following post clears it up.

Giggsy11 wrote: »

Apologies. I thought you meant Gary Neville.

On Phil Neville, yeah. Not sure why people even listen to them or watch them giving their opinions. Biased and half arsed comments from most pundits on studio. At least in India we get much better

Nalz

if it was a penalty, and it was a dive....

would he have gotten the penalty if he hadn't have dived?

Corholio

Trilla wrote: »

if it was a penalty, and it was a dive....

would he have gotten the penalty if he hadn't have dived?

This is a tired excuse that is trotted out by people, that if he doesn't 'go down' then the ref might not give a penalty. Maybe he will, maybe he won't. But the only one responsible for the action of a dive is the player himself. If the refs need to look at better explanations of what is a foul in the penalty area then fair enough, but it should not let a player off the hook for pretending he is fouled to win a penalty.

Nalz

Corholio wrote: »

This is a tired excuse that is trotted out by people, that if he doesn't 'go down' then the ref might not give a penalty. Maybe he will, maybe he won't. But the only one responsible for the action of a dive is the player himself. If the refs need to look at better explanations of what is a foul in the penalty area then fair enough, but it should not let a player off the hook for pretending he is fouled to win a penalty.

Excuse? I disagree. I was asking a questions.

You're coming from the angle that the player had no right to do what he did. I'm coming from the angle that referees have proven time and time again to be very inconsistent in these areas, and that the dive would help there decision... which in this case is the right one.

Whats tiring is the focus on this even though the penalty should have been given in the first place. It would have got equally the same attention if it wasn't a penalty and Rooney still dived, which is ridiculous imo.

Liam McPoyle

Jesus the fcukin whining in this thread is outrageous, who cares if it was a dive or not??

We know Hodgson is a spoofer.

We know Phil Neville is a bit dim.

The game was over so it's not like it made any difference to the end result.

Diving is a part if the modern game and players from EVERY TEAM THERE IS have been guilty of it and will be guilty of it in the future.

If it were Preston fans complaining that's one thing but for the rest, build a fcukin bridge.

Corholio

Trilla wrote: »

Excuse? I disagree. I was asking a questions.

You're coming from the angle that the player had no right to do what he did. I'm coming from the angle that referees have proven time and time again to be very inconsistent in these areas, and that the dive would help there decision... which in this case is the right one.

Whats tiring is the focus on this even though the penalty should have been given in the first place. It would have got equally the same attention if it wasn't a penalty and Rooney still dived, which is ridiculous imo.

I didn't necessarily mean you by the way, because you were just asking the question.

Why is it tiring? There is no touch on Rooney, he fakingly stubs his toe on the ground and then goes down, he actually timed it quite bad for the dive. If there's contact no one says anything really. The only thing that sent him falling to the ground was the thought that the goalkeeper didn't get the ball, so he thought he was quids in then for the decision.

Corholio

Business Cat wrote: »

Jesus the fcukin whining in this thread is outrageous, who cares if it was a dive or not??

We know Hodgson is a spoofer.

We know Phil Neville is a bit dim.

The game was over so it's not like it made any difference to the end result.

Diving is a part if the modern game and players from EVERY TEAM THERE IS have been guilty of it and will be guilty of it in the future.

If it were Preston fans complaining that's one thing but for the rest, build a fcukin bridge.

Makes the fact that he did it a bit worse to be honest.

It's part of the modern game because players make it that way, and players should be rightly criticised for it. Is there not discussion and criticism allowed on your bridge?

Nerdlingr

Business Cat wrote: »

Jesus the fcukin whining in this thread is outrageous, who cares if it was a dive or not??

We know Hodgson is a spoofer.

We know Phil Neville is a bit dim.

The game was over so it's not like it made any difference to the end result.

Diving is a part if the modern game and players from EVERY TEAM THERE IS have been guilty of it and will be guilty of it in the future.

If it were Preston fans complaining that's one thing but for the rest, build a fcukin bridge.

It was 1-2 with a few minutes still to play. The game wasnt over at all.

The Moldy Gowl

Nerdlingr wrote: »

It was 1-2 with a few minutes still to play. The game wasnt over at all.

it was the 87th minute, the game was brushing its teeth getting ready for bed.
preston hasnt touched the ball in about 30 minutes at that stage. The penalty is immaterial.

bangkok

Trilla wrote: »

if it was a penalty, and it was a dive....

would he have gotten the penalty if he hadn't have dived?

no not a chance. in fairness to the ref, in real time it looked a stone wall peno

Nerdlingr

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

it was the 87th minute, the game was brushing its teeth getting ready for bed.
preston hasnt touched the ball in about 30 minutes at that stage. The penalty is immaterial.

haha.
There's a difference between "getting ready for bed" and being "tucked in, sound asleep".

Kirby

Nerdlingr wrote: »

haha.
There's a difference between "getting ready for bed" and being "tucked in, sound asleep".

I'm assuming in this analogy that Rooney is the kid who asks for a drink? You know he's not really thirsty, and is faking but you give it to him anyway.