Smashley Young
- Thread starter Red Defence
- Start date
Yeah! And as that Steve bloke pointed out on his twitter: He's a hunchback too. Evil!
No I know the vast majority are against it, but a few seem to be straining to do some explaining.
Its not faux outrage, but I agree it is because its Ashley Young. The reason it is Ashley Young is because he has had 2 different managers talk to him about his diving. Yet he choses to continue on this path.
You should see me at work mate. I don't think it's too far-fetched for me to say I'm one of the best in the world.
Is anyone actually justifying it, though? For me the interesting point here is whether the ref can be justified in calling the pen or not. Young will go down easily and make the most of any contact, we all know this and most of us dislike it very much.
Technically does the reaction of physical consequence of the fouled player make a difference to the decision?
I mean, if someone tugs someone back even if it realistically shouldn't be enough to dislodge someone from a vertical position, the tug has still taken place and therefore a rule still broken.
Young continues to dive which continues to win him penalties and the managers opprobrium.
Young must realise he needs to make an impact which is either - a good performance, an assist, goal or penalty. Young maximises his effectiveness by running hard into the box and then looking for contact.
In his eyes he is helping the team.
Young must realise he needs to make an impact which is either - a good performance, an assist, goal or penalty. Young maximises his effectiveness by running hard into the box and then looking for contact.
In his eyes he is helping the team.
That is not true, on the basis that, as is always championed - 'football is a contact sport'. Contact, by definition almost, is a 'foul', surely? If you touch a man and do not touch the ball, it should be a free-kick every time then.
Yes - that is how I'm inclined to see it too. It is a foul regardless of how the player reacts. What is so frustrating about this kind of foul is that the refs are so fickle about it. Players literally tear up shirts in the box on every other corner with no reaction - and then, randomly, a penalty is given or a card waved about.
It's not contact as such, though. It's shirt-tugging specifically.
Yea I know, and 'contact', unless shoulder to shoulder which is legal, is either a push or a kick pretty much, which by definition is a foul. However, not every instance is a foul in reality.
I think it's a bit harsh people are beating him with the "2 different managers!!" stick. It's just a shit habit he's got into and it happens instantly. When he felt the contact I doubt he was thinking "oh I better not go down now I've been told twice"
He fell over like a cnut and probably thought straight away he'd been a cnut. It's not like he's been told to stop doing something like go out drinking where you have time to think about it.
He fell over like a cnut and probably thought straight away he'd been a cnut. It's not like he's been told to stop doing something like go out drinking where you have time to think about it.
If Young was tugged back sufficiently so he could not get to the ball and was stopped and the referee gave it a penalty no one would be having this conversation. Saying technically something is a foul does not excuse Young, because you are starting to justify 'rules' or notes that the same people would find most ridiculous when not said relating to a United player.
Not so sure about that, straight after he screamed for a penalty then when he knew he had won it he slapped Kagawas hand. That is a Suarez-esque reveling in your cheating mannerism.
winning pens is helping the team.
I am in the minority who really doesnt care if players dive or not.
He aint doing anything else, so he may as well win pens
Yes but within the context of the debate that was being had it was whether the referee was right too give the penalty not whether the player was right to go down. In the context of the referees decision it's right we probably stick with the technicality of the rules whereas if we wish to discuss Young's reaction we can debate it in the more wider sense. It's not so much about excusing Young as asking whether the referee was right or wrong in his decision.
Pushing and kicking fall under what is potentially "excessive force" - and that will always be a matter of interpretation. Shirt pulling, however, is technically "holding", which is prohibited pure and simple. If you're pulling a player's shirt - you are "holding" him and that is always a foul.
Hehe, that's a very matter of fact outlook Randall. The best players however, disguise their diving by doing other things. Young appears to dive more than Ronaldo did, because he doesn't score 42 goals to take your mind off it.
This tired argument of contact meaning no dive is absurd. The idea that contact = foul is nonsense. A forward has always felt contact in possession of the football but the idea that they hit the dirt as soon as they feel it has crept slowly but surely into our game. I see it as a transgression like any other, kicking, handball etc, but the way it's being governed for me is the problem. There is no consistency on the pitch (see wrestling at corners) and no interest from the governing bodies. So it's a fecking mess.
'Contact' is always a dangerous phrase to use in these debates. Too much emphasis is put on 'was there contact'. Of course it doesn't reflect well on a player at all if he goes down anticipating contact if it turns out none occurred but at the same time regardless of what the 'fouled' player does, if someone dives in high, two-footed, with studs showing then they've committed a foul and a penalty/freekick should be rewarded - even if nobody was touched.
The referee's job is to look at the actions of an event rather than the consequence of it. Where as we think, or may do, "he wasn't touched" or "he could have stayed on his feet" in many ways what the player does as a result of illegal contact/conduct on behalf of a member of the opposing team isn't really of consequence to the official, except perhaps for purposes of determining when to play the advantage.
The referee's job is to look at the actions of an event rather than the consequence of it. Where as we think, or may do, "he wasn't touched" or "he could have stayed on his feet" in many ways what the player does as a result of illegal contact/conduct on behalf of a member of the opposing team isn't really of consequence to the official, except perhaps for purposes of determining when to play the advantage.
