Smashley Young
- Thread starter Red Defence
- Start date
I am loving the Arsenal's fan outrage over a right footed left winger winning dubious penalties
It was a embarrassing dive and hugely harsh on the defender who was pulling his leg away.
Anyone trying to claim anything else is a joker.
Anyone trying to claim anything else is a joker.
Anyway. We won the game and are 5 points clear, so thats something we can all be happy about (except Pete)!
Good night all
Good night all
If you read my posts, I'm not against the diving as much as the way it's dealt with by all and sundry.
On the ref's. I agree too, about them being convinced etc, but no doubt on here in time we'll be bitching about a stonewaller Young didn't get because he won't be convinced, because of a niggle due to his 'over emphasising' his falls.
From the other angle you can see the defender clearly moving is leg out to impede Young. Ref had a great view of it as well.
Literally speaking yes! But we both know that's not the way it works. Halsey has the eyes of the world and representatives from his bosses watching him and making sure their interpretations of the rules are carried out.
Does that carry through to the lower levels? Of course not, so it is not really relevant to compare Halsey's interpretations with that of lower level football referee, in games with no worldwide media attention, and watched by only a handful of fans (relatively speaking), who have no benefit of super slow mo video replay on which to second guess their initial interpretation.
Unfair to compare PL ref's, with that of ref's working under nowhere near that amount of scrutiny, and whose performances are not being analysed by their bosses.
If my posts are glib, your threats are more so.
Matey.
I find it frustrating to see United fans unnecessarily criticising a United player.
Stay out of the Berbatov thread, then.
"Left unattended" ?
How much impact is moaning about it on a forum gonna have? You achieve nothing. People have been saying the same tired shit for years and nothing's changed.
Also, the point about a forum is to engage opinions that aren't the same as your own, so telling me not to post in this thread is a bit ridiculous. But you are just as welcome to ignore my posts, so carry on.
You dont have an opinion. Your "opinion" is; "Why are you even discussing this" and "this discussion bores me".
Im not saying I personally achieve something on an internet forum you fecking Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime. But you say that people should just ignore the issue, because nothing's been done despite the issue being raised for a long time. Which is a fecking retarded way to look at it.
I think that the arena will alter his thought process. It could result in home teams with big crowds getting the odd shout, but that has to be suspended for all but him. Written off as an unmanagable element. Refs at all levels will get stuff wrong. And moreso if people go down in an attempt to deceive them, but as for what is actually happening and thier job, I think the remit is the same. And for sanity's sake that has to be the way it s viewed. I think shit refs are part of the game but a dishonest ref is the end of the game. The scrutiny only benefits the media.
If Young hadn't gone fishing with his left leg, and just gone down un-theatrically on the original touch, there'd be little complaining outside of Birmingham. He'd probably still have got the penalty, but there's a higher chance of it being missed by the ref.
I'm with Mockney. Seriously, some of you people are as biased as Jamie Redknapp in a Liverpool Cup final.
He kicked his leg at the defender, trailed with his other leg, and jumped to ground. Not a penalty in a million years. The twat could even have got a good shot away from that angle.
He kicked his leg at the defender, trailed with his other leg, and jumped to ground. Not a penalty in a million years. The twat could even have got a good shot away from that angle.
Welbeck did something similar to win his penalty against City didn't he.
Cheat better you mean? Why not stay on your feet? As the poster above said he would probably have scored.
Is that the one where he stumbled? I think it was against Chelsea and it was more of a pen for me.
No pete, to you that's the relevance. To Mark Halsey the relevance is, was Ashley Young justified in going down according to what is provable by UEFA. Considering how they backed down after being unable to determine how much contact justifies a player going down, how can we expect anything else?
If he sees contact he can give it, and i would say it would be very difficult to suggest that Young was not impeded at all. How severe the impediment is always going to be subjective, as with 99% of penalties given, but saying he cheated is wrong imo. Exaggerated contact? Yes! Feigned contact? No! The first contact was the defender on Young, what follows is him doing what pretty much any other footballer would have done, even if he may have done it more enthusiastically then most!
Because it's not cheating to go down when you're fouled?
Young's running and turning at pace in the box. In the movement of a natural turn, his right foot collides with the defenders left foot. The defender has initially moved his leg into Young's path, therefore Young's progress has been impeded by the defender (and hence, although Young also causes the contact, it isn't a foul by him on the defender).
At that pace and with that balance, any sort of contact is critical. Young perhaps could've stayed on his feet but it's irrelevant - he was unfairly impeded.
If he stays on his feet, he doesn't get the penalty. Players go down like this 15 times a match in various parts of the pitch. It's not cheating, it's showing the referee you were fouled and it's what they expect.
if he stayed on his feet, id have been pissed off! it was a peno 100%, young just made sure the ref gave it... no big deal
I think it's cheating, but the way kicking someone is cheating.
On the bolded bit. I do actually think that sportsmanship should play a part. If possible a player should try and play the ball as a defender and the attacker should try and stay on his feet.
Saying this, I'm only a wee twat and got kicked to feck on a football pitch and I did take a dive. No way I was gong to be able to kick them back. If they were kicking me I was well wthin my 'rights' to take a dive, but we were both cheating.
On the peno I didn't see the defender do anything but be rubbish. And I'm sure we all thought Hutton's tackle was in some way related to the dive?
It was as much of a penalty as the foul on Welbeck against Wigan which wasn't given. Danny was honest in that situation and we were hurt because of it then. Every big team has a player that does it on a regular basis, so there's really no one who can complain about it.
Until referees have the balls to start giving pens without the player going to ground, players are going to embellish contact. It's sort of a chicken or the egg thing, though.