As a player I don't think he's as poor as he's shown since being here. He's been consistently below the level we deem decent for a winger at a club of our caliber and although I've never championed his capabilities as a footballer I have to say we aren't seeing at 'his' level. This man contributed a lot at the club he used to be at, in the very same league were in today and yet he now seems to be a shadow of that player.
At the moment he's neither a key player or even a valuable squad member for us, he's simply stinking up the place. While he is to be blamed for this, I'd say that to an extent the managers he's worked under have to take a bit of the blame.
IMO we have no business playing him on the left for as long as we have. He neither has the close control or the delivery on his weaker foot to play that position for a club of our caliber. I know some might say he did it at Villa but at united is a different kettle of fish. Villa games are normally open, which means as a player he's always had a decent amount of space to work with. At united lots of clubs sit back, aim not to concede, compress the spaces at the back which a player of his limited capabilities was never gonna be good enough.
Solution? Play him on the right. His best form 5 years ago came from playing there. Regularly taking the fullback on the outside and delivering quality crosses into the box. Something similar to the service Valencia used to provide, in a different style.
We're probably stuck with him considering the size of the contract we gave him so we might as well try to get the best out of him and IMO playing him on the right would be a step in the right direction.
At the moment he's neither a key player or even a valuable squad member for us, he's simply stinking up the place. While he is to be blamed for this, I'd say that to an extent the managers he's worked under have to take a bit of the blame.
IMO we have no business playing him on the left for as long as we have. He neither has the close control or the delivery on his weaker foot to play that position for a club of our caliber. I know some might say he did it at Villa but at united is a different kettle of fish. Villa games are normally open, which means as a player he's always had a decent amount of space to work with. At united lots of clubs sit back, aim not to concede, compress the spaces at the back which a player of his limited capabilities was never gonna be good enough.
Solution? Play him on the right. His best form 5 years ago came from playing there. Regularly taking the fullback on the outside and delivering quality crosses into the box. Something similar to the service Valencia used to provide, in a different style.
We're probably stuck with him considering the size of the contract we gave him so we might as well try to get the best out of him and IMO playing him on the right would be a step in the right direction.
Holds, not getting touched.
Do you seriously think that this was a pen:
or it is just because you refuse to criticize a United player. Young could have continued staying on feet, the only reason he fall wasn't because he lost his balance but because he cheated.
Another annoying thing about this is that Kagawa flick into Young's path. If he'd stayed on his feet he might have got to that, or at least challenged for it and continued with the goal threat, & no one would be criticising him.
I agree with most of that analysis accept United already have 3 other more talented or better right footed wingers, who also play mostly on the right.
No he's not. Contact does not equal a foul.
Aye - I agree. In one sense it doesn't matter whether a player dives (with no contact taking place) or falls over too easily after a minimum of contact: Both are cases of bad sportsmanship and as such I wouldn't seek to justify either. But technically there is a difference. The former is cheating, the latter is a form of gamesmanship, i.e. bending the rules rather than breaking them. And the ref is there to interpret the rules. As fans we can judge other aspects of it, but the ref cannot - and should not - let a player's potential cuntishness influence his decision. In that - strict - sense it is irrelevant whether a player makes the most of a foul (even when the histrionics are perfectly ridiculous) or not.
Do you think that what the defender did there falls in under either category though?
Well I can see how the referee came to that conclusion. It looks as if Young's arm was behind held back. Now whether that's considered enough to cause him to go to ground is really only a minor consideration for the official. If he feels that the holding exists, regardless of how Young reacts then he has a decision to make.
For the record I think it was a very soft penalty but the referees surely have to base their decision on the foul and nature of it rather than what happens after
Have it on good authority that we are looking at loaning him out in January, with a view to a permanent move in the summer.
Seems like Moyes isn't keen on him.
Seems like Moyes isn't keen on him.
I'm not the greatest fan of Ashley Young, but the 'hate' here towards a United player is appalling, real appalling
In most circumstances I'd agree and I've been very against hate to players before (Nani, Fellaini etc) but Young is an exception for me, he's just wrong for this club in every way.
At the risk of the thread going all RAWK: I'd like to see the incident again from a different angle. The gifs and clips on offer just highlight Young falling over. The interesting part is whether he's actually held at all. The latter was my impression when I saw it live. I shouted "penalty" and didn't question it until the replay showed clearly how easily Young went down. But the crucial point is whether the defender actually holds him back ever so slightly or not.
And to make it clear: This is interesting as a refereeing decision - not in a, call it what you will, moral sense. He goes down far too easily, obviously, and I have no sympathy for that whatsoever.
And to make it clear: This is interesting as a refereeing decision - not in a, call it what you will, moral sense. He goes down far too easily, obviously, and I have no sympathy for that whatsoever.
Someone that knows Ashley Young really well, no one from the club.
No, the crucial point is whether the touch from the defender is what brought him down, or whether he made the choice to go down by himself, and it's about as obvious as it gets that the latter is what happened.
I don't necessarily agree with that. If what happens constitutes holding it doesn't matter whether this causes Young to go down or not. The nature of the "contact" is significant.
It's because he keeps on emabarrassing himself and everything that United stand for. He's a serial cheat and that is something we don't want at our club.
We take the piss out of players like Suarez for his diving, but Young is worse than him