Until referees have the balls to start giving pens without the player going to ground, players are going to embellish contact. It's sort of a chicken or the egg thing, though.
I'm sorry but that is plain cheating from Ashley. He actually touches the defender as he is going down.
There is a difference between what Young did and going down too easily.
There is a difference between what Young did and going down too easily.
Since when did a penalty become "touching a player in the box"...Did some of you start watching football 4 days ago?
There's bias, and there's blind nonsense bias.
And they are who i blame personally! In their quest for never ending sensationalism, they highlight every little incident to court controversy, and then dissect it to encourage a particular view. They have no interest in the truth or any type of justice, only keeping on fanning the flames after fuelling the fire.
Like i say, in my view the Ref's are given little choice, they are under pressure to get decisions right and it cannot be too often where they are even 90% certain they are sure they have made the right choice. So with players who often get feck all for being honest, exaggerating any contact. And watchful bosses and media outlets replaying and scrutinising their every decision at a thousandth of the speed they made their original determination at, it is no surprise to me that it is heading more and more the way of Europe and the rest of the world.
As Uefa themselves would probably admit, cheaters never prosper but exaggerators might!
No pete, to you that's the relevance. To Mark Halsey the relevance is, was Ashley Young justified in going down according to what is provable by UEFA. Considering how they backed down after being unable to determine how much contact justifies a player going down, how can we expect anything else?
If he sees contact he can give it, and i would say it would be very difficult to suggest that Young was not impeded at all. How severe the impediment is always going to be subjective, as with 99% of penalties given, but saying he cheated is wrong imo. Exaggerated contact? Yes! Feigned contact? No! The first contact was the defender on Young, what follows is him doing what pretty much any other footballer would have done, even if he may have done it more enthusiastically then most!
Do you really think that Young played the ball and was impeded from getting to it by the defender? I think Young looked for it and got it; which is a skill, but one of the darker arts, the defender was a patsy in the whole affair. I think had Young followed the path of the ball he played nobody would be saying peno. For me it was the line Young chose to run.
Excellent. I can go now. Give them hell Mockney.
Penalty aside, I think we look so much more dangerous with Nani in the team. Young faffs around too much and goes missing for huuuuuuuge parts of games.
That's just not going to happen. You're asking a professional football playing under immense pressure to make a morally-correct (in your opinion) split-second decision. At that level, they are programmed to give their all to win. If this means going down under minimal contact, that's just what they do and they don't think about it. Top-level footballers aren't normal people under these circumstances, and it's why they excel (in general) at playing football.
Same to be honest but I never consciously dived, I just went down if I felt I'd been impeded. The times I did stay up probably cost my team a few free kicks or 1 or 2 penalties.
What did he do that was rubbish?
Why stay on your feet? If the rules say (or are interpreted) as any little clip in the area justifying a penalty, then why not take it?
Maybe the rules need changing to specify that it's only a foul if there's no way the player could possibly have stayed up, but it becomes much harder to decide / prove, and what about the whole issue of the fact that you may stay up, but now be way off balance for your shot?
As I mentioned in the first part, there was no need to dangle the left leg out - by itself that is cheating pure and simple, and is only slightly mitigated by the fact that there had been a foul on his other foot already.
Bought Young's swerve and was caught flat footed, roundly beaten. He was literally not in a position to do anything so Young used him as an impediment. But that's just what I see. Maybe Clark did intend to trip hm. Who really knows? I just know that if the defender was ours and the exaggerator was Suarez I'd be fecking fuming.
They are not rules, they are laws, and are open to interpretation, but if that is going to be used as a way to deceive maybe they should be tightened up.
For all of you people quoting the 'rules'
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2011_12_en.pdf
This is where I think you're wrong.
You can't change direction at that pace just by jumping off your left foot and away you go. His right foot needed to be planted in the direction of the Villa player so he could push off it towards the ball.
Why does he keep doing it. fecking annoying. If he was playing for City I'd call him every name under the sun.
Well yeah, but I call everybody who plays for City every name under the sun.
Well that cuts to the crux of the argument, mr semantic pedant.
Well no, they are open to interpretation, which rules aren't and there are directives given out each season to the refs. It's not a pedantic point in light of the confusion of what the 'rules' actually are in this thread.
Nice smilie btw, that'll win you lot's of friends.
Exactly? So why wasn't Young trying to avoid the defender and follow the ball that he played, which is all part of dribbling past as opposed to into an opponent. Like I say, we just see it differently.
edit - the polarity in this thread is hilarious.
A penalty isn't 'touching a player in the box', it is determining whether the touch impeded the progress of the player enough to go down. Touching is also a very vague term. Impeding is the issue, consider the contact on Young's right foot by the defender, (who was pulling out just not quickly enough) can Young really be accused of instigating that first contact?
He goes past the defender, but once he feels fouled he does the usual paralysed legs routine and then leaves his trailing leg in to ensure the penalty is given. Ref sees initial contact, and Young's fall helps him to make the right decision imo.
Do you think that's cheating mockney? If you do then you are in the minority, almost the whole of football outside of Britain would accept that as a perfectly legitimate practice to ensure that their team gained maximum benefit from any such impediment by an opponent.
I remember Ballague had a row on talksport with Collymore about it and he said and im paraphrasing here 'Diving is feigning contact and that is clearly cheating, but just because they don't approve of exaggerating contact to gain an advantage in England, doesn't mean it is diving or cheating, and nobody but they seem to have any such problem determining the difference'. Bit of an insight on how they view our seemingly exclusive and outdated stance on exaggeration on the continent.